The Fed's New Strategy: More Discretion, Less Preemption

On August 27, marking the conclusion of the Fed’s first strategic review, the Federal Open Market Committee released an amended version of their fundamental policy guide—the Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy. The FOMC adopted a form of flexible average inflation targeting (FAIT). Partly because the new strategy largely confirms recent Fed behavior, the response in financial markets was minimal. Indeed, market-based long-run inflation expectations were virtually unchanged this week. Perhaps the only noticeable development was a modest steepening at the very long end of the yield curve.

In this post, we identify three key factors motivating the Fed review and highlight three principal shifts in the FOMC’s strategy. In addition, we identify several critical questions that the FOMC will need to answer as it seeks to implement the new policy framework. Specifically, the shift to FAIT implies a change in the Committee’s reaction function. How does this reformulated objective influence the FOMC’s systematic response to changes in economic growth, unemployment, inflation and financial conditions? Under FAIT, the effective inflation target over the coming years also now depends on past inflation experience. What is that relationship?

Average Inflation Targeting

The Federal Open Committee’s first-ever comprehensive monetary policy review looks to be coming to an end. Since the announcement on November 15, 2018, the Fed has focused on strategies, tools, and communications practices, and engaged the public through numerous Fed Listens events, including a conference at which invited experts proposed new approaches (see our earlier post). At its July meeting, the FOMC discussed potential changes to its Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy—the “foundation for the Committee’s policy actions”—with the aim of finalizing those changes soon. And, Chairman Powell is scheduled to speak this week about the “Monetary Policy Framework Review” at the annual Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium.

Perhaps the most important issue on the review agenda is the FOMC’s inflation-targeting strategy. Since 2012, the FOMC has explicitly targeted an inflation rate of 2% (measured by the price index of personal consumption expenditures). A key objective of FOMC strategy is to anchor long-term inflation expectations, contributing not only to price stability, but also to “enhancing the Committee’s ability to promote maximum employment in the face of significant economic disturbances.” Yet, since the start of 2012, PCE inflation has averaged only 1.3%, prompting many policymakers to worry that persistent shortfalls drive down expected inflation (see, for example, Williams). And, with the Fed’s policy rate now back down near zero, falling inflation expectations raise the expected real interest rate, tightening financial conditions and undermining policymakers’ efforts to drive up growth and inflation.

In this note, we discuss one alternative to the current approach that has gained wide attention: namely, average inflation targeting. The idea behind average inflation targeting is that, when inflation falls short of the target, it creates the expectation of higher inflation. And, should inflation exceed its target, then it would reduce inflation expectations. Even when the policy rate hits zero, the result is a countercyclical movement in real interest rates that enhances the effectiveness of conventional policy….

Making the Treasury Market Resilient

Ensuring financial stability requires resilient institutions. That is why regulators around the world have strengthened capital and liquidity requirements for the largest financial intermediaries since financial crisis of 2007-09.

Making financial markets resilient is equally important. Repeated and sustained bouts of illiquidity and dysfunctionality in a key market can threaten the well-being of even the healthiest institutions.

In a global financial system that runs on dollars, the most important financial market is the one for U.S. Treasury securities. Yet, despite its importance and general reliability, the Treasury market occasionally suffers from serious disruptions. The strains in the Treasury market during the first half of March 2020 became an important motivation for the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented anti-COVID policy actions beginning that month (see here, here and here).

In the remainder of this post, we describe the COVID-induced troubles in the Treasury market and highlight Duffie’s compelling proposal to consider requiring central clearing of U.S. Treasuries. We endorse Duffie’s call to study such a mandate, and view this is as an important element of a broader effort to modernize and reinforce the financial infrastructure….

Has the U.S. Distribution of Wealth Worsened?

Wealth inequality in the United States is obvious to everyone. The Federal Reserve’s triennial Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF) documents the glaring and persistent divide between rich and poor, confirming that ownership of financial and real assets in the United States has been highly concentrated for decades (see our earlier post). The most recent 2016 estimates suggest that the top 10% of the wealth distribution own nearly three-quarters of all marketable assets, with the top 1% owning more than half of that. And, Saez and Zucman (SZ) estimate that the U.S. distribution has been getting worse, with the top 1% share of marketable wealth rising by more than 10 full percentage points since 1989.

But, as Catherine, Miller and Sarin (CMS) recently highlight, adding in the present discounted value of Social Security benefits (net of taxes) to construct a more comprehensive measure of wealth alters these patterns. First, according to CMS’s estimates, the share of marketable wealth in total wealth has plunged by more than 18 percentage points since 1989. Second, over the past three decades, the top 1% share of total wealth has risen only modestly, while the share owned by the top 10% has declined somewhat.

In this post, we highlight the CMS results, and decompose their changes in total wealth shares into two parts: the changes in marketable and Social Security wealth shares accruing to each group, and the aggregate decline over time of marketable wealth as a share of total wealth. We show that the latter dominates the overall trend in this more comprehensive measure of inequality….

Cyber Risk, Financial Stability and the Payments System

Cyber risk remains at the top of the list of risks to the financial system, and the financial system is well known as the primary target for hackers (see here, here and here). In response, financial institutions expend huge resources on protecting their information systems—by one estimate, well over $100 billion. Yet, private sector actions to prevent cyber losses fall short due to a glaring externality: since the damage is likely to spill over to other financial firms and to markets, individual firms cannot reap the full benefits of preventing cyber attacks.

To get a sense of the financial stability risks associated with cyber fragility, we need to understand the financial system in some detail. Unfortunately, financial networks are highly complex and vary significantly across markets and functions. They also evolve meaningfully over time. On top of these enormous challenges, assessing network vulnerabilities frequently requires institution- or transactions-level information that is normally not publicly available.

This brings us to the important recent work of Eisenbach, Kovner and Lee (EKL), who study the vulnerability of the U.S. large-value interbank payments system, Fedwire, to a cyber attack on one of the principal nodes of the payments network—namely, one of the top five banks. In this post, we highlight EKL’s analysis as a model for the assessment of cyber-driven network risks. We suggest how central bankers should react to a cyber attack on the payments system, and speculate about what is needed to prevent, as well as mitigate, cyber risks….

Just Vote NO

On Tuesday, July 21, the Senate Banking Committee will vote on whether to support Dr. Judy Shelton’s nomination to join the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Accordingly, we are re-posting our July 2019 commentary in which we outlined our strong opposition to Dr. Shelton’s candidacy.

In our view, over the past year, the case against Dr. Shelton has strengthened. The Federal Reserve’s speedy and decisive response to the COVID pandemic is a key reason that the U.S. financial system has steadied and the economy quickly began to recover from the worst shock since the 1930s. Had the United States been operating on a gold standard, as Dr. Shelton has long advocated, these Fed actions would not have been feasible.

Indeed, under a gold standard, instead of easing forcefully and committing to sustained accommodation, the central bank would have been obliged to tighten policy in an effort to resist the 19-percent rise of the gold price since the end of 2019. Just as it did in the Great Depression, this policy would have led us down a path of financial crisis and economic disaster (see our earlier posts here and here).

We hope that the Senate Banking Committee will vote down Dr. Shelton’s candidacy and send a determined message that unambiguously backs the Federal Reserve’s commitment to use every means at its disposal―zero interest rates, large-scale asset purchases, and broad lending programs―to restore economic prosperity and maintain price stability. Barring outright rejection, the Committee should at least move to hold an additional hearing on this nomination, as the Committee minority has proposed….

Fed's big stick lets it speak powerfully

The powerful stabilizing impact of the Federal Reserve’s COVID response is visible virtually across U.S. financial markets. What is most remarkable about this is how little the Fed has done to achieve these outcomes. To be sure, the central bank now holds $7 trillion in assets, an increase of $2.8 trillion since early March. Yet, virtually all the increase reflects large-scale purchases of government-guaranteed instruments. What we find astonishing is that the acquisition of risky nonfinancial debt remains tiny.

The point is clear: backed by massive fiscal support, the Fed’s mere announcement of its willingness to purchase corporate and municipal bonds, as well as asset-backed securities, has proven sufficient to stabilize markets despite the worst economic shock since WWII. Put differently, the Fed’s willingness to backstop markets has obviated the need to serve actively as a market maker of last resort.

In this post, we document these developments and then speculate about their implications. For one thing, in a future crisis where the U.S. fiscal and monetary authorities share key goals, people will now anticipate that the central bank will backstop financial markets. Because a central bank is almost certain to intervene when systemic risks rise, these stabilizing powers are welcome.

At the same time, the central bank’s backstop is a source of potentially serious moral hazard. We suspect that investors are now counting on Fed stimulus to support equity and bond prices (and possibly bank loans) even as household and business insolvencies rise. Yet, in a market economy, it is shareholders and creditors who ultimately must bear these losses. Indeed, were the U.S. equity market to plunge by 40 percent in the remainder of 2020, that by itself would pose little threat to the financial system, and ought not trigger large corporate bond (let alone equity) purchases by the central bank….

Stress tests lack COVID-scale stress

In recent months, the Federal Reserve acted aggressively to support nearly all parts of the U.S. economy. Unprecedented monetary policy actions, both in size and scope, served to maintain market function and the flow of credit. And, while we have misgivings about the Fed’s CARES Act-driven moves to support the nonfinancial sector, we applaud Chair Powell and his colleagues for their quick and decisive actions (see our previous posts here, here and here). This, together with fiscal policy support for individual households and small firms, has kept an awful situation from becoming far worse—at least for now.

But, the Fed’s responsibility extends beyond monetary policy to the regulatory and supervisory arenas: it is obliged to maintain the safety and soundness of the banking system (and, to some extent, of the broader financial system). On this score, and in stark contrast to its actions in 2009, the Board of Governors has come up significantly short. Without full disclosure of the latest stress test results, suspicions will linger about the ability of the largest banks to provide credit to healthy borrowers if the COVID recovery falters. (See our earlier post for details.)

In this post, we examine the results from the Fed’s 2020 assessment of bank capital adequacy published on June 25. Based on the COVID-related sensitivity analysis—for which individual results are unavailable—one-quarter of the 33 banks tested fall below the regulatory minimum in the worst of the three cases. The fact that we can only guess which banks those might be creates suspicion regarding many banks….

An Open Letter to Randal K. Quarles, Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision

Dear Vice Chair Quarles,

Nearly three years ago, we wrote an open letter congratulating you on your nomination as the first Vice Chair for Supervision on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In that letter, we highlight the central mission of ensuring the resilience and promoting the dynamism of the U.S. financial system.

Today we write to express our profound disappointment regarding the plans (expressed in your June 19 speech on “The Adaptability of Stress Testing“) to limit the disclosure of this year’s large-bank stress tests. In our view, failure to publish the individual bank results from the special COVID-19 related “sensitivity analysis” weakens the credibility and effectiveness of the Fed’s stress testing regime.

Consequently, we urge you to reverse course and to announce this week the individual bank sensitivity results, along with the aggregates. To put it bluntly, the point of a supervisory stress test is disclosure. Anything short of full transparency leaves potentially destabilizing questions unanswered.

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.

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets