Tag Archives: FOMC

FOMC preview

Posted on by

My guess is the GDP forecast the Fed is now getting from it’s staff is not a downgrade from previous forecasts, and may even be an upgrade due to:

  • The blowout durable goods numbers
  • The drops in claims following the high unemployment number
  • The private forecasts on average show 65,000 new jobs and unemployment falling to 4.9 on Friday
  • Anecdotal reports from big cap old line corps show no recession in sight
  • But still data dependent with ADP, GDP, and deflator tomorrow am

Yes, it has been about domestic demand, but they now realize exports have taken up the slack and are holding up employment and real gdp, as well as contributing to inflation.

Staff inflation report will show deterioration of both headline CPI and core measures, along with tips fwd breakevens moving higher and survey info showing elevating prices paid and received. And food/fuel/import and export prices all trending higher, risking core converging to headline CPI.

Higher crude prices are now attributed to higher US demand by the markets and the Fed.

Many ‘financial conditions’ have eased:

  • LIBOR has come down over 150 bp since the Dec 18 meeting even as FF are down only 75. mtg rates way down as well, and at very low levels.
  • Commercial mortgage rates somewhat higher, but from very low levels previously
  • Equities have firmed up since the soc gen liquidations (and look very cheap to me)

The last bit of system risk is from a downgrade of the monolines and that risk seems to be diminishing.

The ratings agencies have been reviewing them intensely for 6 months, and both the capital of the monolines and the credit quality of the insured bonds must still be adequate for the AAA rating. And in any case the risk is to go to AA, not to junk, meaning that credit per se isn’t the issue at all. The issue is forced selling by those who can’t legally hold insured bonds if the rating drops. That’s a very different issue.

Wouldn’t surprise me that if tomorrows numbers are as expected, and the fed cuts 50, markets start to look at that as possibly the last move, and reprice accordingly, with FF futures trading closer to a 3% trough than a 2% trough.

An unchanged decision may also result in a near 3% FF futures trough, with a couple of 25 cuts priced in.

♥

Share

The Fed’s next move

Posted on by

If I were a mainstream economist and on the FOMC (I’m not either, they are both), and world equity markets were firm going into the meeting next week with the monoline issue put to bed, I’d opt for no cut.

That would be expected to rally the $, take down gold and most other commodities, and be taken as a strong move to ‘keep expectations well anchored’ before they had a chance to elevate.

Equities might sell off initially, but be encouraged with the knowledge the Fed was keeping inflation under control, and therefore not get involved into a prolonged, rate hiking fight against inflation down the road.

Also, confidence in the economy would be conveyed, as the no cut decision would be taken as a statement from the Fed that the economy didn’t need further rate cuts.

♥

Share

Why I expect US exports to continue to be very strong..

Posted on by

The desire to accumulate $US financial assets has been diminished for at least the following reasons:

  1. Treasury policy – Paulson is actively pushing both a strong yuan and threatening any other CB that buys $US with the label of ‘currency manipulator.’ CB’s had been perhaps the largest source of $US financial assets accumulation and are now limited to compounding of interest.
  2. US foreign policy is probably driving CB’s in less than friendly nations to diversify their reserves away from $US financial assets.
  3. Fed policy has the appearance of a ‘beggar thy neighbor’/’inflate your way out of debt’ policy, as the Fed aggressively cuts rates in the face of inflation not seen in 25 years.

This all sets in motion a downward pricing of the $US as non residents sell them to each other at lower and lower prices in this effort to lower their rate of accumulation of $US financial assets. But these financial assets can only ‘go away’ when they get spent or invested in the US, when US prices are low enough to cause this to happen. The rapid rise in exports and accelerated non resident buying of US real estate and other assets is anecdotal evidence this is taking place as theory predicts.

This is a very large cyclical force that should continue to drive rapidly rising exports for perhaps a year or more. Weak foreign economies should have little effect on this process, as that weakness doesn’t reduce the desire of portfolio managers to shift out of $US financial assets.

This is also highly inflationary for the US. This buying by non residents both drives down the $US and drives up the prices of US exports, now rising at a 7% clip last I checked.

The desired shift is probably well over $1 trillion which means exports will increase by a good part of that to facilitate this transfer.

This can sustain US GDP in the face of falling domestic demand, which will stay relatively low until housing picks up. Employment will remain reasonably good, but standards of living fall as we produce as much, but export more and consume less. We get paid to work but can buy less due to high prices, with our remaining production exported to those wishing to reduce their accumulated $US financial assets.

We’ve been talking about this possibility about a long time, but seems our trade negotiators have finally got their wish.

Meanwhile, Saudis continue to act the swing producer. In fact, they told Bush today they have 2 million bpd capacity in reserve, and that markets are well supplied. At their price, of course.

Probably have been some year end allocations out of crude by pension funds as with the price hikes they would need to sell some to keep the same ‘weight’ in their portfolios. That should be ending soon.

And I agree with Karim, the Fed is not likely to act on inflation until core starts to rise or their measures of inflation expectations start to rise, despite the fact that mainstream theory clearly says if any of that happens it’s too late. Seems to me the senior FOMC members are putting their jobs on the line by taking that kind of systemic risk, which their own theory tells them is far higher than the risk of any lost output from a .

♥

Share

The subprime mess

Posted on by

On Jan 5, 2008 9:40 PM, Steve Martyak wrote:
> http://www.autodogmatic.com/index.php/sst/2007/02/02/subprime_credit_crunch_could_trigger_col
>
>
> also….
>
> 9/4/2006
> Cover of Business Week: How Toxic Is Your Mortgage? :.
>
> The option ARM is “like the neutron bomb,” says George McCarthy, a housing
> economist at New York’s Ford Foundation. “It’s going to kill all the people
> but leave the houses standing.”
>
> Some people saw it all coming….
>

The subprime setback actually hit about 18 months ago. Investors stopped funding new loans, and would be buyers were were no longer able to buy, thereby reducing demand. Housing fell and has been down for a long time. There are signs it bottomed October/November but maybe not.

I wrote about it then as well, and have been forecasting the slowdown since I noted the fed’s financial obligations ratio was at levels in March 2006 that indicated the credit expansion had to slow as private debt would not be able to increase sufficiently to sustain former levels of GDP growth. And that the reason was the tailwind from the 2003 federal deficits was winding down. as the deficit fell below 2% of GDP, and it was no longer enough to support the credit structure.

Also, while pension funds were still adding to demand with their commodity allocations, that had stopped accelerating as well and
wouldn’t be as strong a factor.

Lastly, I noted exports should pick up some, but I didn’t think enough to sustain growth.

I underestimated export strength, and while GDP hasn’t been stellar as before, it’s been a bit higher than i expected as exports boomed.

That was my first ‘major theme’ – slowing demand.

The second major theme was rising prices – Saudis acting the swing producer and setting price. This was interrupted when Goldman changed their commodity index in aug 06 triggering a massive liquidation as pension funds rebalanced, and oil prices fell from near 80 to about 50, pushed down a second time at year end by Goldman (and AIG as well this time) doing it again. As the liquidation subsided the Saudis were again in control and prices have marched up ever since, and with Putin gaining control of Russian pricing we now have to ‘price setters’ who can act a swing producers and simply set price at any level they want as long as net demand holds up. So far demand has been more than holding up, so it doesn’t seem we are anywhere near the limits of how high they can hike prices.

Saudi production for December should be out tomorrow. It indicates how much demand there is at current prices. If it’s up that means they have lots of room to hike prices further. Only if their production falls are they in danger of losing control on the downside. And I estimate it would have to fall below 7 million bpd for that to happen. It has been running closer to 9 million.

What I have missed is the fed’s response to all this.

I thought the inflation trend would keep them from cutting, as they had previously been strict adherents to the notion that price
stability is a necessary condition for optimal employment and growth.

This is how they fulfilled their ‘dual mandate’ of full employment and price stability, as dictated by ‘law’ and as per their regular reports to congress.

The theory is that if the fed acts to keep inflation low and stable markets will function to optimize employment and growth, and keep long term interest rates low.

