To improve Fed policy, improve communications

Since May 2021, we have criticized the Federal Reserve’s lagging response to surging inflation. In our view, both policy and communications were inadequate to address the looming challenge. Early this year, we argued that the Fed created a policy crisis by refusing to acknowledge the rise of trend inflation, maintaining a hyper-expansionary policy well after trend inflation reached levels far above their 2% target, and failing to articulate a credible low-inflation policy.

Against this background, we commend the FOMC for its recent efforts. Not only is policy moving quickly in the right direction, but communication improved markedly. In particular, despite the increasing likelihood of a near-term recession, Chair Powell made clear that price stability is necessary for achieving the second part of the Fed’s dual mandate. We suspect that the combination of the Fed’s recent promise to make policy restrictive, along with its improved communications, is playing a key role in anchoring longer-term inflation expectations.

In this post, we focus on central bank communication and its link to policy setting. By far the most important goal of communication is to clarify the authorities’ reaction function: the systematic response of central bank policy to prospective changes in key economy-wide fundamentals—usually inflation and the unemployment rate.

To anticipate our conclusions, we argue for two changes to the FOMC’s quarterly Summary of Economic Projections to better illuminate the Committee reaction function. First, we encourage publication of more detail on individual participants’ responses to link individual projections of inflation, economic growth, and unemployment to the path of the policy rate. Second, we see a role for scenario analysis in which FOMC participants provide their anticipated policy path contingent on one or more adverse supply shocks that present unappealing policy tradeoffs (for example, between the speed of returning inflation to its target and the pace at which the unemployment rate returns to its sustainable level)….

The Costs of Acting Too Little, Too Late

Central bankers that act too little too late risk inflation, recession, or both. Everyone, including the members of the Federal Open Market Committee, knows that the FOMC is late in its current campaign to restore price stability. This makes it essential that they do not do too little.

In this post, we highlight the continued gap between the lessons of past disinflations and the Fed’s hopes and aspirations. We find it difficult to square the FOMC’s latest projections of falling inflation with only modest policy restraint. Simply put, we doubt that the peak projected policy rate from the June Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) will be sufficient to lower inflation to 2% in the absence of a recession.

In our view, boosting the credibility of the FOMC’s price stability commitment will require not only greater realism, but a clarification of how policy would evolve if, as in past large disinflations, the unemployment rate rises by several percentage points. The overly sanguine June SEP simply does not address this key question. Indeed, no FOMC participant anticipates the unemployment rate to rise above 4½% over the forecast horizon….

From Inflation Targeting to Employment Targeting?

Last year, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) modified its monetary policy framework to focus on average inflation targeting. They stated that “appropriate monetary policy will likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2% for some time” after “periods when inflation has been running persistently below 2%.” At the same time, the Committee scaled back efforts to preempt inflation, introducing an asymmetric “shortfall” strategy which responds to employment only when it falls below its estimated maximum. FOMC participants view these strategic changes as means to secure their legally mandated dual objectives of price stability and maximum employment (see our earlier posts here and here).

Prior to this week’s FOMC meeting, the Committee’s forward guidance explicitly balanced these two goals. However, in what we view as a remarkable shift, changes in the December 15 statement are difficult to square with any type of inflation targeting strategy. Despite the recent surge of inflation, the Committee’s new forward guidance removes any mention of price stability as a condition for keeping policy rates near zero. Instead, it focuses exclusively on reaching maximum employment.

In this post, we provide two reasons why such an unbalanced approach is concerning. First, a monetary policy strategy that ranks maximum employment well above price stability is unlikely to secure price stability over the long run. Second, FOMC participants’ projections for 2022-24 are a combination of strong economic growth, further labor market tightening and a policy rate well below long-run norms. This mix seems inconsistent with the large decline in trend inflation that participants anticipate. While policymakers certainly can and do revise their projections, persistent underestimates of inflation fuel the perception that price stability is a secondary, rather than equal, goal of policy….

Inflation Policy

“Headline” inflation is making painful headlines again. In October, consumer prices rose by 6.2 percent from a year ago—the most rapid gain in at least three decades. Measures of trend inflation also are showing unsettling increases, with the trimmed mean CPI up by 4%. And there are reasons to believe that inflation will stay well above policymakers’ 2% target for an extended period.

In this post, we briefly summarize how we got here and argue that the Federal Reserve needs to change course now. In our view, current monetary policy is far too accommodative. Moreover, the sooner the Fed acts, the more likely it is that policymakers will be able to restore price stability without undermining the post-COVID expansion.

The ECB's New Strategy: Codifying Existing Practice . . . plus

When the ECB began operation in 1999, many observers focused on its differences from the Federal Reserve. Yet, since the start, the ECB was much like the Fed. And, over the past two decades, the ECB and the Fed have learned a great deal from each other, furthering convergence.

Against this background, it is unsurprising that the broad monetary policy strategies in the United States and the euro area converged as well. On July 8, the ECB published the culmination of the strategy review that began in early 2020, the first since 2003. The implementation of the new strategy comes nearly one year after the Fed revised its longer-run goals in August 2020 (see our earlier posts here and here).

