The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is reassuring us that, so long as we are patient, price stability will return without further pain. But its narrative seems less grounded in historical experience and more like something Harry Potter might have conjured at Hogwarts. By the end of 2024, the Committee expects trend inflation (measured by the price index of personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy) to drop by more than 3 percentage points while economic growth remains above (and the unemployment rate below) its sustainable level. And, all this magic materializes with the real (inflation-adjusted) policy rate barely turning positive.

The principal means by which the Fed affects the inflation outlook is by influencing financial conditions. Yet, having telegraphed its policy shift for months, the FOMC’s most recent actions on March 16—initiating a series of rate hikes and suggesting that balance sheet tapering could begin soon—barely affected the ease with which firms and households obtain financing. And, while financial conditions are indeed a bit tighter than six months ago—when about one-half of FOMC participants anticipated no interest rate hikes in 2022—these conditions remain quite accommodative (see here).

Is the FOMC’s current policy path consistent with its longer-term price stability goals? In this post, we address this question by exploring policymakers’ newly published projections. Our conclusion is that bringing the inflation trend back to 2% will require a tightening of financial conditions significantly beyond what the Fed currently envisions….

Central Banks and Climate Policy

Avoiding a climate catastrophe requires an urgent global effort on the part of households, firms and governments to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Like many economists, we support a carbon tax. We also favor generous fiscal support for R&D to substitute for fossil fuels and remove carbon from the atmosphere.

What role should central banks play in this global effort? That is the prime focus of this post. We argue that central banks must preserve the independence needed for effective monetary policy. That implies only a modest role in addressing climate change.

Central banks are involved in both financial regulation and monetary policy. In each case, there are some things that central bankers can and should do to help counter the threat posed by climate change. As financial regulators, they should implement an improved disclosure regime and develop tools to ensure the financial system is resilient to climate risks.

In conducting monetary policy, central bankers should follow a simple, powerful principle: do not influence relative prices. To be sure, it is and should be standard practice to use interest rates to influence relative prices between consumption today and tomorrow. However, central banks ought not influence relative prices among contemporaneous activities. We will see that achieving this form of relative price neutrality may require central bankers to shift the composition of their assets and to alter the treatment of collateral in their lending operations….

The QE Ratchet

When it comes to quantitative easing (QE), where you stand definitely depends on where you sit. That is among the conclusions of the important new report of the Economic Affairs Committee of the UK House of Lords.

The report provides an excellent survey of how it is that central banks now use their balance sheets. Its key conclusions are the following. First, central bankers should clearly communicate the rationale for their balance sheet actions, stating what they are doing and why. Second, policymakers should provide more detail on their estimates (and uncertainties) of the effectiveness of their various actions, especially QE. Third, they should be aware that the relationship between central bank balance sheet policy and government debt management policy poses a risk to independence. Finally, and most importantly, central bankers need an exit plan for how they will return to a long-run sustainable level for their balance sheet.

We discussed several of these points in prior posts. On communication, we argued that central bankers should be clear about their reaction function for both interest rate and balance sheet policies (see here). On the justification for policymakers’ actions, we emphasized the need for clear, simple explanations tied to policymakers’ objectives, distinguishing carefully between the intended purposes (such as monetary policy, lender/market maker of last resort, or emergency government finance; see here). And, on the relationship between QE and fiscal finance, we noted how the ballooning of the U.S. Treasury’s balance at the Fed in the early stages of the pandemic looked like monetary finance, putting independence at risk (see here).

In this post, we turn to the challenge that Lord King highlights in the opening quote: the need to ensure that central banks do not see bond purchases as a cure-all for every ill that befalls the economy and the financial system, causing their balance sheets repeatedly to ratchet upward….

Talking about Tapering

In May, we argued that the FOMC needed to communicate its contingency plans for what they would do should the recent inflation pickup prove more stubborn than its members expect. Such transparency makes it more likely that financial markets will respond to incoming data rather than to policymakers’ actions. By clearly laying out their reaction function, central bankers can avoid disruptions like market taper tantrums.

In June, the FOMC began to remove the self-imposed communication shackles designed to encourage “lower for longer” interest rate expectations and address inflation risks more openly. Indeed, as the above citation from Chairman Powell indicates, at their June meeting, policymakers began to lay the groundwork for scaling back their large-scale asset purchases (LSAPs).

In this post, we start by highlighting how recent Fed communication (which reveals appropriate humility about inflation projections) has helped avoid a market tantrum so far. Along the way, we discuss the various means that FOMC participants have used to express their changing views about the timing of interest rate increases (“liftoff”), even as they make clear that tapering their asset purchases will come first….

Stopping central banks from being prisoners of financial markets

Central banks are on the front lines in the fight to limit the impact of the pandemic. They are supporting virtually every aspect of the economy and the financial system. Combined with the massive fiscal support, these policies restored market stability, safeguarded financial institutions, and reduced suffering. Count us among those who firmly believe that everyone would be in worse shape had central banks and fiscal authorities not coordinated this aid as they did.

But, by providing such a broad backstop, the reliance of financial markets on that support can itself become a source of instability. This raises a set of very important and pressing questions: Have central banks’ actions over the past year made financial markets their masters? Can policymakers now be counted on to suppress financial volatility wherever it arises?

We surely hope not, but we see this as a legitimate concern. Fortunately, we also see a solution. Central bankers should strive to duplicate the success of their framework for interest rate policy. That is, they should be clear and transparent about their reaction function for all their policy tools. Knowing how policy will react, markets will respond directly to news regarding economic conditions, and less to policymakers’ commentary. Of course, central bankers cannot ignore shocks that threaten economic and price stability. But cushioning the economy against large financial disturbances does not mean minimizing market volatility….

Limiting Central Banking

Since 2007, and especially over the past year, actions of public officials have blurred the lines between monetary and fiscal policy almost beyond recognition. Central banks have expanded both the scope and scale of their interventions in unprecedented fashion. This fiscalization risks central bank independence, thereby weakening policymakers’ ability to deliver on their mandates for price and financial stability. In our view, to find a way to back to the pre-2008 division of responsibilities, officials must establish clearer limits on what central banks can and cannot do.

In that division of official labor, it is fiscal authorities that ought to make the unavoidably political choices that directly influence resource allocation. And governments should not conceal such fiscal actions on the balance sheet of the central bank. In a democracy, doing so lacks legitimacy and would become unsustainable….

Relying on the Fed's Balance Sheet

Last week’s 12th annual U.S. Monetary Policy Forum focused on the effectiveness of Fed large-scale asset purchases (LSAPs) as an instrument of monetary policy. Despite notable disagreements, the report and discussion reveal a broad (if not universal) consensus on key issues:

In a world of low equilibrium real interest rates and low inflation, policymakers could easily hit the zero lower bound (ZLB) in the next recession.

At the ZLB, the Fed should again use a combination of balance-sheet tools and interest-rate forward-guidance to achieve its mandated objectives of stable prices and maximum sustainable employment (see our earlier post).

Yet, significant uncertainties about the impact of balance-sheet expansion mean that LSAPs may not provide sufficient stimulus at the ZLB.

Fed policymakers should undertake a thorough (and potentially lengthy) assessment of alternative policy tools and frameworks—ranging from negative interest rates to a higher inflation target to forms of price-level targeting—to ensure they remain as effective as possible.

The remainder of this post discusses the challenges of measuring the impact of balance-sheet policies. As the now-extensive literature on the subject implies, balance-sheet expansions ease financial conditions. However, as this year’s USMPF report emphasizes, there is substantial uncertainty about the scale of that impact....

A Monetary Policy Framework for the Next Recession

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. That could be the motto of any risk manager. In the case of a central banker, the job of ensuring low, stable inflation and high, stable growth requires constant contingency planning.

With the global economy humming along, monetary policymakers are on track to normalize policy. While that process is hardly free of risk, their bigger test will be how to address the next cyclical downturn whenever it arrives. Will policymakers have the tools needed to stabilize prices and ensure steady expansion? Because the equilibrium level of interest rates is substantially lower, the scope for conventional interest rate cuts is smaller. As a result, the challenge is bigger than it was in the past.

This post describes the problem and highlights a number of possible solutions.

Unconventional monetary policy through the Fed's rear-view mirror

On December 16, the Federal Open Market Committee is poised to hike interest rates, putting an end to the near-zero interest rate policy that began in December 2008. So, it’s natural to step back and ask what this episode has taught us about monetary policy at the near-zero lower bound for nominal interest rates. This is not merely some academic exercise. The euro area and Japan are still constrained by the zero bound. And, in this era of low inflation and low potential growth, policy rates in advanced economies are likely to hit that lower bound again (see, for example, here). How the Fed and other central banks respond when that happens will depend on the lessons drawn from recent experience...

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets