Is The Market Overreacting?

Like a junkie pleading for another fix, the financial markets tanked again last Friday after St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President James Bullard told CNBC that he sees the Federal Reserve raising interest rates before the end of next year, a year or so before the Fed announced two days earlier that it plans to do so.

This is surely ironic since in the years following the 2008 financial crisis, Bullard was one of the most dovish members of the Fed, reliably arguing for monetary accommodation long after his fellow Fed members had moved on to raising interest rates. Now it appears that Bullard, based on his comments last week, has turned positively hawkish, at least compared to his Fed brethren.

"I put us starting in late 2022," Bullard said. "This is a bigger year than we were expecting, more inflation than we were expecting. I think it's natural that we've tilted a little bit more hawkish here to contain inflationary pressures."

By contrast, following the end of its June monetary policy meeting two days earlier, the Fed indicated that it doesn't expect to raise interest rates until the end of 2023. Yet that set off a selloff in the markets because it was more aggressive than its previous estimate in March when it said it didn't expect to raise rates until 2024 at the earliest.

The Fed's updated median outlook is now calling for up to two rate increases in 2023. According to the Fed's new "dot plot" projections, 13 of 18 Fed voting members expect to raise short-term rates by the end of 2023, up from seven in March. Back then, most members anticipated holding rates steady through 2023.

Bullard isn't currently a voting member of the Fed's monetary policy committee, but he will be next year. Continue reading "Is The Market Overreacting?"

Is Taper Talk About to Begin?

According to the minutes of the Fed's last meeting in April, "a number of participants suggested that if the economy continued to make rapid progress toward the committee's goals, it might be appropriate at some point in upcoming meetings to begin discussing a plan for adjusting the pace of asset purchases."

Is this week's meeting the start of that discussion? We'll find out Wednesday afternoon at 2:00 PM EST.

The announcement following the April meeting reiterated the Fed's stance that it "will aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2% for some time so that inflation averages 2% over time and longer-term inflation expectations remain well-anchored at 2%." As we know, Fed officials have maintained that the recent surge in inflation well above that level is only "transitory," although they have eased off that insistence over the past month.

Last week's consumer price index report for May should give them a lot to think about this week. Continue reading "Is Taper Talk About to Begin?"

The Fed's 'See No Inflation' Posture

Pressure, inflationary pressure that is, is starting to grow on the Federal Reserve to start dialing back its mammoth asset purchases and zero percent interest rate policy. While its main position remains that the recent rise in inflation is only “transitory,” the Fed may have at last started laying the groundwork for an earlier move toward to a less accommodative policy rather than waiting until 2023.

That much became clearer in the release of the minutes of the Fed’s April monetary policy meeting last week.

“A number of participants suggested that if the economy continued to make rapid progress toward the committee’s goals, it might be appropriate at some point in upcoming meetings to begin discussing a plan for adjusting the pace of asset purchases,” the minutes said. In other words, the Fed revealed that it is at least thinking that it may have to reduce its asset purchases—currently, $120 billion of Treasury securities and agency mortgage-backed securities each month—and possibly raise interest rates earlier than it thought because of the inflation threat brought on by a booming economy and government stimulus.

While it may be fair to cut the Fed some slack and let it be more patient in assessing the shape of the economy post-pandemic before it makes any fundamental policy changes, make no mistake that economic growth and inflation are revving hotter and show no sign of being as “transitory” as the Fed believes. Continue reading "The Fed's 'See No Inflation' Posture"

Treasury Secretary Yellen's Gaffe

You kind of knew this was going to happen eventually. You’re just probably surprised it happened so fast and so publicly.

After serving as Federal Reserve chair for four years, until February 2018, and now Treasury Secretary since January, Janet Yellen could probably be forgiven for forgetting what position she holds. After all, in addition to being located in Washington, both the Fed and the Treasury pretty much work hand in hand, with the former directing monetary policy and the latter handling fiscal policy. Under the pretense, they’re both independent of each other.

But last week, Yellen let the cat out of the bag and ignited a one-day mini taper tantrum in stock prices, which is a little hard to understand, given that she only said what everyone else was already thinking. (But as we know, a gaffe is when a politician or government official accidentally tells the truth).

“It may be that interest rates will have to rise somewhat to make sure that our economy doesn’t overheat, even though the additional spending [proposed and already enacted by the Biden Administration] is relatively small relative to the size of the economy,” she said in a prerecorded interview at the Atlantic’s Future Economy Summit.

Later on, of course, she walked that back a little, telling the Wall Street Journal, “I don’t think there’s going to be an inflationary problem, but if there is, the Fed can be counted on to address it,” she said.

It was certainly much ado about nothing, but it raises an important question, namely: Other than raising interest rates, either directly or indirectly, what exactly can the Fed do to fend off higher inflation? Continue reading "Treasury Secretary Yellen's Gaffe"

Be Careful What You Wish For

Remember when over the past four years, we were warned repeatedly about the dangers of “politicizing” the Federal Reserve? Well, apparently, that had nothing to do with politics per se, just which side was doing the politicizing. Now that a different party is pushing the Fed in another direction, we don’t hear much about the dangers of politicizing the Fed anymore.

Indeed, an op-ed in the Financial Times goes one step further, arguing that the Fed – and central banks in general – should not only be above politics but allowed to dictate the rules for us mere mortals by executive fiat. And what issue is so important that it can’t be left to our elected representatives to decide what to do? Well, climate change, of course.

“We are facing a climate emergency that demands collective action, and central banks must undergo another transformation, perhaps an uncomfortable one, to play their part in dealing with it,” the author writes. “By reshaping their interventions in asset markets, they can accelerate reductions in carbon emissions and change the cost of capital to address hidden climate risks in the financial system.”

“The magnitude of the physical risks associated with climate change means central banks need to use their full suite of powers to help the transition towards a low-carbon world. And one of their tools is speed,” the writer continues. “Rather than waiting for governments to agree on legislation, investment programs or carbon taxes, central banks can act now to reflect better the cost of climate change in the cost of capital and to change the behavior of businesses, increasing it for emitters and lowering it for investment in carbon reduction (emphasis mine).”

In other words, who needs laws when the Fed can just order us around? Continue reading "Be Careful What You Wish For"