What happened back in September is they became preoccupied with ‘market functioning’ which they see as a necessary condition for low inflation to be translated into optimal employment and growth.

What was revealed was the FOMC’s lack of understanding of not only market functioning outside of the fed, but a lack of understanding of their own monetary operations, reserve accounting, and the operation of their member bank interbank markets and pricing mechanisms.

In short, the Fed still isn’t fully aware that ‘it’s about price (interest rates), not quantity (‘money supply, whatever that may be)’.

(Note they are still limiting the size of the TAF operation using an auction methodology rather than simply setting a yield and letting quantity float)

The first clue to this knowledge shortfall was the 2003 change to put the discount rate higher than the fed funds rate, and make the discount rate a ‘penalty rate.’ This made no sense at all, as i wrote back then.

The discount rate is not and can not be a source of ‘market discipline’ and all the change did was create an ‘unstable equilibrium’ condition in the fed funds market. (They can’t keep the system ‘net borrowed’ as before) it all works fine during ‘normal’ periods but when the tree is shaken the NY Fed has it’s hands full keeping the funds rate on target, as we’ve seen for the last 6 months
or so.

While much of this FOMC wasn’t around in 2002-2003, several members were.

Back to September 2007. The FOMC was concerned enough about ‘market functioning’ to act, They saw credit spreads widening, and in particular the fed funds/libor spread was troubling as it indicated their own member banks were pricing each other’s risk at higher levels than the FOMC wanted. If they had a clear, working knowledge of monetary ops and reserve accounting, they would have recognized that either the discount window could be ‘opened’ by cutting the rate to the fed funds rate, removing the ‘stigma’ of using it, and expanding the eligible collateral. (Alternatively, the current TAF is functionally the same thing, and could have been implemented in September as well.)

Instead, they cut the fed funds rate 50 bp, and left the discount rate above it, along with the stigma. and this did little or nothing for the FF/LIBOR spread and for market functioning in general.

This was followed by two more 25 cuts and libor was still trading at 9% over year end until they finally came up with the TAF which immediately brought ff/libor down. It didn’t come all the way down to where the fed wanted it because the limited the size of the TAFs to $20 billion, again hard evidence of a shortfall in their understanding of monetary ops.

Simple textbook analysis shows it’s about price and not quantity. Charles Goodhart has over 65 volumes to read on this, and the first half of Basil Moore’s 1988 ‘Horizontalists and Verticalsists’ is a good review as well.

The ECB’s actions indicate they understand it. Their ‘TAF’ operation set the interest rate and let the banks do all they wanted, and over 500 billion euro cleared that day. And, of course- goes without saying- none of the ‘quantity needles’ moved at all.

In fact, some in the financial press have been noting that with all the ‘pumping in of liquidity’ around the world various monetary
aggregates have generally remained as before.

Rather than go into more detail about monetary ops, and why the CB’s have no effect on quantities, suffice to say for this post that the Fed still doesn’t get it, but maybe they are getting closer.

So back to the point.

Major themes are:

  • Weakness due to low govt budget deficit
  • Inflation due to monopolists/price setters hiking price

And more recently, the Fed cutting interest rates due to ‘market functioning’ in a mistaken notion that ff cuts would address that issue, followed by the TAF which did address the issue. The latest announced tafs are to be 30 billion, up from 20, but still short of the understanding that it’s about price, not quantity.

The last four months have also given the markets the impression that the Fed in actual fact cares not at all about inflation, and will only talk about it, but at the end of the day will act to support growth and employment.

Markets acknowledge that market functioning has been substantially improved, with risk repriced at wider spreads.

However, GDP prospects remain subdued, with a rising number of economists raising the odds of negative real growth.

While this has been the forecast for several quarters, and so far each quarter has seen substantial upward revisions from the initial forecasts, nonetheless the lower forecasts for Q1 have to be taken seriously, as that’s all we have.

I am in the dwindling camp that the Fed does care about inflation, and particularly the risk of inflation expectations elevating which would be considered the ultimate Central Bank blunder. All you hear from FOMC members is ‘yes, we let that happen in the 70’s, and we’re not going to let that happen again’.

