Can vacancies plunge without a significant rise of unemployment?

The primary objective of central bankers is to maintain low and stable inflation. While this task was never easy, the recent bout of large, adverse supply shocks—from the pandemic to the Russian invasion of Ukraine—combined with massive demand stimulus (both fiscal and monetary) made the task of securing price stability far more difficult.

Our favored indicator of the inflation trend, the Dallas Fed’s trimmed mean PCE price index, rose at a 4.4% annual rate over the past six months, and seems to be accelerating. Furthermore, while activity has slowed, the U.S. labor market remains extraordinarily tight: there are nearly two vacancies for each person who is unemployed—well above the peaks of the early 1950s and the late 1960s.

Against this background, a large, recession-free disinflation seems highly unlikely to us (see our recent post). In theory, a plunge of vacancies could cool a very hot labor market without raising unemployment (see, for example, Waller). In practice, however, the behavior of the relationship between vacancies and unemployment since 1950—what is known as the Beveridge Curve—suggests that this is very unlikely (see Blanchard, Domash and Summers).

That is the subject of this post….

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….

TradFi and DeFI: Same Problems, Different Solutions

In our recent primer on Crypto-assets and Decentralized Finance (DeFi), we explained that, so long as crypto-assets remain confined to their own world, they pose little if any threat to the traditional finance (TradFi) system. Yet, some crypto-assets are being used to facilitate transactions, as collateral for loans, as the denomination for mortgages, as a basis for ri s k-sharing, and as assets in retirement plans. Moreover, many financial and nonfinancial businesses are seeking ways to expand the uses of these new instruments. So, it is easy to imagine how the crypto/DeFi world could infect the traditional financial system, diminishing its ability to support real economic activity.

In this post, we highlight how the key problems facing TradFi (ranging from fraud and abuse to runs, panics, and operational failure) also plague the crypto/DeFi world. We also examine the different ways in which TradFi and crypto/DeFi address these common challenges.

To summarize our conclusions, while the solutions employed in TradFi are often inadequate and incomplete, features such as counterparty identification and centralized verification make them both more complete and more effective than those currently in place in the world of crypto/DeFi. Ironically, addressing the severe deficiencies in the current crypto/DeFi infrastructure may prove difficult without making highly unpopular changes that make it look more like TradFi—like requiring participants to verify their identity (see, for example, Makarov and Schoar and Crenshaw).

This is the second in our series of posts on crypto-assets and DeFi. In the next one, we will examine regulatory approaches to limit the risks posed by crypto/DeFi while supporting the benefits of financial innovation….

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….

Russian Sanctions: Questions and Answers

This post is authored jointly with our friend and colleague, Professor Richard Berner, Co-Director of the NYU Stern Volatility and Risk Institute.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is altering global security and economic relationships. In this post, we focus on the financial and trade sanctions imposed on Russia. These sanctions are the most powerful and costly punishments imposed on a major economy at least since the Cold War. Their speed, breadth and coordinated global support appear unprecedented.

Not surprisingly, the impact is immediately visible. The damage to the Russian economy and financial system includes, but is not limited to, a plunge of the ruble (by about 40 percent versus the dollar over the past month amid heightened volatility); runs on domestic banks; a sharp hike in the central bank’s policy rate; imposition of capital controls; shutdown of the Russian stock market; collapse in the value of Russian companies traded on foreign stock exchanges; removal of Russian equities from global indexes; and the collapse of Russia’s sovereign credit rating to junk status.

The purpose of this post is to pose and provisionally answer a series of questions raised by this new sanctions regime.…

Comments on Fed CBDC Paper

Last month, the Federal Reserve issued a long-awaited discussion paper on the possibility of introducing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) for retail use. The Fed paper calls for comments on the benefits and risk of introducing a U.S. CBDC, as well as on its optimal design. In this post, we respond to each of the 22 questions posed in the discussion paper. For the most part, these responses are based on our previous analyses of CBDC (here and here).

At the outset, we highlight our doubt that the benefits of a U.S. CBDC will exceed the risks. In our view, other, less risky, means are available to achieve all the key benefits that CBDC advocates anticipate. Moreover, we are not aware of sustainable design features that would reduce the risks of financial instability that many analysts agree will accompany the introduction of a digital U.S. dollar.

However, this overall judgment regarding a CBDC’s benefits and risks is sensitive to two considerations that appear in the Fed’s analysis either explicitly or implicitly. First, CBDC may be a less risky alternative to stablecoins, should regulation of the latter prove politically infeasible (see our earlier post). Second, if other highly trustworthy financial jurisdictions (with convertible currencies, credible property rights protections, and free cross-border flow of capital) offer their own CBDC, the case for a U.S. CBDC—as a device to sustain widespread use of the dollar—would become stronger.

Against this background, we applaud the Fed’s conservative approach. Most important, the U.S. authorities are not rushing to act. Instead, they are thinking carefully about the design elements, are actively engaged in public outreach, and have committed not to proceed without first securing broad public support….

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.

SEC Money Market Fund Reform Proposals Fall Far Short, Again

As the principal regulator of U.S. money market mutual funds (MMMFs), the SEC has a duty to end the market distortions and moral hazard that repeated public rescues create. There have been two MMMF bailouts, so far. The first came at the height of the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, while the second followed in the March 2020 COVID crisis. While the Treasury provided guarantees only once, the Federal Reserve offered emergency liquidity assistance both times.

These repeated government interventions encourage MMMF managers to behave in ways that make future liquidity crises more likely. Moreover, there is no credible way for the Fed to promise not to intervene should a systemic disruption again loom in short-term funding markets. The only realistic means to end the subsidies created by the implicit promise of future bailouts is to force MMMFs to be far more resilient than they are today.

Against this background, the SEC’s December 2021 MMMF reform proposals are seriously disappointing. In this post, we start with basic facts about the scale and mix of MMMFs today. We then describe the SEC’s proposals, before focusing on their key shortcomings. We hope that the public comments that the SEC receives will motivate it, at the very least, to conduct a serious quantitative assessment of introducing capital requirements for the most vulnerable MMMFs, to re-assess the scale of additional liquid assets needed for MMMF resilience in the absence of a Fed backstop, and to propose ways to enhance the effectiveness and utility of MMMF stress tests….

Same Function, Same Risks, Same Regulation

Technological progress always brings new challenges for financial regulators. While some innovations today seem revolutionary, in many cases they are not. What is new is the pace and breadth of innovation associated with fintech. Taking advantage of recent advances in information technology and communication, entrepreneurs and incumbent financial firms are creating a wide array of new intermediaries.

At a conceptual level, regulators’ approach to the risks created by these new entrants would seem to be straightforward: any provider of the same financial service, creating the same risks, should face the same regulation. Encourage innovation, but guard against any harm that it poses to the financial system.

How might we do this? Again, the answer is clear: focus on the financial activities, functions and services themselves (even though rule enforcement will almost surely proceed through the firms, entities or institutions that provide the services). Such activity-focused regulation requires an enormous shift of our approach. With our regulatory objectives in mind, we need to enumerate the financial activities and then create a framework that matches these two lists. In this post, we outline how regulators can begin to approach this task….

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….

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets