Tag Archives: Central Banks

U.S. FOMC June Meeting Minutes Reveal Sensitivity Toward Communicating Easy Policy Exit Strategy

The U.S. Federal Reserve Board has released the minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on June 21-22, 2011.  The minutes show that the FOMC outlined a plan of action for exiting its easy monetary policy strategy, including the sale of government securities held on the Fed’s balance sheet.  The plan includes detail oriented toward communicating the Fed’s intentions to the public in advance of any action.

The principles of the Fed’s exit strategy in brief are:

  • the timing and pace of the exit must be in line with the Fed’s dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability (as if both of those goals require the same policy);
  • the initial step would like be a cessation of the reinvestment of principal repayments of the government securities owned by the Fed;
  • as usual, the Fed would begin to raise the target on the federal funds rate, but only “when economic conditions warrant” – the Fed gave no indication as to when that might be;
  • raising the federal funds rate would be followed by sales of the government securities, and here is where the Fed believes that communication is very important – “The timing
    and pace of sales will be communicated to the public
    in advance; that pace is anticipated to be relatively
    gradual and steady, but it could be adjusted
    up or down in response to material changes in the
    economic outlook or financial conditions.”
  • the Fed’s goal is to sell off the government securities it hold over a 3-5 year period;
  • as always, changes in economic or financial conditions will affect the exit strategy.

Of course, now is not the time for any action toward an exit strategy, given the general weakness of economic growth in the U.S. In fact, the minutes even included this little nugget, which seems to have some stock market speculators excited: “Some participants noted that if economic growth remained too slow to make satisfactory progress toward reducing the unemployment rate and if inflation returned to relatively low levels after the effects of recent transitory shocks dissipated, it would be appropriate to provide additional monetary policy accommodation.”  However, considering the ongoing concern over inflation in commodities and the struggle over the federal deficit, no one should seriously expect more quantitative easing without there being some exigent circumstance, like a near-zero or negative GDP number or a serious decline in equities on the magnitude of -20 percent or so.

To view the full FOMC minutes, please click the following link: FOMC Minutes June 21-22, 2011.

FOMC Releases Minutes of March 15, 2011, Meeting: Inflation Was Hot Topic

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board released the minutes of its March 15, 2011, monetary policy meeting.  Although there was no change in policy at the meeting, rapidly rising commodity prices seems to finally have the attention of at least some of the members.

“A significant increase in longer-term inflation expectations could contribute to excessive wage and price inflation, which would be costly to eradicate,” the FOMC stated in the minutes. While officials at the meeting indicated increasing energy and commodity prices had fed a recent boost in headline inflation, but expected that rise to be temporary, however. They showed some concern, though, that businesses and consumers may not feel the same way.  Yes, people need to eat, drive cars, take transportation, and heat their homes among other things.  So-called “headline” inflation matters.

As far as what to do next, the FOMC appears to be split.  “A few participants indicated that economic conditions might warrant a move toward less-accommodative monetary policy this year; a few others noted that exceptional policy accommodation could be appropriate beyond 2011,” the minutes said.

To view the full FOMC minutes, please click on the following link for a .pdf file: FOMC Minutes for March 15, 2011, Meeting

Higher U.S. Interest Rates Not Necessarily Threat to Economy

Although the Federal Reserve is busy buying Treasury bonds to keep interest rates suppressed and promises to keep its record low federal funds rate at a range between 0 and 0.25 percent “for an extended period,” everyone knows that higher interest rates are coming.  However, there seems to be a parallel concern that higher interest rates in the U.S. will derail the economic recovery, or at least be harmful to economic growth.  That concern may be misplaced and may cause many investors to make poor decisions in the near future.

Let us begin with the fact that, in the last decade, the Fed held rates too low for too long, sparking a rush among worldwide investors to seek yield in the most unlikely places, such as derivatives like securitized residential mortgages (the Fed, and Alan Greenspan, debate this point, but there should be no question but that the Fed played a role in the factors that caused and contributed to the financial crisis—see “How Government Economic Policies Caused the Financial Crisis of 2008“).  This is a prime example showing that the Fed does not control interest rates, it can only seek to influence them, and sometimes the Fed’s actions have unintended consequences.

The McKinsey Global Institute recently explored the matter of U.S. interest rates, specifically identifying five myths, which go to show that higher interest rates may not be as bad as some believe.  The five myths outlined by McKinsey are as follows:

  1. The Fed Controls Interest Rates. One recent example dispelling this myth was the beginning of the second round of quantitative easing undertaken by the Fed in November.  As the Fed began buying U.S. Treasury securities, with the intended effect of lowering rates (as prices on bonds rise, the interest rates fall and vice versa).  Leading up to the beginning of the program, interest rates on Treasury bonds fell, but shortly thereafter, interest rates rose sharply, defying the Fed’s intent.  McKinsey puts the reason simply—an improving economy suggests greater demand for capital, which, in turn, results in higher rates.
  2. Lower Interest Rates Are The “New Normal.”  Not so fast—although we have had low rates for so long it is hard to imagine what a higher-rate environment looks like, McKinsey says its “recent research shows that the global demand for capital is rising fast as emerging markets embark on one of the biggest building booms in history. Rapid economic growth and urbanization in developing nations, particularly China, is fueling demand for housing, roads, ports, water and power systems, machinery, and equipment. Global investment demand could rise to $24 trillion per year by 2030, from $11 trillion today.” That increased demand will command higher interest rates as global saving will fall far short of investment demand.
  3. Low Rates Encourage Consumer Spending.  Public policy should encourage saving, but even so, the financial crisis has caused many households to become greater savers than before, even though interest rates are much lower.  Consumer spending has rebounded from the depths of the crisis, but it is nowhere near the pre-crisis levels.  In fact, the U.S. personal savings rate has gone from 2 to 6 percent in the wake of the crisis.  More savings does not necessarily translate into weaker economic growth.  Corporations and government could, and should, take advantage of low interest rates to expand the nation’s capacity to produce more and better goods and services.  Also, it would be best to wean U.S. consumers off the idea that getting the lowest price is the primary goal in shopping.  How many closets are stuffed with poorly made items bought cheaply when a more expensive, better quality product would have resulted in savings over time?
  4. The Housing Market Needs The Mortgage Interest Deduction. McKinsey argues strongly against this notion.  Under current law, U.S. taxpayers can deduct their interest payments on up to $1 million in mortgage debt on both their primary residences and their second homes, and can also deduct their interest payments on up to $100,000 in home-equity loans.  McKinsey offers two key counterpoints to the supposed benefits of the deduction: (i) “The deduction lowers federal revenues (by a projected $104 billion in 2011), thereby adding to the budget deficit”; and (ii)  it “encourages households to take on more debt than they would otherwise and thus helped feed the housing bubble that led to the financial crisis.”
  5. Higher Interest Rates Are Bad For The Economy.  McKinsey asserts that is not so. For everyone earning, at best, 0.25 percent on their savings account or short-term certificate of deposit, higher interest rates would usher in an era where savers are actually rewarded for saving.  What a brilliant idea!  Other benefits McKinsey points out: “[Higher interest rates] would also limit financial bubbles, restraining speculative and heavily leveraged investment while encouraging more investment that would actually raise the economy’s potential growth rate, such as expanding the country’s broadband network, developing new green technologies, and rebuilding aging infrastructure.”

Higher interest rates are on their way, so long as the economic recovery continues, and leading indicators certainly point to that fact, as do inflation figures around the world.  However, investors should not be scared into making poor decisions about what higher interest rates mean.  Rather, they should be looking for ways to take advantage of higher rates.

Fed Remains Concerned Over Risks to Economic Recovery: FOMC December Meeting Minutes

The Federal Reserve Board has released the minutes of its Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on Dec. 14, 2010.  At the meeting, the FOMC held interest rates at historic lows and indicated they would remain low for “an extended period.”  The FOMC also reiterated its intention to purchase $600 billion of Treasury securities over the next several months, a program also known as QE (Quantitative Easing) II.

The most interesting part of the minutes is a list of the risks that the FOMC members perceive as threats to the economic recovery over the next year.  These are also the reasons for why the federal funds rate will be held down and the QE II program will proceed, despite a good deal of positive economic data.

From the minutes:

However, a number of factors were seen as likely to continue restraining growth, including the depressed housing market, employers’ continued reluctance to add to payrolls, and ongoing efforts by some households and businesses to delever. Moreover, the recovery remained subject to some downside risks, such as the possibility of a more extended period of weak activity and lower prices in the housing sector and potential financial and economic spillovers if the banking and sovereign debt problems in Europe were to worsen. In light of recent readings on consumer inflation, participants noted that underlying inflation had continued trending downward, but several saw the risk of deflation as having receded somewhat.

In sum, the risks are:

  1. Housing price weakness;
  2. High unemployment;
  3. Deleveraging;
  4. Sovereign debt; and
  5. Deflation, but this is unlikely.

No real surprises there because for investors, these are the same risks.  The only one that should be amended is No. 5.—it is becoming clear that the Fed’s policies are resulting in severe commodity inflation, putting pressure on input costs for many companies.  Remain inflation may remain subdued in other areas, price increases in raw materials and energy could have a significant dampening effect on economic activity.

To view the full FOMC minutes, please click the following link: FOMC December 2010 Minutes.

 

 

Euro Sorely Tested by Sovereign Debt Crisis

The argument over whether the euro will survive as a common currency through the European Union rages on, despite efforts by the European Central Bank (ECB) and European Commission to backstop sovereign debt problems in Greece, Ireland and Portugal. The latest warning comes from Andrew Bosomworth, head of portfolio management in Europe for Pacific Investment Management (Pimco), who said that without a fiscal union, Europe’s policies are untenable and will result in the euro’s breakup. “Greece, Ireland and Portugal cannot get back on their feet without either their own currency or large transfer payments,” he said. Bosomworth said the debt-ridden countries need to temporarily exit the euro zone, restructure their debt, then rejoin the bloc.

Pimco also gave warning that the bond vigilantes have lost faith in the policy and are trying to liquidate their holdings of peripheral EMU faster than the ECB can buy the debt, causing a relentless rise in yields, and a vicious circle.  Countering that assertion, the ECB said on Monday that it had cut purchases of government debt last week, settling €603m (£509m), down from €2.68bn a week earlier.  In addition, the U.S. Federal Open Market Committee announced an extension of its dollar liquidity swap arrangements with several central banks to Aug. 1, 2011 (the temporary program was to expire Jan. 1, 2011).

Meanwhile, Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the ECB, said countries in the euro zone need to do more individually as well as collectively to battle the debt crisis that has plagued the region for much of the year. Trichet also said Ireland needs to adhere to its rescue plans. “The Irish [bailout] plan is designed for Ireland to face up its own particular problems, which have mostly to do with its banking system,” Trichet said. “We consider it necessary [for Ireland] to complete this plan rigorously.”

Jacques Cailloux, chief Europe economist at RBS, stated that last week’s European summit had failed to recognize that the policy responses so far have missed the mark. “None of the policy responses put in place in Europe since the start of the crisis provides a credible backstop to prevent further contagion,” Mr Cailloux said. “We remain most concerned about an escalation of the sovereign debt crisis hitting larger economies in the euro area. Markets continue to underestimate the potential disruption via financial transmission channels that such an event could trigger.”

Just as in 201o, the investing world will likely be challenged in 2011 on occasion by flare-ups of the European debt crisis and other geopolitical and macroeconomic events.  The 2008 financial crisis will have a lingering effect for years.  Investors will need to be nimble enough to step aside when markets quake over the latest crisis and to take some risk again once the dust has settled.  That is never an easy thing to do, and it is what makes me question the general assumption by many experts that U.S. markets will rise about 10 percent.