Bernanke, King Risk Inflation to Extend Growth Party

Mainstream economists will be increasingly stating that the real GDP ‘speed limit’ is falling or even negative. That is, the non
inflationary growth potential has dropped, and any attempt to support real growth at higher than that ‘non inflationary natural rate’ will only accelerate an already more than problematic inflation rate.

That puts the Fed in the position of either not accommodating the negative supply shocks of food/crude/imported prices or driving up inflation and making things much worse not too far in the future.

And they all believe that once you let the inflation cat out of the bag – expectations elevate- it’s to late and the long struggle to bring it down begins.

So yes, the economy is weak, but they will be thinking that’s the best it can do as demand is still sufficient to support accelerating inflation.

Bernanke, King Risk Inflation to Extend Growth Party

2008-01-03 04:17 (New York)
By Simon Kennedy
(Bloomberg)

Ben S. Bernanke, Mervyn King and fellow central bankers may go on filling up the world economy’s punch bowl in 2008, even at the risk of an inflationary hangover.

Signs that the party is ending for global growth are keeping monetary policy leaning in the same direction at major central banks, with those in the U.K. and Canada likely to join Bernanke’s Federal Reserve in cutting interest rates again. The same conditions may lead the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, which shelved plans for raising rates, to remain on hold for months.

“I expect 2008 to mark the beginning of another global liquidity cycle,” says Joachim Fels, Morgan Stanley’s London-based co-chief economist. “More signs of slowdown or even recession are likely to swing the balance towards more aggressive monetary easing in the advanced economies.”

Going against former Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin’s famous central-banker job description — “to take away the punch bowl just when the party gets going” — isn’t an easy call for Bernanke, Bank of England Governor King and other policy makers. Global inflation is the fastest in a decade, say economists at JPMorgan Chase & Co., and easier money policy may accelerate it further.

“Slowing growth and rising inflation will test central bankers to the full,” in 2008, says Nick Kounis, an economist at Fortis Bank NV in Amsterdam.

Hoarding Cash

After growing since 2003 at the fastest rate in three decades, the world economy is being threatened by a surge in credit costs as banks hoard cash and write off losses tied to investments in U.S. mortgages. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris estimates global growth in 2008 will be the weakest since 2003.

In the U.S., the slowdown may turn into recession this year, say economists at Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch & Co.

Fed officials signaled yesterday they are now as concerned about a faltering U.S. economy as they are about stability in financial markets. The central bankers anticipated growth that was “somewhat more sluggish” than their previous estimate, according to minutes of the Dec. 11 Federal Open Market Committee.

A contraction in the U.S. would drag down economies worldwide, say Goldman Sachs Group Inc. economists, who have dropped their previous view that the rest of the world can “decouple” from America’s economic ups and downs.

‘Recoupling’

Jim O’Neill, chief economist at Goldman Sachs in London, says that “2008 is the year of recoupling.”

The gloomy outlook may be apparent as central bankers including Bernanke, 54, and ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet, 65, gather Jan. 6-7 for meetings at the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland.

“Downside risks to growth will trump their inflation concerns,” says Larry Hatheway, chief economist at UBS AG in London and a former Fed researcher.

After three reductions in the U.S. federal funds rate last year, the Fed begins 2008 with the benchmark at 4.25 percent, the lowest since Bernanke became chairman in 2006.

Easier monetary policy isn’t the only tool central bankers are using to relieve strains in markets. The Fed and counterparts in Europe and Canada last month began auctioning cash to money markets in their biggest coordinated action since just after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Complementary Medicine

Such operations don’t change “the fact that the central banks still need to cut rates,” says David Brown, chief European economist at Bear Stearns International in London. “It is complementary medicine to improve the situation.”

Economists expect more medicine this year, and investors are demanding it. UBS, Deutsche Bank AG and Dresdner Kleinwort, the most accurate forecasters of U.S. interest rates in 2007, say the benchmark will fall below 4 percent this year. Futures trading suggests a better-than-even chance that will happen before April and investors increased bets yesterday the Fed will cut its key rate by a half-point this month.

The central banks’ choice to help growth will be proven right if economic weakness helps bring inflation down anyway. Global price increases will fade to 2.1 percent this year, the lowest since records began in the early 1970s, as growth slows, according to the OECD.

That outcome is far from guaranteed. In leaning toward easier monetary policy, central banks are accepting the risk that lower rates now may mean higher prices later.

Consumer Prices

U.S. consumer prices in November jumped the most in more than two years, while those in the euro area rose at the fastest pace since May 2001. The Fed’s Open Market Committee said Dec. 11 that “inflation risks remain,” and it will “monitor inflation developments carefully.”

King’s Bank of England, like the Fed, may put aside inflation concerns for now. Its Monetary Policy Committee voted unanimously to cut its benchmark by a quarter-point to 5.5 percent on Dec. 6, an unexpected shift after King, 59, had said two weeks earlier that the price outlook was “less benign.”

Alan Castle, chief U.K. economist at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in London, forecasts that the BOE will cut rates twice more by June, or even go to a half-point reduction as early as February.

Inflation Challenge

At the Bank of Canada, a Bloomberg survey of economists forecasts that Governor David Dodge, 64, in his final decision Jan. 22, will lower the benchmark by another quarter-point after having lopped it to 4.25 percent on Dec. 4. The inflation challenge for Dodge and his successor Mark Carney, 42, is less acute because a surge in the Canadian dollar has restrained prices.

Even the Bank of Japan, whose 0.5 percent benchmark rate is the lowest in the industrial world, may need to cut for the first time since 2001, say economists at Mizuho Securities and Mitsubishi UFJ in Tokyo. While most economists expect the BOJ to remain on hold through the first half of 2008, the bank in December cut its assessment of Japan’s economy for the first time in three years.

The ECB has less room to pare borrowing costs as its own economists predict inflation will accelerate next year and stay above their goal of just below 2 percent. Trichet said last month that some of his colleagues already wanted to impose higher borrowing costs as rising inflation proves more “protracted” than they expected.

European Growth

While that may keep the ECB from lowering its main rate from 4 percent, it won’t lift the rate either, says Jose Luis Alzola, an economist at Citigroup Inc. in London. By the last half of 2008, a “modest rate cut is increasingly probable as growth disappoints,” he adds.

If Bernanke and his counterparts do succeed in dodging recession, they may wind up removing the punch bowl by year’s end, following Martin’s maxim about what central banks have to do as soon as the party “gets going.”

“All central banks are likely to face a sterner global inflation environment,” says Dominic White, an economist at ABN Amro Holding NV in London. By the end of the year, some, including the Fed, ECB and BOJ, “could be forced to tighten policy aggressively as growth recovers,” he says.


Friday mid day

Food, crude, metals up, dollar down, inflation up all over the world, well beyond CB ‘comfort levels.’

Nov new home sales continue weak, though there are probably fewer ‘desirable’ new homes priced to sell, and with starts are down the new supply will continue to be low for a while.

The December Chicago pmi was a bit higher than expected, probably due to export industries. Price index still high though off a touch from Nov highs.

So again it’s high inflation and soft gdp.

Markets continue to think the Fed doesn’t care about any level of inflation and subsequently discount larger rate cuts.

Mainstream theory says if inflation is rising demand is too high, no matter what level of gdp that happens to corresponds with. And by accommodating the headline cpi increases with low real interest rates, the theory says the Fed is losing it’s fight (and maybe its desire) to keep a relative value story from turning into an inflation story. This is also hurting long term output and employment, as low inflation is a necessary condition for optimal growth and employment long term.

A January fed funds cut with food and energy still rising and the $ still low will likely bring out a torrent of mainstream objections.


Calories, Capital, Climate Spur Asian Anxiety

Higher oil prices mean lower rates from the Fed, and higher inflation rates induced by shortages mean stronger currencies abroad.

Why do I have so much trouble getting aboard this paradigm, and instead keep looking for reversals? Feels a lot like watching the NASDAQ go from 3500 to 5000 a few years ago.

:(

Calories, Capital, Climate Spur Asian Anxiety

2007-12-26 17:51 (New York)
by Andy Mukherjee

(Bloomberg) — The new year may be a challenging one for Asian policy makers.

Year-end U.S. closing stocks for wheat are the lowest in six decades; soybeans in Chicago touched a 34-year peak this week. Palm oil in Malaysia climbed to a record yesterday.

The steeply rising cost of calories may be more than just cyclical, notes Rob Subbaraman, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. economist in Hong Kong. Growing use of food crops in biofuels and increasing demand for a protein-rich diet in developing countries may have pushed up prices more permanently.

The wholesale price of pork in China has surged 53 percent in the past year.

“Consumer inflationary expectations may soon rise, feeding into wage growth and core inflation, but we expect Asian central banks to be slow to react, initially due to slowing growth and later because of strong capital inflows,” Subbaraman says.

If the U.S. Federal Reserve continues easing interest rates to combat a housing-led economic slowdown, a surge in capital inflows into Asia may indeed become a stumbling block in managing the inflationary impact of higher commodity prices.

Food and energy account for more than two-fifths of the Chinese consumer-price index, compared with 17 percent for countries such as the U.K., U.S. and Canada, and 25 percent in the euro area, according to UBS AG economist Paul Donovan in London.

As Asian central banks raise interest rates — when the Fed is cutting them — they will invite even more foreign capital into the region. That will cause Asian currencies to appreciate, leading to a loss of competitiveness for the region’s exports.

Carbon Emissions

On the other hand, paring the domestic cost of money prematurely may worsen the inflation challenge.

That isn’t all.

Higher oil prices will also boost the attractiveness of coal as an energy source, delaying any meaningful reduction in carbon emissions in fast-growing Asian nations such as China and India.

As Daniel Gros, director of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels, noted in recent research, the price of coal — relative to crude oil — has been halved since the end of 1999. And per unit of energy produced, coal is a much bigger pollutant than oil or gas.

This doesn’t augur well for the environment.

“Given that China is likely to install over the next decade more new power generation capacity than already exists in all of Europe, this implies that the current level of high oil prices provides incentive to make the Chinese economy even more intensive in carbon than it would otherwise be,” Gros said.

Beijing Olympics

Climate-related issues will be in the spotlight in Asia next year. China’s eagerness to use the Beijing Olympic Games to showcase solutions to its huge environmental challenges will be one of the “big things to watch for” in Asia in 2008, Spire Research and Consulting, a Singapore-based advisory firm, said last week.

Even if China succeeds in reducing air pollution during the Olympics, the improvements may not endure after the sporting event ends on Aug. 24, especially since the underlying economics continue to favor higher coal usage.

A drop in hydrocarbon prices might help check emissions and global warming, Gros noted last week on the Web site of VoxEu.org.

In fact, lower oil prices may also make food costs more stable by lessening the craze for biofuels.

That will leave capital flows as Asia’s No. 1 challenge in 2008. And it won’t be an easy one for policy makers to tackle.

Capital Inflows

Take India’s example.

The $900 billion economy has attracted $100 billion in capital in the 12 months through October, with a third of the money entering the country as overseas borrowings, according to Morgan Stanley economist Chetan Ahya in Singapore.

This has caused the rupee to appreciate more than 12 percent against the dollar this year, knocking off more than three percentage points from India’s inflation index, says Lombard Street Research economist Maya Bhandari in London.

Naturally, exporters are complaining.

So why doesn’t India cut domestic interest rates? It can’t do that without the risk of stoking inflation.

Money supply is growing at an annual pace of more than 21 percent in India, compared with the central bank’s target of between 17 percent and 17.5 percent. Inflation has held well below the central bank’s estimate of 5 percent for five straight months partly because of the government’s insistence on not passing the full cost of imported fuel to local consumers. It isn’t yet time for monetary easing in India.

China has it worse. Monetary conditions there remain dangerously loose. And China may be reluctant to do much about the undervalued yuan — the root cause of its record trade surpluses and the attendant liquidity glut — until the Olympics are out of the way.

Asian economies may, to a large extent, be insulated from the subprime mess. Still, 2008 won’t be all fun and games.

(Andy Mukherjee is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

–Editors: James Greiff, Ron Rhodes.

To contact the writer of this column:
Andy Mukherjee in Singapore at +65-6212-1591 or
amukherjee@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this column:
James Greiff at +1-212-617-5801 or jgreiff@bloomberg.net


it’s about price, not quantity

It’s about price, not quantity.

CB’s don’t alter net reserve positions – they ‘offset operating factors’ and set interest rates.

Fed to redeem $14.02 bln of bill holdings Dec. 27

Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:20am EST

NEW YORK, Dec 20 (Reuters) – The U.S. Federal Reserve said on Thursday it will redeem the full amount of maturing Treasury bill holdings, amounting to $14.02 billion on Dec. 27.

The redemption, a move to drain liquidity from the banking system, will take place via the Federal Reserve’s System Open Market Account or SOMA.

“The Federal Reserve Open Market Trading Desk will continue to evaluate the need for the use of other tools, including further
Treasury bill redemptions, reverse repurchase agreements and Treasury bill sales,” the Fed said in a statement on the New York Fed’s Web site. (Reporting by John Parry; Editing by James Dalgleish)


SOV CDS

From: ABNAMRO CREDIT SALES (ABN AMRO)
At: 12/20 5:18:53

10YR 5YR
BELGUIM 19/21 11/15
FRANCE 10/12 6/9
GERMANY 8/10 4/7
GREECE 29/31 22/24
ITALY 29/31 21/23
PORTUGAL 26/28 20/22
SPAIN 25 1/2/27 1/2 19/21
UK 9/11 5/8
USA 8/11 5/8

In the Eurozone, it’s probably the case that if one goes, they all go, and the shorter the better as if they don’t go bad, market will continue to think they never will and you’ll be able to reload reasonably. That’s why I bought two-year Germany a while back at maybe two cents. Don’t know where that is now.

And by buying the least expensive, you can buy more of it for the same price.

US and UK look way overpriced, as Japan was. No inherent default risk for the US, though congress could elect to default for political purpose, which happened in 1996 (?), when Ruben tricked them into not defaulting.


♥

Inflation Picture has Deteriorated

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.


Fed finally gets it?

The Fed was finally successful in cutting the fed funds/libor spread with a glorified 28 day repo, after failing to narrow the spread with 100 bp of rate cuts.

Narrowing the ff/libor spread ‘automatically’ lowers various libor based funding rates, probably including jumbo mtg rates, which have been a concern of the Fed as well.

Makes me wonder if they would have cut the ff rate if they had used this ‘facility’ and narrowed the ff/libor spread right away back in August?


The Trillion Dollar Day

The Trillion Dollar Day

Yesterday, $1.048 trillion dollars was printed out of thin air, which gave the globe its first Trillion Dollar Day.

Everyday, all government spending is ‘printed out of thin air’, and all payments to the government ‘vanish into thin air’.

However, there were no net payments yesterday for all practical purposes.

$506 bb was injected by the ECB into European Banks,

The uninformed language continues with ‘injected’ implying net funds ‘forced in’ somehow.

All that happened was the ECB offered funds at a lower interest rate to replace funds available from the ECB at higher interest rates. This has no effect on aggregate demand.

$518 bb was earmarked as an addon to the USA federal spending for 2008

Federal deficit spending does increase net financial assets of the ‘non government’ sectors. That is more properly called ‘injecting’ funds, as government exchanges credit balances for real goods and services (buy things), thereby adding to aggregate demand.

plus, $24 bb was taken by banks from other central banks to shore up reserves.

Not what happened. It was all about substituting one maturity for another.

Most importantly, 3 month Libor and Euro Dollar rates declined by only 15 – 20 basis points. The markets expected these rates to decline more as a sign of greater liquidity. The European and USA markets sold off over night and this morning in reaction to stubbornly high short-term rates.

When the CB’s fully understand their own reserve accounting and monetary operations, they will offer unlimited funds at or just over their target rates and maturities and also have a bid for funds at or just under their target.

An anonymous person from the ECB told Bloomberg this morning that the $518 bb was the single greatest injection of emergency lending in central bank history

Probably. Interesting thing to remember for trivial pursuits.

and that it was a climatic effort to free up inter-bank lending.

Should have been done long ago. CB’s main job as single supplier of net reserves is setting rates.

They also said it was all that they could do (for now).

It’s not all that they can do. Operationally, it’s simply debits and credits, for the most part totally offsetting with no net funds involved, not that it matters for the ECB anyway.

Here is my take on ECB efforts as I have discussed with members of our firm. Some bank(s) and/or investment bank(s) most likely have sustained huge market to market losses that they must bring onto their balance sheets soon, which are causing them and others who fear losses from counter parties in our $500 trillion plus derivatives market. My suspicion is that these losses include derivative losses that are not directly related to subprime.

OK. Point?

I also think that the FED and Central Banks have suspected the above since August 2007, which caused them to reverse course from fighting inflation to supply liquidity to save the banking and financial system.

Seems to be the mainstream view right now?

I also do not have much faith in central banks and government authorities ability to manage a widespread financial crisis because THEY created this crisis with their lose money and lax regulatory practices that have been rampant since 2002.

Point?

There is also evidence that USA government spending and deficits are much larger than actually reported since 2002. I have found reports from numerous ex-GOA officials and current GOA staff that have come clean with our BUDGET. Former government officials are now reporting that TSY SEC O’Neil was fired because he wanted to right the ship at GOA and report true numbers in his reports to Congress and the American public.

If they were larger than reporter and added more aggregate demand than appears on the surface, they are responsible for sustaining growth and employment.

Below is a take on this from John Williams. John also publishes the CPI using pre-1982 methods that show annualized CPI running 3-4% higher than reported under current methods.

I recall that debate and the results seemed very reasonable at the time. Can’t remember all the details now.

Here are adjusted Budget numbers for 2006-2007.

The results summarized in the following table show that the GAAP-based deficit, including the annual change in the net present value of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare narrowed to $1.2 trillion in 2007 from $4.6 trillion in 2006. The reported reduction in the deficit, however, was due to a one-time legislative-related accounting change in Medicare Part B that likely will be reversed, and, in any event, needs to be viewed on a consistent year-to-year accounting basis.

On a consistent basis, year-to-year, I estimate the 2007 deficit at $5.6 trillion, or worse, based on the government’s explanation of the process and cost estimates.

What matters from the macro level is the fiscal balance that adds/subtracts from the current year aggregate demand. This was learned the hard way in 1937 when, if I recall correctly, tax revenue from the new social security program was put in a trust fund and not counted as federal revenue for purposes of reporting fiscal balance and funds available for federal spending. The result was a fiscal shock/drop in demand that upped unemployment to 19% after having come down close to 10%.

From Note 22 of the financial statements, under “SMI Part B Physician Update Factor:”

“The projected Part B expenditure growth reflected in the accompanying 2007 Statement of Social Insurance is significantly reduced as a result of the structure of physician payment updates under current law. In the absence of legislation, this structure would result in multiple years of significant reductions in physician payments, totaling an estimated 41 percent over the next 9 years. Reductions of this magnitude are not feasible and are very unlikely to occur fully in practice. For example, Congress has overridden scheduled negative updates for each of the last 5 years in practice. However, since these reductions are required in the future under the current-law payment system, they are reflected in the accompanying 2007 State of Social Insurance as required under GAAP. Consequently, the projected actuarial present values of Part B expenditure shown in the accompanying 2007 Statement of Social Insurance is likely understated (my emphasis).”

Since this was handled differently in last year’s accounting, the change reduced the reported relative deficit. The difference would be $4.4 trillion, per the government, if physician payment updates were set at zero. I used that estimate, tentatively, for the estimates of consistent year-to-year reporting, but such likely will be updated in the full analysis that follows in the December SGS.

With Social Security and Medicare liabilities ignored, the GAAP deficits for 2007 and 2006 were $275.5 billion and $449.5 billion, respectively. Those numbers contrast with the otherwise formal and accounting-gimmicked cash-based deficits of $168.8 billion (2007) and $248.2 billion (2006).

Yes, net government spending may increase over time and may lead to higher rates of reported inflation, but solvency is not the issue.

These ‘deficit terrorists’ totally miss the point; fore, if they did ‘get it’ they would be doing the work and projecting future inflation rates, not just deficit levels.

Furthermore, they ignore the demand drains, like pension fund contributions, IRA’s, insurance reserves, corporate reserves, etc. that also grow geometrically and help ‘explain’ how government can deficit spend as much as it does without excess demand driving nominal growth to hyper inflationary levels.


Libor rates & spreads: down in GBP & EUR, stable in US

Thanks, Dave, my thought are the Fed will also ‘do what it takes’ which means setting price and letting quantity for term funding float.

The ECB doing 500 billion without ‘monetary consequences’ beyond lowering the term rates should have been no surprise to anyone who understands monetary ops, and confirmation of same for those central bankers who may have needed it demonstrated.


Libor rates; no surprises, most of them are down, especially in longer expiries (3mth+) -see table below-. GBP3m -18bp helped by yesterday’s auction. EUR 3m -4.75bp and probably more tomorrow.

Libor spreads.- In 3mth -spot- rates, sharp declines in EUR (-6bp to 78bp) and GBP (-14bp to 76bp) while the US spread remains fairly stable at 80.3bp (-1bp).

It seems the BoE and ECB have taken bolder actions to provide liquidity (see this morning’s message on the ECB LTRO). Let’s see the results of the 1st $20bn TAF later today.

19-Dec
Libor Rate
18-Dec
Libor Rate
Change in
% Points
18-Dec
Libor
17-Dec
Libor
Change in
% Points
USD Overnight 4.34500% 4.40000% -0.05500% 4.40000% 4.41750% -0.01750%
USD 1 Week 4.38875% 4.38625% 0.00250% 4.38625% 4.36375% 0.02250%
USD 3 Month 4.91000% 4.92625% -0.01625% 4.92625% 4.94125% -0.01500%
USD 12 Month 4.41750% 4.47188% -0.05438% 4.47188% 4.51875% -0.04687%
EUR Overnight 3.86125% 3.82750% 0.03375% 3.82750% 3.98875% -0.16125%
EUR 1 Week 4.01000% 4.01625% -0.00625% 4.01625% 4.06625% -0.05000%
EUR 3 Month 4.80125% 4.84875% -0.04750% 4.84875% 4.94688% -0.09813%
EUR 12 Month 4.80250% 4.80750% -0.00500% 4.80750% 4.88313% -0.07563%
GBP Overnight 5.58750% 5.59750% -0.01000% 5.59750% 5.59750% 0.00000%
GBP 1 Week 5.61125% 5.63250% -0.02125% 5.63250% 5.64125% -0.00875%
GBP 3 Month 6.20563% 6.38625% -0.18062% 6.38625% 6.43125% -0.04500%
GBP 12 Month 5.88000% 5.94500% -0.06500% 5.94500% 5.96375% -0.01875%

Re: ffm questions

On Dec 18, 2007 1:09 AM, Scott Fullwiler wrote:
> Hi Warren
>
> A few questions on your take on fed funds market data–
>
> Std dev of fed funds rate is way up since summer compared to normal, but
> looking at the high-low numbers, the deviation (at least max deviation) is
> most significant on the low end (since August 15, it’s been more than 0.5
> below the target rate 54 times and more than 1% below 37 times) .  The high
> has only been more than 1% above the target a few times (7), though it’s
> been above 0.5% more than the target 26 times since mid-August (so much for
> doing away with frown costs).
>
> Anyway . . . what are your thoughts regarding how this persistent, sizable
> deviation on the low end is consistent with the story you’re generally
> telling? (i.e., Fed needs to lower discount rate to target and eliminate
> stigma)

Hi Scott,

My best guess is with the discount rate above the funds rate the NY Fed can’t keep the banks in a ‘net borrowed’ position or the bid for funds gaps up to something over the discount rate.  So instead, they are trying to target ‘flat’ and err on the side of letting banks be a bit long as evidenced by funds dipping below the target, and then acting to offset that move.

Also, the NY Fed sets a ‘stop’ on the repo rate when it intervenes, and with the spread between ff and repo fluctuating more than before ‘the crisis’ it may be more difficult for the NY desk to pick the right repo rate to correspond with their interest rate target.

When the discount rate was below the ff rate it was a lot easier – they just kept banks net borrowed which caused them bid funds up above the discount rate and the Fed allowed them to continue higher until the got about 1/8% above the ff target and then intervene to make reserves available via open market operations at the equiv. repo rate.

The NY Fed isn’t saying anything about what they see happening, and why there is so much variation, which doesn’t help either.  Here’s a spot where a little transparency and guidance can go a long way.

Further thoughts?

Warren

Is it as simple as saying there’s a lot more uncertainty in money
> markets and regarding the Fed’s reactions to the uncertainty?  Perhaps,
> since the effective rate has been above the target (37 times) almost as much
> as below (45 times).
>
> Thanks.
> Scott
>
> —
> ******************************

************************
> Scott T. Fullwiler, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor of Economics
> James A. Leach Chair in Banking and Monetary Economics
>
> Department of Business Administration and Economics
> Wartburg College
> 100 Wartburg Blvd
> Waverly, IA  50677