And once ‘markets are functioning’ low inflation can again be translated via market forces into optimal employment and growth, thereby meeting the dual mandate.

i can’t even imagine a Fed chairman addressing congress with the reverse – ‘by keeping the economy at full employment market forces will keep inflation and long term interest rates low’.

Congress does not want inflation. Inflation will cost them their jobs. Voters hate inflation. They call it the govt robbing their
savings. Govt confiscation of their wealth. They start looking to the Ron Paul’s who advocate return to the gold standard.

That’s why low inflation is in the Fed’s mandate.

And the Fed also knows they are facing a triple negative supply shock of fuel, food, and import prices/weak $.

While they can’t control fuel prices, what they see there job as is keeping it all a relative value story and not ‘monetizing it into an
inflation story’ which means to them not accommodating it with low real rates that elevate inflation expectations, followed by
accelerating inflation.

There is no other way to see if based on their models. Deep down all their models are relative value models, with no source of the ‘price level.’ ‘Money’ is a numeraire that expresses the relative values. The current price level is there as a consequence of history, and will stay at that level only if ‘inflation expectations are well anchored.’ The ‘expectations operator’ is the only source of the price level in their models.

(See ‘Mandatory Readings‘ for how it all actually works.)

They also know that food/fuel prices are a leading cause of elevated inflation expectations.

In their world, this means that if demand is high enough to drive up CPI it’s simply too high and they need to not accommodate it with low real rates, but instead lean against that wind with higher real rates, or risk letting the inflation cat out of the bag and face a long, expensive, multi year battle to get it back in.

They knew this at the Sept 18 meeting when they cut 50, and twice after that with the following 25 cuts, all as ‘insurance to forestall’ the possible shutdown of ‘market functioning’.

And they knew and saw the price of this insurance – falling dollar, rising food, fuel, and import prices, and CPI soaring past 4% year over year.

To me these cuts in the face of the negative supply shocks define the level of fear, uncertainty, and panic of the FOMC.

It’s perhaps something like the fear felt by a new pilot accidentally flying into a thunderstorm in his first flight in an unfamiliar plane without an instructor or a manual.

The FOCM feared a total collapse of the financial structure. The possibility GDP going to 0 as the economy ‘froze.’ Better to do
something to buy some time, pay whatever inflation price that may follow, than do nothing.

The attitude has been there are two issues- recession due to market failure and inflation.

The response has been to address the ‘crisis’ first, then regroup and address the inflation issue.

And hopefully inflation expectations are well enough anchored to avoid disaster on the inflation front.

So now with the TAF’s ‘working’ (duh…) and market functions restored (even commercial paper is expanding again) the question is what they will do next.

They may decide markets are still too fragile to risk not cutting, as priced in by Feb fed funds futures, and risk a relapse into market dysfunction. Recent history suggests that’s what they would do if the Jan meeting were today.

But it isn’t today, and a lot of data will come out in the next few weeks. Both market functioning data and economic data.

Yes, the economy may weaken, and may go into recession, but with inflation on the rise, that’s the ‘non inflationary speed limit’ and the Fed would see cutting rates to support demand as accomplishing nothing for the real economy, but only increasing inflation and risking elevated inflation expectations. The see real growth as supply side constrained, and their job is keeping demand balanced at a non inflationary level.

But that assumes markets continue to function, and the supply side of credit doesn’t shut down and send GDP to zero in a financial panic.

With a good working knowledge of monetary ops and reserve accounting, and banking in general that fear would vanish, as the FOMC would know what indicators to watch and what buttons to push to safely fly the plane.

Without that knowledge another FF cut is a lot more likely.

more later…

warren

♥

Share

Fed communications

Posted on by

If conveying information is considered important for market function, why not just say it clearly and directly in a targeted announcement?

Kohn Says Fed Is Trying to Signal When Views Shift `Materially’

2008-01-05 11:15 (New York)
By Scott Lanman and Steve Matthews

(Bloomberg) Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said the central bank has increased its communication on policy views to the public in the wake of the financial-market “turmoil” that began in August.

Fed officials have tried to signal when the central bank’s reading on the economic outlook shifted “materially” in between regular meetings, Kohn said in a speech in New Orleans. “We have tried to provide more information than usual to reduce uncertainty and clarify our intentions.”

Kohn spoke before a week in which Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and six other Fed policy makers are scheduled to deliver remarks. The speeches come amid increasing signs of danger to the U.S. economic expansion, including a jump in the unemployment rate to a two-year high and a contraction in manufacturing. Traders anticipate the Fed will cut interest rates again Jan. 30.

Still, investors “should understand” that officials “do not coordinate schedules and messages, and that members’ views are likely to be especially diverse” when circumstances are rapidly changing, Kohn said.

Kohn held out Bernanke’s last speech on Nov. 29 as a signal of a change in the Fed’s views. The chairman said at the time that volatility in credit markets had “importantly affected” the economic outlook and declined to repeat the Federal Open Market Committee’s October statement that inflation and growth risks were about equal. The Fed then cut rates on Dec. 11.

`Let People Know’

“We have attempted to let people know when our views of the macroeconomic situation had changed materially between FOMC meetings,” said Kohn said in prepared remarks at the National Association for Business Economics panel discussion, part of the Allied Social Science Associations annual meeting.

The vice chairman didn’t comment on the outlook for monetary policy or the economy in the text of his remarks.

Bank of Japan Deputy Governor Kazumasa Iwata and European Central Bank Vice President Lucas Papademos were also scheduled to speak in the same session.

Traders yesterday shifted to bets on 50 basis points of interest-rate cuts by the Fed this month from 25 basis points after U.S. hiring slowed more than forecast in December and unemployment rose to 5 percent. The Fed lowered its main rate a quarter percentage point to 4.25 percent at its last meeting on Dec. 11. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point.

Fed Speakers

Bernanke speaks Jan. 10 in Washington. Other Fed officials giving talks include Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig, the last two policy makers to cast dissenting FOMC votes. Charles Plosser, head of the Philadelphia Fed, votes as an FOMC member for the first time this month; he will discuss his economic outlook Jan. 8.

The FOMC is scheduled to meet Jan. 29-30 in Washington.

Separately, Kohn said today that the FOMC’s new forecasts for inflation three years out do not represent an “explicit numerical definition of price stability,” something the committee decided against, but rather the inflation rate that is “acceptable and consistent with fulfilling our congressional mandates.”

Kohn, who said in 2003 that he was “skeptical” about a price target, chaired a subcommittee of officials that coordinated work on the Fed’s communication review that began in 2006. He suggested in September that his doubts about the idea had eased.

Inflation Expectations

“I expect that our new projections will provide some of the benefits of an explicit target in better anchoring inflation expectations while not giving up any flexibility to react to developments that threaten high employment,” Kohn said today.

He also echoed remarks by Bernanke that the Fed will continue to look for “additional steps” to improve communication.

Fed officials decided last year not to report members’ assumptions of the “appropriate” path of interest rates because of concern that investors would “infer more of a commitment to following the implied path than would be appropriate for good policy,” the vice chairman said.

Kohn, speaking yesterday at the same conference, said diverse views on the 19-member FOMC lead to better monetary policy decisions. “The authority of the chairman rests on his ability to persuade the other members of the committee that the choices they are making under his leadership will accomplish their objectives,” he said.

–Editor: Chris Anstey, Christopher Wellisz
To contact the reporter on this story:
Scott Lanman in Washington at +1-202-624-1934 or
slanman@bloomberg.net;
Steve Matthews in New Orleans at +1-404-507-1310 or
smatthews@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Chris Anstey at +1-202-624-1972 or canstey@bloomberg.net

♥

Share

Strong gdp and high credit losses

Posted on by

CNBC just had a session on trying to reconcile high gdp with large credit losses. Seems they are now seeing the consumer clipping along at a +2.8% pace for Q4. No need to rehash my ongoing position that most if not all the losses announced in the last 6 months would have little or no effect on aggregate demand. Credit losses hurt demand when the result is a drop in spending. And yes, that happened big time when the subprime crisis took the bid away from would be subprime buyers who no longer qualified to buy a house. That probably took 1% away from gdp, and the subsequent increase in
exports kept gdp pretty much where it was. But that story has been behind us for over a year.

The Fed is not in a good place. They should now know that the TAF operation should have been done in August to keep libor priced where they wanted it. They should know by now losses per se don’t alter aggregate demand, but only rearrange financial assets. The should know the fall off in subprime buyers was offset by exports.

The problem was the FOMC- as demonstrated by their speeches and actions- did not have an adequate working understanding of monetary operations and reserve accounting back in August, and by limiting the current TAFs to $20 billion it seems they still don’t even understand that it’s about price, and not quantity. Too many members of the FOMC
are mostly likely in a fixed exchange rate paradigm, with its fix exchange rate/gold standard fractional reserve banking system that drove us into the great depression. With fixed exchange rates it’s a ‘loanable funds’ world. Banks are ‘reserve constrained.’ Reserves and consequently ‘money supply’ are issues. Government solvency is an issue.

With today’s floating exchange rate regime none of that is applicable. The causation is ‘loans create deposits AND reserves,’ and bank capital is endogenous. There are no ‘imbalances’ as all current conditions are ‘priced’ in the fx market, including ANY sized trade gap, budget deficit, or rate of inflation.

The recession risk today is from a lack of effective demand. There are lots of ways this can happen- sudden drop in govt spending, sudden tax increase, consumers change ‘savings desires’ and cut back spending, sudden drop in exports, etc.- and in any case the govt can instantly fill in the gap with net spending to sustain demand at any level it desires. Yes, there will be inflation consequences, distribution consequences, but no govt. solvency consequences.

So yes, there is always the possibility of a recession. And domestic demand (without exports) has been moderating as the falling govt budget acts to reduce aggregate demand. But the rearranging of financial assets in this ‘great repricing of risk’ doesn’t necessarily reduce aggregate demand.

Meanwhile, the Saudis, as swing producer, keep raising the price of crude, and so far with no fall off in the demand for their crude at current prices, so they are incented to keep right on hiking. And they may even recognize that by spending their new found revenues on real goods and services (note the new mid east infrastructure projects in progress) they keep the world economy afloat and can keep hiking prices indefinitely.

And food is linked to fuel via biofuels, and as we continue to burn up every larger chunks of our food supply for fuel prices will keep rising.

The $US is probably stable to firm at current levels vs the non commodity currencies, as portfolio shifts have run their course, and these shifts have driven the $ down to levels where there are ‘real buyers’ as evidenced by rapidly growing exports.

Back to the Fed – they have cut 100 bp into the triple negative supply shock of food, crude, and the $/imported prices, due to blind fear of ‘market functioning’ that turned out to need nothing more than an open market operation with expanded acceptable bank collateral (the TAF program). If they had done that immediately (they had more than one outsider and insider recommend it) and fed funds/libor spreads and other ‘financial conditions’ moderated, would they have cut?

There has been no sign of ‘spillover’ into gdp from the great repricing of risk, food and crude have driven their various inflation measures to very uncomfortable levels,and they now believe they have ‘cooked in’ 100 bp of inflationary easing into the economy that works with about a one year lag.

Merry Christmas!

♥

Share

Inflation Picture has Deteriorated

Posted on by

He’s on the opposite spectrum from Yellen, but inflation has deteriorated to the point where risks are elevated.

Once the fed has figured out it can control the FF/LIBOR with TAF type or repo and ‘market functioning’ somewhat restored, I expect that the imperative to cut rates will be greatly diminished.

Fed’s Lacker: Inflation Picture has Deteriorated

From Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker: Economic Outlook

Since August … the inflation picture has deteriorated. In September and October, the overall PCE price index rose at a 3.3 percent annual rate, and the core index rose at a 2.6 percent rate. Judging by the closely related consumer price index, the numbers for November will be even worse. Now these numbers do display transitory swings, so I wouldn’t extrapolate them forward indefinitely. Still, I have to say that I am uncomfortable with the inflation picture, and disappointed that the improvement we saw earlier this year was not more lasting.

I am also troubled by the lengthy divergence we’ve seen between overall and core inflation. Some of you may recall that core inflation was devised in the 1970s to filter out some of the more volatile consumer prices to get a better read on inflation trends. For several decades, core inflation seemed to work well due to the fact that food and energy prices had no clear trend relative to the overall price level. In the last few years, though, overall inflation has been persistently above core inflation, and few observers expect oil prices to go back below $20 per barrel. Because the job of a central banker is to protect the purchasing power of currency, it is overall inflation that we need to keep down, not just core inflation. Going forward, markets expect oil prices to back off slightly from their current level, and I hope they are right. If energy prices fail to decline, monetary policy decisions will be that much more difficult in 2008.Lacker isn’t currently a voting member of the FOMC, and last year he voted against holding the Fed Funds rate steady several times: Voting against was Jeffrey M. Lacker, who preferred an increase of 25 basis points in the federal funds rate target at this meeting.So we need to keep Lacker’s comments in perspective; he is more hawkish on inflation than most of the FOMC members.

♥

Share

FOMC

Posted on by

(interoffice email)

> Dovish statement not matched by actions (no lowering of FF-Discount Rate
> spread). As Tom Brady recently commented, “Well done is better than well
> said”.

Yes, seems they ignored the FF/LIBOR an year end issues in general. After two cuts in the FF and the discount rates that did not address ‘market functioning’, markets wer discounting some positive action, such as a larger discount rate cut or removal of the stigma. This is very disconcerting and give the appearance that the fed ‘doesn’t get it’.

> KEY POINTS
> Slower economy is no longer a forecast, it’s a reality (“Economic gwth is
> slowing”), which means they could drop the word ‘forestall’.

Yes. Perhaps they mean the lower GDP forecasts when they say ‘slowing’, as not much else that has been released is signaling a slowdown.

>
> i.e., future easing is now to counter a weak economy not one likely to
> weaken
> They dropped the neutral bias, now saying only that ‘some inflation risks
> remain’
> Financial market deterioration mentioned twice: ‘Strains in financial
> markets have increased’, and ‘the deterioration in
> financial market conditions’.

Yes, but did nothing to address that issue.

> Former Fed Governor Philips on CNBC saying she was surprised additional
> action wasn’t taken on discount rate.
>
> The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to
>
> lower its target for the federal funds rate 25 basis points
>
> to 4 1/4 percent.
>
>
>
> Incoming information suggests that economic growth is
>
> slowing, reflecting intensification of the housing
>
> correction and some softening in business and consumer
>
> spending. Moreover, strains in financial markets have
>
> increased in recent weeks. Today’s action, combined with the
>
> policy actions taken earlier, should help promote moderate
>
> growth over time.
>
> Readings on core inflation have improved modestly this
>
> year, but elevated energy and commodity prices, among other
>
> factors, may put upward pressure on inflation. In this
>
> context, the Committee judges that some inflation risks
>
> remain, and it will continue to monitor inflation developments carefully.
>
>
>
> Recent developments, including the deterioration in
>
> financial market conditions, have increased the uncertainty
>
> surrounding the outlook for economic growth and inflation.

Uncertainty increased for both.

>
> The Committee will continue to assess the effects of
>
> financial and other developments on economic prospects and
>
> will act as needed to foster price stability and sustainable
>
> economic growth.
>
Again, nothing about market functioning or liquidity.

OCT Statement

Economic growth was solid in the third quarter, and strains in financial markets have eased somewhat on balance. However, the pace of economic expansion will likely slow in the near term, partly reflecting the intensification of the housing correction. Today’s action, combined with the policy action taken in September, should help forestall some of the adverse effects on the broader economy that might otherwise arise from the disruptions in financial markets and promote moderate growth over time.

Readings on core inflation have improved modestly this year, but recent increases in energy and commodity prices, among other factors, may put renewed upward pressure on inflation. In this context, the Committee judges that some inflation risks remain, and it will continue to monitor inflation developments carefully.

The Committee judges that, after this action, the upside risks to inflation roughly balance the downside risks to growth. The Committee will continue to assess the effects of financial and other developments on economic prospects and will act as needed to foster price stability and sustainable economic growth.

♥

Share