If past is prologue, observers will exaggerate the differences. Perhaps most obvious, unlike the Fed, the ECB’s strategic update did not introduce an averaging framework in which they would “make up” for past errors. Nevertheless, we suspect that it will be difficult to distinguish most Fed and ECB policy actions based on the modest differences in their strategic frameworks. For the most part, both revised strategies codify existing practice, as they permit extensive discretion in how they employ their growing set of policy tools.

In this post, we summarize the motivations for the ECB’s new strategy and describe three notable changes: target 2% inflation, symmetrically and unambiguously; integrate climate change into the framework; and outline a plan to introduce owner-occupied housing into the price index they target (the euro area harmonised index of consumer prices). While the new strategy can help the ECB achieve its price stability mandate, in our view the overall impact of the revisions is likely to be modest….

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….

The Fed's Crystal Ball: Looking Beyond the COVID-19 Recession

Over the past 75 years, no one has seen anything like the COVID-19 shock to the global economy. Nor have we seen anything like the swift, broad and massive fiscal and monetary expansion that followed.

In the United States, the economic rebound has started. As states and municipalities relax the lockdown, businesses closed by the virus are gradually reopening and employment is rising. But, there remains tremendous uncertainty about the speed and extent of the recovery.

This was the backdrop for the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) release last week of its June Summary of Economic Projections (SEP)—the first SEP since December. Unsurprisingly, attention usually focuses on the FOMC’s interest rate projections: with the exception of two participants, the Committee does not anticipate an interest rate increase over the forecast horizon to the end of 2022.

In this post, we concentrate on the Committee’s projections for the real economy. Our conclusion is that these contain two elements of optimism. First, while the recession is clearly the worst since the 1930s, FOMC participants believe that the recovery will be roughly twice as fast as the one from the GFC. Second, their projections are that longer-run economic growth will match the pre-COVID pace. That is, in contrast to the GFC experience, COVID-19 will not usher in a slowdown in trend growth. Compared to the FOMC, we believe there is room for disappointment, especially with regard to the longer run.

COVID-19: What can monetary policy do?

Two weeks prior to their regularly scheduled mid-March meeting, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) voted unanimously to cut their target policy rate by 50 basis points to the 1 to 1¼ percent range. Policymakers attributed their exceptional decision to the “evolving risks” posed by the coronavirus. This move was the first inter-meeting policy rate shift, and the largest cut, since late 2008, at the depth of the financial crisis. Moreover, this time the move came against the background of a strong economy. Nevertheless, based on futures prices, market participants anticipate a further 75-basis-point cut in the target federal funds rate this month!

The coronavirus has thrust us into uncharted territory. Do central bankers really have any tools to guide us back to safer ground?

In the remainder of this post, we discuss the importance for policymakers of distinguishing between shocks to aggregate supply and demand. Importantly, while monetary policy can combat demand shocks, it can do nothing to cushion the impact of reductions in supply without sacrificing the commitment to price stability. The coronavirus shock involves some as-yet-unknown mix of these two very different types of shocks. Yet, given the limited amount of conventional policy space, and the decline of long-term inflation expectations, there is a good case for the FOMC to act rapidly and aggressively….

Monetary Policy Operations Redux

On September 17, the overnight Treasury repurchase agreement (repo) rate spiked to 6%—up from just 2.2% a week earlier and the highest level in more than 15 years (see DTCC GCF repo index). Oddly, this turmoil occurred at a time when the Fed had begun lowering its policy rate for the first time in more than a decade and market participants anticipated further policy easing ahead.

What led to this sudden disruption in short-term funding markets that been relatively calm in recent years? Had the Fed lost control? In our view, the explanation for the sudden rise in overnight interest rates is straightforward: the shrinkage of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet that began in October 2017 reduced the aggregate supply of reserves gradually to where banks’ demand for reserves was insensitive to interest rates. Consequently, large temporary fluctuations in the supply of reserves that would have had virtually no impact even a few months ago, triggered sizable upward interest rate fluctuations.

Consistent with this view, the Federal Reserve recently took action to prevent a recurrence of the September disorder. At an unscheduled video conference meeting on October 11, the FOMC agreed to additional regular purchases of Treasury bills at least into the second quarter of 2020. The goal of this balance sheet expansion is to maintain reserve balances at least as high as their level in early-September before the turmoil began.

In the remainder of this post, we discuss the evolution of the supply and demand for reserves in recent years. We argue that, because no one—including the Fed—knew the precise level of reserves at which the demand curve would become inelastic, an episode like the one on September 17 was virtually inescapable as reserve supply declined. If our diagnosis of the cause is correct, then recent actions should help put the issue to rest. Yet, given the inevitability of the event―that the day would come when shrinking reserve supply hit the inelastic part of the reserve demand curve―the Fed could (and should) have been prepared. If so, it could have avoided even a temporary dent in its well-deserved reputation for operational prowess….

Improving U.S. Monetary Policy Communications

Tomorrow, June 4, we will present our paper, Improving U.S. Monetary Policy Communications, as part of the Federal Reserve’s review of its monetary policy strategy, tools, and communications practices. This post summarizes our methodology, analysis and recommendations.

——————————————————————————————————-

Since the mid-1990s, the U.S. economy has been reaping the benefits of a credible commitment to price stability, including a communications framework that reinforces that commitment. Over the same period, both the level and uncertainty of inflation have declined (see here). It is against this backdrop that we look for further enhancements in the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) communications framework.

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets