Tag: Narayana Kocherlakota

Must-Read: Narayana Kocherlakota: Three Antidotes to the Brexit Crisis

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: Correct, IMHO, from the very sharp Narayana Kocherlakota. Now perhaps his successor Neel Kashkari and the other Reserve Bank presidents not named Charlie Evans might give him some back up?

The one thing I do not like is Narayana’s “Granted, there is a risk that such steps will spook markets by signaling that the Fed is concerned about the state of the U.S. financial system.” That sentence seems to me to misread market psychology completely. As I see it–and as the people in markets I talk to say–right now markets are fairly completely spooked by their belief that the Federal Reserve is unconcerned, and takes that lack of concern as a sign of Federal Reserve detachment from reality. Narayana’s following sentences seems to me to be highly likely to be the right take: “I’d say the markets are already pretty spooked” and “By demonstrating that it is paying attention to these obvious signals, the Fed can help to bolster confidence in its economic management”.

Let me stress that, at least from where I sit, that confidence in Federal Reserve economic management is, right now, lacking.

The people I talk to in financial markets tend to say that they believe markets took Stan Fischer on January 5 to be something of a wake-up call with respect to Fed groupthink:

Liesman: When I looked at where the market is priced, the market is priced below where the Fed median forecast is. Quite a bit. Two rate hikes really, if you count them in quarter points. Does that concern you that the market needs to catch up with where the Fed is or is it a matter of you think the Fed needs to recalibrate to where the market is?

Fischer: Well, we watch what the market thinks, but we can’t be led by what the market thinks. We’ve got to make our own analysis. We make our own analysis and our analysis says that the market is underestimating where we are going to be. You know, you can’t rule out that there is some probability they are right because there’s uncertainty. But we think that they are too low.

For eight straight years now the Federal Reserve has been more optimistic than the markets. And for eight straight years now the markets have been closer to being correct. And yet the Federal Reserve still believes that it “can’t be led by what the market thinks” and has “got to make our own analysis”? Why?

Narayana Kocherlakota: Three Antidotes to the Brexit Crisis: “The Fed should ensure that banks have enough loss-absorbing equity capital…

…not allow them to return equity to shareholders…. The measure should apply to all banks, so markets won’t read it as a signal about individual institutions’ relative strength. Second, there’s a risk that investors’ flight to safe assets could develop into a broader credit freeze. To mitigate this, the Fed should lower its short-term interest-rate target…. Finally, the Fed should consider reviving the Term Auction Facility, which allows banks to borrow funds from the central bank with less of the stigma…. Granted, there is a risk that such steps will spook markets by signaling that the Fed is concerned about the state of the U.S. financial system. That said, as an outsider who gets much of his information from Twitter, I’d say the markets are already pretty spooked. By demonstrating that it is paying attention to these obvious signals, the Fed can help to bolster confidence in its economic management. One important lesson of the last financial crisis is that the guarantors of stability must be proactive if they want to be effective. It’s time for the Fed to put that lesson into practice.

Must-Read: Narayana Kocherlakota: There Goes the Fed’s Credibility

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: By now we can no longer understand the Federal Reserve Chair as needing to maintain harmony on a committee that has on it many regional reserve bank presidents who have failed to process the lessons of 2005-2015. By now all the regional bank presidents are people whom the Federal Reserve Board has had an opportunity to veto:

There Goes the Fed s Credibility Bloomberg View

Narayana Kocherlakota: There Goes the Fed’s Credibility: “The Federal Reserve promised to keep its preferred measure of inflation…

…close to 2 percent over the longer run…. Some would say that central banks are out of ammunition…. Actually, though, the Fed has been deliberately tightening monetary policy over the past three years. Just last week, Chair Janet Yellen made a point of saying that the Fed intends to keep raising interest rates in the coming months….

Would it have started pulling back on stimulus in May 2013 if its short-term interest-rate target had been at 5 percent instead of near zero, and if it hadn’t been holding trillions of dollars in bonds? I strongly suspect that the Fed would instead have added stimulus by lowering interest rates…. The Fed’s current course is driven not by the state of the economy, but by a desire to get interest rates and its balance sheet back to what is considered ‘normal.’ Savers, bankers and many politicians agree with this objective…. The Fed, however, promised to focus on actual economic outcomes….

Investors’ doubts [about the Fed] aren’t surprising, given the Fed’s focus on ‘normalizing’ interest rates rather than on hitting its inflation target. Such concerns will create an extra drag on the economy if and when bad times do come. In other words, the Fed’s willingness to renege on its promises seems likely to make the next recession worse than it otherwise would be.

Must-read: Narayana Kocherlakota: Hayek’s Ideas

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: Narayana Kocherlakota: Hayek’s Ideas:

Must-read: Narayana Kocherlakota: “The World Needs More U.S. Government Debt”

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: Narayana Kocherlakota: The World Needs More U.S. Government Debt: “Are government-imposed restrictions holding back the U.S. economy?…

…In a way, yes: The federal government is causing great harm by failing to issue enough debt.

The U.S. generates more income than any other country, and will keep doing so for many years to come. The federal government can generate a lot of revenue by taxing this income — a power that puts it in a unique position to issue the kind of extremely safe bonds that are in great demand among the world’s investors. How is the U.S. government wielding its power? Not well. The yield on a 20-year inflation-protected Treasury bond, at just over 0.5 percent, is nearly two full percentage points lower than it was 10 years ago. This means that the price is near record highs, suggesting that the U.S. government’s supply of such safe investments is falling far short of demand. In other words, we’re starving the world of desperately needed financial safety. To some, the idea that the U.S. government isn’t issuing enough debt may seem counterintuitive — after all, federal debt outstanding has more than doubled over the past 10 years. But scarcity is not about supply alone. In the wake of the financial crisis, households and businesses are demanding more safe assets to protect themselves against sudden downturns. Similarly, regulators are requiring banks to hold more safe assets. Market prices tell us that the government needs to produce more safety in order to meet this increased demand. The scarcity of safety creates hardships for people and businesses…

Must-read: Narayana Kocherlakota: “Information in Inflation Breakevens about Fed Credibility”

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: Whenever I look at a graph like this, I think: “Doesn’t this graph tell me that the last two years were the wrong time to give up sniffing glue the zero interest-rate policy”? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Graph 3 Month Treasury Bill Secondary Market Rate FRED St Louis Fed

And Narayana Kocherlakota agrees, and makes the case:

Narayana Kocherlakota: Information in Inflation Breakevens about Fed Credibility: “The Federal Open Market Committee has been gradually tightening monetary policy since mid-2013…

…Concurrent with the Fed’s actions, five year-five year forward  inflation breakevens have declined by almost a full percentage point since mid-2014.  I’ve been concerned about this decline for some time (as an FOMC member, I dissented from Committee actions in October and December 2014 exactly because of this concern).  In this post, I explain why I see a decline in inflation breakevens as being a very worrisome signal about the FOMC’s credibility (which I define to be investor/public confidence in the Fed’s ability and/or willingness to achieve its mandated objectives over an extended period of time).

First, terminology.   The ten-year breakeven refers to the difference in yields between a standard (nominal) 10-year Treasury and an inflation-protected 10-year Treasury (called TIPS).  Intuitively, this difference in yields is shaped by investors’ beliefs about inflation over the next ten years.  The five-year breakeven is the same thing, except that it’s over five years, rather than 10.  

Then, the five-year five-year forward breakeven is defined to be the difference between the 10-year breakeven and the five-year breakeven.   Intuitively, this difference in yields is shaped by beliefs about inflation over a five year horizon that starts five years from now.   In particular, there is no reason for beliefs about inflation over, say, the next couple years to affect the five-year five-year forward breakeven. 

Conceptually, the five-year five-year forward breakeven can be thought of as the sum of two components:
 
1. investors’ best forecast about what inflation will average 5 to 10 years from now

  1. the inflation risk premium over a horizon five to ten years from now – that is, the extra yield over that horizon that investors demand for bearing the inflation risk embedded in standard Treasuries.
     
    (There’s also a liquidity-premium component, but movements in this component have not been all that important in the past two years.) 

There is often a lot of discussion about how to divide a given change in breakevens in these two components.  My own assessment is that both components have declined.  But my main point will be a decline in either component is a troubling signal about FOMC credibility.  

It is well-understood why a decline in the first component should be seen as problematic for FOMC credibility.  The FOMC has pledged to deliver 2% inflation over the long run.  If investors see this pledge as credible, their best forecast of inflation over five to ten year horizon should also be 2%.   A decline in the first component of breakevens signals a decline in this form of credibility.  

Let me turn then to the inflation-risk premium (which is generally thought to move around a lot more than inflation forecasts). A decline in the inflation risk premium means that investors are demanding less compensation (in terms of yield) for bearing inflation risk. In other words, they increasingly see standard Treasuries as being a better hedge against macroeconomic risks than TIPs.  

But Treasuries are only a better hedge than TIPs against macroeconomic risk if inflation turns out to be low when economic activity turns out to be low.  This observation is why a decline in the inflation risk premium has information about FOMC credibility.  The decline reflects investors’ assigning increasing probability to a scenario in which inflation is low over an extended period at the same time that employment is low – that is, increasing probability to a scenario in which both employment and prices are too low relative to the FOMC’s goals. 

Should we see such a change in investor beliefs since mid-2014 as being ‘crazy’ or ‘irrational’? The FOMC is continuing to tighten monetary policy in the face of marked disinflationary pressures, including those from commodity price declines.  Through these actions, the Committee is communicating an aversion to the use of its primary monetary policy tools: extraordinarily low interest rates and large assetholdings. Isn’t it natural, given this communication, that investors would increasingly put weight on the possibility of an extended period in which prices and employment are too low relative to the FOMC’s goals?

To sum up: we’ve seen a marked decline in the five year-five year forward inflation breakevens since mid-2014.  This decline is likely attributable to a simultaneous fall in investors’ forecasts of future inflation and to a fall in the inflation risk premium.   My main point is that both of these changes suggest that there has been a decline in the FOMC’s credibility.   

To be clear: as I well know, in the world of policymaking, no signal comes without noise.  But the risks for monetary policymakers associated with a slippage in the inflation anchor are considerable.   Given these risks, I do believe that it would be wise for the Committee to be responsive to the ongoing decline in inflation breakevens by reversing course on its current tightening path.

Must-read: Narayana Kocherlakota: “The Fed’s Credibility Dilemma”

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: Narayana Kocherlakota: The Fed’s Credibility Dilemma: “What will happen if inflationary pressures prove stronger than expected…

…over the next year or so. In principle, the Fed can curb inflation by raising its interest-rate target sufficiently rapidly. In practice… it must break either its commitment to move gradually, or to keep inflation close to 2 percent… [and] will lose credibility. Worse, suppose that economic growth turns out to be weaker…. Again… communication becomes an obstacle: By expressing its strong preference for normalization, the Fed has been telling investors that they can safely ignore the possibility of a reduction in rates (at the end of her March 16 press conference, for example, Chair Janet Yellen stressed that officials are not even discussing the possibility of adding stimulus). So to respond appropriately… the Fed would have to renege….

Ironically, the Fed’s perceived commitment not to cut interest rates could actually make it reluctant to raise them…. To maintain flexibility… they might choose not to raise rates in the first place. That way they’ll run a smaller risk of being forced to go back on their normalization commitment. So what, if any, plans should the Fed communicate?… They should be much clearer about their willingness to make large and rapid changes in monetary policy… stress that they are ready to do ‘whatever it takes’ to keep employment up and inflation near target…

Must-read: Narayana Kocherlakota: “What We’ve Learned About Unconventional Monetary Policy”

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: Narayana Kocherlakota has been on quite a roll recently:

Narayana Kocherlakota: What We’ve Learned About Unconventional Monetary Policy: “Lesson 1: Even over relatively long periods of time…

…unconventional monetary policy tools don’t have extreme downside risks…. Lesson 2: Central banks are able to guide inflation close to its desired level using unconventional tools…. One could certainly ask: why was the FOMC consistently aiming for such a low inflation rate in this time frame, given that they expected such a high unemployment rate? (I have posed that question here.) But let’s leave that question aside. Throughout much of the 2008-10 period, many observers outside of the Fed expressed strong concerns about the risk of unduly high or unduly low inflation. Given that level of background uncertainty, I would say that the FOMC did a very good job at using unconventional tools to achieve what policymakers wanted in terms of inflation outcomes. Lesson 3: Hitting inflation objectives does not translate into hitting growth objectives…

Plus:

Narayana Kocherlakota: Interest Rate Increases Are Hard to Undo?: “Yellen made the following statement…

I do not expect that the FOMC [Federal Open Market Committee] is going to be soon in the situation where it is necessary to cut rates….

I argue that her statement suggests that the FOMC’s policy moves will be inappropriately insensitive to adverse information about the evolution of the economy…. There’s some set of economic conditions for which a range of a quarter to half a percent for the target range for the fed funds rate is appropriate. Under an appropriately data-sensitive approach… the FOMC should slightly lower the fed funds rate target range if it confronts a slightly worse set of economic conditions [than that]…. If a move of zero is highly likely, surely a downward move of a quarter percent point should be more than a little possible? But Chair Yellen’s statement suggests that this isn’t the way that the FOMC is thinking about the situation…. She seems to be saying that it will take a pretty bad turn of events for the FOMC to be willing to reverse its December move.  Such an approach means that the FOMC’s December has created a new higher floor….

The FOMC could be a lot more data-sensitive than I’ve described when it considers interest rate cuts. Failing that, the other response is to realize that any future rate increase will push upwards on the new soft floor.  That realization should make the FOMC very cautious about undertaking any future rate increase.

And:

Narayana Kocherlakota: Negative Rates: A Gigantic Fiscal Policy Failure: “Since October 2015, I’ve argued that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)…

…should reduce the target range for the fed funds rate below zero. Such a move would be appropriate for three reasons:

  • It would facilitate a more rapid return of inflation to target.
  • It would help reduce labor market slack more rapidly.
  • It would slow and hopefully reverse the ongoing and dangerous slide in inflation expectations. 

So, going negative is daring but appropriate monetary policy. But it is a sign of a terrible policy failure by fiscal policymakers.

The reason that the FOMC has to go negative is because the natural real rate of interest r* (defined to be the real interest rate consistent with the FOMC’s mandated inflation and employment goals) is so low.   The low natural real interest rate is a signal that households and businesses around the world desperately want to buy and hold debt issued by the US government. (Yes, there is already a lot of that debt out there – but its high price is a clear signal that still more should be issued.)  The US government should be issuing that debt that the public wants so desperately and using the proceeds to undertake investments of social value.

But maybe there are no such investments?  That’s a tough argument to sustain quantitatively.  The current market real interest rate – which I would argue is actually above the natural real rate r* – is about 1% out to thirty years.  This low natural real rate represents an incredible opportunity for the US. We can afford to do more to ensure that all of our cities have safe water for our children to drink.  We can afford to do more to ensure that our nuclear power plants won’t spring leaks.  We can afford to do more to ensure that our bridges won’t collapse under commuters.

These opportunities barely scratch the surface.  With a 30-year r* below 1%, our government can afford to make progress on a myriad of social problems.  It is choosing not to. 

If the government issued more debt and undertook these opportunities, it would push up r*.  That would make life easier for monetary policymakers, because they could achieve their mandated objectives with higher nominal interest rates. But, more importantly, the change in fiscal policy would make life a lot better for all of us. 

I don’t think that Chair Yellen will say the above in her Humphrey-Hawkins testimony tomorrow – but I also think that it would be great if she did.

Narayana Kocherlakota: Dovish Actions Require Dovish Talk (To Be Effective): “The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has bought a lot of assets and kept interest rates extraordinarily low…

…Yet all of this stimulus has accomplished surprisingly little (for example, inflation and inflation expectations remain below target and are expected to do so for years to come)…. Over the past seven years, the FOMC’s has consistently talked hawkish while acting dovish. This communications approach has weakened the effectiveness of policy choices, probably in a significant way…. In December 2008, the FOMC lowered the fed funds rate target range to 0 to a quarter percent. It did not raise the target range until December 2015, when the unemployment rate had fallen back down to 5%.   But – with the benefit of hindsight – a shocking amount of this eight years’ worth of unprecedented stimulus was wasted, because it was largely unanticipated by financial markets…

Weekend reading: Narayana Kocherlakota: “Dovish Actions Require Dovish Talk (To Be Effective)”

Posted on by Brad DeLong

The wise Mark Thoma sends us to the newly-unmuzzled and very sharp Narayana Kocherlakota: Dovish Actions Require Dovish Talk (To Be Effective): “The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)…

…has bought a lot of assets and kept interest rates extraordinarily low for the past eight years.  Yet, all of this stimulus has accomplished surprisingly little (for example, inflation and inflation expectations remain below target and are expected to do so for years to come).   Does that experience mean that we should give up on monetary policy as a useful way to stimulate aggregate demand?
My answer is no.  I argue that, over the past seven years, the FOMC’s has consistently talked hawkish while acting dovish.  This communications approach has weakened the effectiveness of policy choices, probably in a significant way.  Future monetary policy stimulus can be considerably more effective if the FOMC is much more transparent about its willingness to support the economy – that is, about its true dovishness.

My starting point is that households and businesses don’t make their decisions about spending based on the current fed funds rate – which, is after all, a one-day interest rate.  Rather, spending decisions are based on longer-term yields.  Those longer-term yields depend on market participants’ beliefs about how monetary policy will evolve over the next few years.  Those beliefs are a product of both FOMC actions and FOMC communications. 

In December 2008, the FOMC lowered the fed funds rate target range to 0 to a quarter percent. It did not raise the target range until December 2015, when the unemployment rate had fallen back down to 5%.   But – with the benefit of hindsight – a shocking amount of this eight years’ worth of unprecedented stimulus was wasted, because it was largely unanticipated by financial markets. (Full disclosure: I took part in FOMC meetings from November 2009 through October 2015, and it could certainly be argued that I was part of the problem that I describe until September 2012.)  

I’ll illustrate my basic point in the most extreme way that I can.  In November 2009, the Committee’s statement said that the fed funds rate might be raised after ‘an extended period’ – a term that was generally interpreted to mean ‘about six months’.  Accordingly, as footnote 25 of this speech notes, private forecasters in the Blue Chip survey projected that the unemployment rate would be near 10 percent at the time of the first interest rate increase.  

Now, suppose that the FOMC had communicated its true reaction function in November 2009 (or even as late as December 2012): as long as inflation was anticipated to be below 2% over the medium-term, the Committee would not raise the fed funds rate until the unemployment rate had fallen to 5% or below.  We can’t know the impact of such communication with certainty.   But most macroeconomic models would predict that this kind of statement would have put significant upward pressure on employment and prices.  In other words: the models predict that if the FOMC had been willing to communicate its true willingness to support the economy, the Committee would have been able to (safely) raise rates much sooner.  

I want to be clear: my point in this post is not to express regrets or recrimination over past ‘mistakes’.    (It would have been good in 2009 to know what we know now, but we didn’t.)  And my point is not that monetary policy is some kind of panacea.  In the presence of a lower bound on nominal interest rates, expansionist fiscal policy would have been helpful in the past (and could be now too). 

My point is this: we shouldn’t make judgements about the efficacy of future monetary policy stimulus based on the experience from the past seven years.   Unfortunately, much of the potential impact of that lengthy stimulus campaign was vitiated by the FOMC’s generally hawkish communications.   

In my view, the FOMC can deliver useful impetus to aggregate demand with its remaining tools.  But it needs to communicate ahead of time about its true willingness and ability to support the economy.   Without that prior communication, later attempts at stimulus are likely to prove in vain – and the Fed’s credibility may suffer further damage.

Must-read: Narayana Kocherlakota: “Fragility of Purely Real Macroeconomic Models”

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: This strikes me as DeLong and Summers (1986) done right and done better with the zero lower bound included–i.e., how we would have done it had we been smarter (and had not the 1982 but today’s math macro econ toolkit). The ability of the price level as a whole to jump discontinuously and instantaneously matters a lot in virtually any expectational model…

Narayana Kocherlakota: Fragility of Purely Real Macroeconomic Models: “Purely real models that abstract from the presence of nominal rigidities…

…(at least implicitly) assume that the Phillips curve is vertical…. Such models are fragile, in the sense that their implications change significantly when the Phillips curve is even slightly less than vertical…. In the perturbed models… [with] a lower bound on the nominal interest rate… outcomes necessarily depend on agents’ beliefs about the long-run level of economic activity. The magnitude of this dependence becomes arbitrarily large as the slope of the Phillips curve becomes… loser to vertical…. The limiting purely real model ignores this form of monetary non-neutrality and macroeconomic instability. I conclude that purely real models are too incomplete to provide useful guides to questions about business cycles. I describe what elements should be added to such models in order to make them useful.