Tag Fed

The Fed’s Non-Taper Is All About Credibility

Danny Vinik 9 Comments

In a surprising move today, the Federal Reserve announced that it was not going to taper its bond-buying program. The Fed has been purchasing $85 billion worth of assets every month – $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities and $45 billion of long-term Treasuries. For months now, investors and journalists had expected the Fed to begin to decrease those amounts in today’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announcement. At 2 pm when the September FOMC statement came out, everyone was proven wrong:

 However, the Committee decided to await more evidence that progress will be sustained before adjusting the pace of its purchases. Accordingly, the Committee decided to continue purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month and longer-term Treasury securities at a pace of $45 billion per month

The stock market, bonds and gold all soared on the news of continued easy money while the dollar crashed. Why was everyone so sure that the Fed was prepared to taper today? It all goes back to the June FOMC meeting when Chairman Ben Bernanke first hinted at tapering. The Fed also upgraded its economic forecasts and in the press conference, Bernanke repeatedly emphasized the improvement in the labor market.

“If the incoming data are broadly consistent with this forecast, the Committee currently anticipates that it would be appropriate to moderate the monthly pace of purchases later this year,” Bernanke said. “And if the subsequent data remain broadly aligned with our current expectations for the economy, we would continue to reduce the pace of purchases in measured steps through the first half of next year, ending purchases around mid-year.”

Interest rates on the 10-year Treasury note skyrocketed while stocks and gold both fell. The market took it all to mean that easy money was coming to an end soon.

Except that wasn’t what Bernanke or the Fed was trying to say. They were trying to say that if economic data continues to come in positively, then the Fed will scale back its bond-buying program. But only if the economic data is good. From the June FOMC Statement:

The Committee will closely monitor incoming information on economic and financial developments in coming months. The Committee will continue its purchases of Treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities, and employ its other policy tools as appropriate, until the outlook for the labor market has improved substantially in a context of price stability. The Committee is prepared to increase or reduce the pace of its purchases to maintain appropriate policy accommodation as the outlook for the labor market or inflation changes.

If you read it literally, that statement clearly indicates that the Fed will react to labor market conditions in determining whether or not to taper. But the market parses every single word Bernanke says and it soon became conventional wisdom that a taper was coming. Dallas Fed Bank President Richard Fisher and Minnesota Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota both tried to walk back Bernanke’s statement and assert that a taper was not necessarily coming.

It didn’t matter.

But today, the Fed proved everyone wrong who parsed the statement and everyone right who read it literally. Subsequent jobs reports have been underwhelming, the Fed reduced its economic forecast today and the federal government is threatening to blow up the economy. If you listened to all of Bernanke’s comments and read the FOMC statement without overthinking it, you wouldn’t have been surprised by today’s announcement. The Fed said it would only begin tapering if the underlying economic data improved. But it worsened so the Fed shouldn’t have been expected to reduce its bond-buying. Yet, journalists and investors alike assumed that the Fed was still set on tapering, despite the underwhelming economic data.

With its announcement, the Fed was not trying to correct anything Bernanke said. It was trying to correct the market’s blind reading of the Fed’s statements. “Don’t just read that we’re going to taper. Read the caveats as well and take them into account.” Markets had assumed that when Bernanke mentioned tapering, it was set in stone that it would begin today. They did not believe for a second that poor economic data could delay it. Despite attempts to walk back Bernanke’s comments, the Fed could not credibly convince investors that it was not necessarily going to taper in September. By surprising the market and adjusting its policy based on labor market conditions, the Fed regained its credibility today.

John Taylor Espouses The Republican Line on…Everything

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

Stanford economics professor John Taylor has had a long career both in public service and in academia. The most well known monetary policy rule, the Taylor Rule, is named after him (he came up with it). The man is a big shot in the financial world.

But over the past couple of years, he’s hewed to the Republican Party line on both monetary and fiscal policy more and more. That was never more apparent than in today’s panel hosted at the National Press Club on rejuvenating America’s economy. Former CFTC Chairperson Sheila Bair and PIMCO Head Mohamed El-Erian also took part in the discussion, which covered a wide array of topics that the panelists mostly agreed upon.

All three advocated that the Fed begin to pull back its Quantitative Easing program, with Bair arguing doing so over a longer timeframe. But Taylor was the most adamant that Fed should pull out of those policies as quick as they can.

“I see no positive effect on rates from quantitative easing,” he said. “People really need to realize that we don’t know the impact of these policies. I see them as basically negative.”

Taylor also repeatedly complained about the weak economic growth. “I’m worried this recovery will never become a real recovery,” he said. He offered similar sentiments in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. In response, Money Monetarist (and Republican) Scott Sumner showed the inconsistency of Taylor’s remarks:

Taylor seems to think that growth has been too slow, complaining about only 2% RGDP growth in 2012.  That suggests that easier money is needed. But he also complains about QE, claiming it didn’t help the recovery. However the stock market responded very positively to rumors of QE, not once but three times.  That suggests QE boosts growth.

…

Like John Taylor, I’d like to see higher interest rates.  Unlike Taylor, I explicitly favor a more expansionary monetary policy.  I favor a higher NGDP target, which would raise long term Treasury bond yields.  He seems to favor higher interest rates via a tighter monetary policy boosting short rates (the liquidity effect.)  In my view that policy would depress long term bond yields to Japanese levels, as markets (correctly) expected a replay of the US in 1937, or Japan in 2000, or Japan in 2006, or the eurozone in 2011—4 attempts to raise short rates above zero—all premature, all 4 attempts failed.  They all drove aggregate demand and risk free long term interest rates even lower.

Taylor’s prefered policy has been repeated by Republicans ad nauseam. It’s the standard GOP line. But it isn’t right and it’s a shame that Taylor is buying into it.

The discussion also touched on fiscal issues, where Taylor continued to promote Republican policies. He advocated for reducing the budget deficit through entitlement reform, revenue neutral tax reform that broadens the base and reduces the top rate and corporate tax reform. He also lamented the uncertainty of current federal policies.

“One of the things we need to face up to is the huge increase in regulatory policies,” he said.

He then called for greater predictability of government actions. I’m more sympathetic to this view-point than most liberals, but it’s still overblown. Reducing uncertainty is a good idea. It’s not a magical cure that will unlock 5% GDP growth. What would unlock 5% GDP growth is an explicit NGDP target by the Fed. I’m sure Taylor wouldn’t support such a proposal, but it would accomplish his goal of bringing about a real recovery. Unfortunately, he’s too caught up repeating Republican lines about the worries of easy money to think about effective monetary policy.

It’s More Than A Gender Bias Working Against Yellen

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

Ezra Klein wrote an insightful blog post yesterday outlining the hidden sexism that has permeated the coverage of who will be the next Fed Chair and how it has harmed Yellen’s candidacy. Here’s Ezra:

People get understandably defensive when you use the word “sexist.” But here’s the simple fact: There’s no male candidate Andrew Ross Sorkin could’ve named who would’ve elicited fears from Fisher that the pick was being “driven by gender.” Not Don Kohn. Not Alan Blinder. Not Roger Ferguson. It would’ve been either a laugh line or a controversy if Sorkin had asked about Tim Geithner’s chances and Fisher had brought up his gender.

When a woman is up for the job — no matter how qualified — the lurking worry is that the pick will be “driven by gender.” When a man is up for it, gender never enters into the conversation. That’s how privilege works in practice: Gender is invisible when it comes to male appointees but a constant presence when it comes to female appointees.

That gets the situation backwards.

There’s never been a female Federal Reserve chief. There’s never been a female Treasury Secretary. There’s never even been a female president of the powerful New York Federal Reserve. This isn’t an accident, and it’s not because women can’t manage those positions. It’s because gender really has played a driving role in appointment processes for a long time. It’s just done so on behalf of men.

I don’t disagree with any of this, but I want to extend it a bit. The title of Ezra’s post is “Funny how gender never am up during Bernanke’s nomination. Or Greenspan’s. Or Volcker’s.” You know what also didn’t come up in those nominations? Race. Sexual Orientation. Religion. You know why none of those things are coming up this time? Because both Yellen and Summers are white, straight and Jewish. That’s nothing new at the Fed. But a woman as Fed Chair? That’s new.

This creates two different levels of bias against Yellen. The first is the explicit and implicit sexism in whether Yellen has the necessary “gravitas” to be Fed Chairman. Of course she does! No man with Yellen’s resume would face similar questions.

There’s also a second form of bias that I’m going to term “newness bias.” This is the bias that exists because everyone is ultra concerned that the Fed choice will be “driven by gender.” After all, for a position as important as Federal Reserve Chairman, it’s vital that the President select whoever is most qualified. He shouldn’t choose an inferior candidate just to break a gender barrier. But no male nomination can ever be “driven by gender,” because every Fed chair before has been male. It’s the same reason neither Yellen or Summer’s selection could be “driven by race.” When there’s never been a female in a certain position, the immediate reaction to breaking that barrier is that the President is doing so just to nominate a woman, not because it’s the right choice.

That’s what Yellen is working against. Ezra spells this out perfectly:

And then, when a female candidate does threaten to break into that top echelon, the whispers begin that the pick is really driven by gender, that more qualified men are being passed over, that it’s all just about political correctness. But the truth is typically closer to the opposite. A woman (or an African American, etc) can only get to the point where she can hold a top position after clearing a much higher bar than the male candidates.

The President may feel that if he is going to name Yellen as the next Fed Chairman, she must be by far the best candidate for the job. Because if not, he’ll face criticism for choosing her over Summers just to install the first woman at the helm of the Fed. It’s an absurd bar that only candidates facing the “newness bias” confront. If Richard Ferguson receives further consideration for the job, expect the fact that he’d be the first African-American Fed Chairman to come up more frequently. And expect analysts to start asking whether his selection would be “driven by race.” He wouldn’t face the blatant sexism about “gravitas” that Yellen faces, but he’d still confront the “newness bias.”

So remember this whenever you hear people questioning whether Yellen’s choice is “driven by gender.” The fact her selection would break a gender barrier doesn’t mean she needs to be more qualified than other candidates to justify her selection. She’s the best candidate for the job and that’s what matters. President Obama would do well to tune out any worries about her “gravitas” or that her nomination would be “driven by gender.” Those are just not-so-subtle ways for her opponents to use her gender to tear her down. It isn’t fair and it isn’t right. I hope the President doesn’t fall into that mindset as well.