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….

Harry Potter's Monetary Policy Wand?

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….

Fed Monetary Policy in Crisis

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is facing a crisis of its own making. The crisis has four elements. Policymakers failed to forecast the rise in inflation. They failed to appreciate how persistent inflation can be. They are failing to articulate a credible low inflation policy. And, so far, there is little sign that monetary policymakers recognize the need to react decisively.

Our fear is that matters have now progressed to the stage where the Fed’s credibility for delivering price stability is at serious risk. And, as experience teaches us, the less credible the central bank, the more painful it is to lower inflation to target.

In this post, we discuss the policy crisis and suggest how to respond. In our view, the FOMC needs a plan to raise rates quickly and substantially. For the FOMC to ensure inflation returns to its target of 2%, policymakers likely will need to bring the short-term real interest rate into significantly positive territory. Put slightly differently, we suspect that the policy rate needs to rise to at least one percent above expected inflation.

Won’t a sharp policy tightening trigger a huge recession? In our view, credibility is the key to how much pain disinflation will cause. Applying the painful lesson of the 1970s and early 1980s leads us to conclude that the FOMC now needs to show clear resolve. Inflation rose very quickly over the past year, so it may still be possible to bring it down sharply without a recession. The more decisively policymakers act, the lower the long-run costs are likely to be. Failure to restore price stability in a timely way would almost surely render this expansion disturbingly short compared to recent norms.

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.

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….

Monetary Policy in the Next Recession?

In many advanced countries, lowering the policy rate to zero will be insufficient to counter the next recession. In the United States, for example, with the target range for the federal funds rate at 1½ to 1¾ percent, there is little scope for the nearly 5 percentage-point easing that is typical in recent recessions (see, for example, Kiley).

This is the setting for this year’s report for the U.S. Monetary Policy Forum, written with Michael Feroli, Anil Kashyap and Catherine Mann. Our analysis focuses on the extent to which the “new tools” of monetary policy—including quantitative easing, forward guidance and negative interest rates—have been associated with an improvement of financial conditions. The idea is that the transmission of monetary policy to economic activity and prices works primarily through its effect on a broad array of financial conditions.

The USMPF report does not challenge the views of many researchers and of most central banks that the new monetary policy (NMP) tools have an expansionary impact even at the effective lower bound for nominal interest rates (see also the 2019 report from the Committee on the Global Financial System). However, we find that these new tools generally were not sufficient to overcome the powerful headwinds that prevailed in many advanced economies over the past decade.

Our conclusion is that central bankers should clearly incorporate the new tools in their reaction functions and communications strategies, but should be humble about their likely success in countering the next recession, at least in the absence of other supportive actions (such as fiscal stimulus)….

Financial Crisis: The Endgame

Ten years ago this month, the run on Lehman Brothers kicked off the third and final phase of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. In two earlier posts (here and here), we describe the prior phases of the crisis. The first began on August 9, 2007, when BNP Paribas suspended redemptions from three mutual funds invested in U.S. subprime debt, kicking off a global scramble for safe, liquid assets. And the second started seven months later when, in response to the March 2008 run on Bear Stearns, the Fed provided liquidity directly to nonbanks for the first time since the Great Depression, completing its crisis-driven evolution into an effective lender of last resort to solvent, but illiquid intermediaries.

The most intense period of the crisis began with the failure of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008. Credit dried up; not just uncollateralized lending, but short-term lending backed by investment-grade collateral as well. In mid-September, measures of financial stress spiked far above levels seen before or since (see here and here). And, the spillover to the real economy was rapid and dramatic, with the U.S. economy plunging that autumn at the fastest pace since quarterly reporting began in 1947.

In our view, three, interrelated policy responses proved critical in arresting the crisis and promoting recovery. First was the Fed’s aggressive monetary stimulus: after Lehman, within its mandate, the Fed did “whatever it took” to end the crisis. Second was the use of taxpayer resources—authorized by Congress—to recapitalize the U.S. financial system. And third, was the exceptional disclosure mechanism introduced by the Federal Reserve in early 2009—the first round of macroprudential stress tests known as the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (SCAP)—that neutralized the worst fears about U.S. banks.

In this post, we begin with a bit of background, highlighting the aggregate capital shortfall of the U.S. financial system as the source of the crisis. We then turn to the policy response. Because we have discussed unconventional monetary policy in some detail in previous posts (here and here), our focus here is on the stress tests (combined with recapitalization) as a central means for restoring confidence in the financial system….

Connect the Dots

How and what should the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) communicate to make monetary policy most effective? That is the question addressed by this year’s U.S. Monetary Policy Forum report (Language After Liftoff: Fed Communication Away from the Zero Lower Bound).

Over the past two decades, the FOMC has made enormous strides in promoting transparency. In sharp contrast to most of its previous history, the Fed now emphasizes that transparency enhances the effectiveness of monetary policy.

Yet, central bank communication is a work in progress. And, as the new USMPF report argues, there remains scope for improvement. In our view, the simplest and most useful change that the authors recommend, and that the Fed could implement—immediately and without cost—is to “connect the dots:” that is, to link (while maintaining anonymity) the published interest rate forecasts of each FOMC participant that appear in the quarterly “dot plot” (found in the Summary of Economic Projections, or SEP) to that same person’s projections of inflation, unemployment, and economic growth.

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets