Does anybody believe the risks to the US economy are balanced between higher inflation and weaker growth? If they are, why is the overnight federal funds rate at a microscopic 1.25 percent? The inconsistency between what the Federal Reserve says and does was driven home yesterday in its statement following a regular policy meeting.
The Fed lowered the funds rate by a bigger-than-expected 50 basis points, and in an apparent effort to convey to the markets, "no mas," it tacked on a statement claiming future risks are balanced.
Yet another tool for improved communication and increased transparency has fallen victim to Fed tinkering.
"They're back to their old tricks," says Jim Glassman, senior US economist at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
For those of you who may be a little rusty on your Fed policy procedure history, the balance-of-risks statement replaced the inter-meeting directive in February 2000 "to enhance communication to the public" and alleviate "unanticipated confusion" in the markets. The policy directive had been incorporated into the Fed's instant-release policy in May 1999; the immediate announcement of the policy action following each meeting was implemented in February 1994.
The directive, rightly or wrongly, was viewed as an expression of the likelihood and direction of an inter-meeting move. The Fed wanted to get away from providing a near-term trading incentive and convey a longer-term outlook, expressed in the context of the balance of risks "to the attainment of its long-run goals of stable prices and sustainable economic growth." It didn't take long for the new policy to become a bargaining chip to achieve a consensus on the rate action and a means of conveying something other than a longer-term outlook.
For example, at the Mar. 19 meeting, policy makers acknowledged that "the stance of policy would need to be adjusted at some point to provide less stimulus" -- a cumbersome way of saying rates will have to rise. In the committee's view, a 1.75 percent overnight rate was inconsistent over time with maintaining price stability, one of the Fed's two mandates. Wouldn't higher inflation at the current rate level qualify as the long-term risk? In the near term, "significant downside risks remained." How to reconcile the two? Slap together a statement saying the risks are balanced, which hardly communicates the nature and timing of the offsetting risks.
The Fed keeps trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
It says it wants to convey information, but what it is really trying to do is control expectations and manage results. That's a tall order for a single sentence.
Any one-size-fits-all policy procedure is almost destined to fail. When the cleansed minutes of yesterday's meeting are released on Dec. 12, they may reveal some members of the committee opposed to a 50 basis-point rate cut even in the face of a stall in economic activity.
After all, the Fed preaches that monetary policy operates with a nine- to 18-month lag.
A big rate cut now accompanied by an unsubtle message killing expectations of another one anytime soon sounds like the best compromise consensus-building Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan could pull out of his hat. It is a compromise appealing to everyone, satisfying no one.
The inherent contradictions between word and deed probably do more to hurt the markets than help. A balanced risk assessment conveys confidence in the outlook. A 50 basis-point rate cut conveys no confidence.
The Fed isn't constrained by the balance-of-risks statement.
It has the ability to communicate anything it wants clearly in a carefully crafted press release. Surely the Fed has some good editors to assist in this endeavor.
Financial markets operate most efficiently when all known information is conveyed honestly and clearly. The future, by definition, is never knowable. At a minimum, then, it helps to be clear about what you think the future holds.
Central banks talk about the importance of great transparency all the time. It's time they started to practice what they preach.
NO-LIMITS PARTNERSHIP: ‘The bottom line’ is that if the US were to have a conflict with China or Russia it would likely open up a second front with the other, a US senator said Beijing and Moscow could cooperate in a conflict over Taiwan, the top US intelligence chief told the US Senate this week. “We see China and Russia, for the first time, exercising together in relation to Taiwan and recognizing that this is a place where China definitely wants Russia to be working with them, and we see no reason why they wouldn’t,” US Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told a US Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing on Thursday. US Senator Mike Rounds asked Haines about such a potential scenario. He also asked US Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse
INSPIRING: Taiwan has been a model in the Asia-Pacific region with its democratic transition, free and fair elections and open society, the vice president-elect said Taiwan can play a leadership role in the Asia-Pacific region, vice president-elect Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) told a forum in Taipei yesterday, highlighting the nation’s resilience in the face of geopolitical challenges. “Not only can Taiwan help, but Taiwan can lead ... not only can Taiwan play a leadership role, but Taiwan’s leadership is important to the world,” Hsiao told the annual forum hosted by the Center for Asia-Pacific Resilience and Innovation think tank. Hsiao thanked Taiwan’s international friends for their long-term support, citing the example of US President Joe Biden last month signing into law a bill to provide aid to Taiwan,
China’s intrusive and territorial claims in the Indo-Pacific region are “illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive,” new US Indo-Pacific Commander Admiral Samuel Paparo said on Friday, adding that he would continue working with allies and partners to keep the area free and open. Paparo made the remarks at a change-of-command ceremony at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii, where he took over the command from Admiral John Aquilino. “Our world faces a complex problem set in the troubling actions of the People’s Republic of China [PRC] and its rapid buildup of forces. We must be ready to answer the PRC’s increasingly intrusive and
STATE OF THE NATION: The legislature should invite the president to deliver an address every year, the TPP said, adding that Lai should also have to answer legislators’ questions The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) yesterday proposed inviting president-elect William Lai (賴清德) to make a historic first state of the nation address at the legislature following his inauguration on May 20. Lai is expected to face many domestic and international challenges, and should clarify his intended policies with the public’s representatives, KMT caucus secretary-general Hung Meng-kai (洪孟楷) said when making the proposal at a meeting of the legislature’s Procedure Committee. The committee voted to add the item to the agenda for Friday, along with another similar proposal put forward by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). The invitation is in line with Article 15-2