Federal Reserve Meeting Minutes: Stronger than Oak
Dear colleagues,
There is nothing as sweet as a long stroll down Madison Avenue after the snowflakes have been hung and lit, seeming to float in midair, as far as the eye can see south. Despite the fact that the tree at Rockefeller Center looms large but still dark, nodding to Thanksgiving not yet having come and gone, the vision of twinkling lights nonetheless stirs the holiday spirit within.
This year however holds a special sort of hope for what’s to come. Change is distinctly in the air.
You’d best not try to glean a sense of that anticipation on the streets of New York. Most Big Apple residents still mourn the lack of change that will not come to pass, the status quo whose hope has been quashed. If anything, the disconnect between despondent New Yorkers and euphoric Wall Street traders adds a tinge of irony to overall mood.
Part of the awakening to the slowly unfolding revolution presumes change will delve as deep as the Federal Reserve. I personally have newfound faith that the pathway forward for the Fed, as laid out in my book, Fed Up, now has a fighting chance to be not just intellectually appreciated, but pragmatically applied.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Until the time that the two vacant seats on the Board of Governors are filled with thought leaders of a different ilk, we have no choice but to sit back and witness business as usual. That starts with the release of today’s November lame duck FOMC Meeting Minutes. If nothing else, the verbiage will be cleaner than the norm. Not even Fed officials would be brazen enough to rewrite the history of Trump’s unexpected victory into an event that transpired a week before elections were held.
Looking ahead, all eyes will be on the presumptive December rate hike, but more importantly, on what the Fed signals is to come in 2017. For more on those prospects, please read on.
And please, please, accept my most heartfelt wishes to you and yours for a Happy Thanksgiving. In addition to my healthy family, I have the blessing of you, my loyal readers, for whom I give deep thanks this year.
My very best,
Danielle
Federal Reserve Meeting Minutes: Stronger than Oak
Ever heard of an Alpha quote? That’s how best to classify, “Show me the money!!!”
It didn’t take you but a nanosecond to picture Jerry Maguire screaming that line into his phone. The shame, for lack of a better word, is that another quote from the same movie, that’s almost as good, will only live on to minor fame.
Getting to the not quite as famous quote requires that you navigate not one, but two scenes in the 1996 Tom Cruise blockbuster. Sports agent Maguire has landed an Odessa, Texas high school superstar quarterback. In perfect stereotypical form, the boy’s father is chief negotiator. Out Maguire drives to dusty West Texas to seal the deal, on paper, to which the father replies: “You know I don’t do contracts, but what you do have is my word. And it’s stronger than oak.” One firm handshake later, we see an elated Maguire driving off singing and pounding his steering wheel to the beat of Tom Petty’s “Free Falling.”
Of course, a betrayal follows as sure as night follows day and the father signs, yes signs, with a rival agent offering a sweeter as in “Sugar” deal. But what about the strength of that oak? A pumped-up Maguire arrives for the young star's big moment and learns that in all likelihood Cushman Senior does sign contracts. To that Maguire bitterly retorts, “I’m still sort of moved by your, ‘My word is stronger than oak’ thing.” The moral we saw coming: Always get it in writing.
But what happens when those written words still aren’t good enough? The occasion of the release of most Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) Meeting Minutes would seem to be a great opportunity to get a behind-the-scenes take on all those round the table machinations. Minutes of lame duck meetings – no press conference, no action – hold even greater appeal, especially if multiple dissents accompany the decision. Hence the media jockeying for instant live reaction at 2 pm EST three weeks to the minute from the moment the statement is released. Hey, it beats waiting around five years for the meeting transcripts.
Did someone mention transcripts? In 2008, Janet Yellen herself suggested – in plain English, mind you – that the FOMC deploy the Minutes as they would any other tool in their quickly dwindling toolbox of conventionality. In the event the data or the markets have not reacted to the meticulously crafted statement in the manner Fed officials intended, whip out the Minutes to reshape the public’s thinking. Rather than become a monkey on her back, Yellen’s suggestion to outright manipulate the Minutes has been embraced by her peers and the public alike; parsing the message in the Minutes has become a favorite Wall Street parlor game.
That is, until today. A massage is one thing, a machete that leaves a blood trail quite another; hence the impossible task of weaving an entirely unexpected election result (especially for those on the FOMC) into the Minutes of a meeting that took place a week beforehand. Today, in other words, we will see relatively clean minutes, the prospect of which holds a whole different kind of appeal. (It may also explain the downright deluge of Fedspeak since the election. Do you get the sense there’s an unwritten Fed policy that dictates more is more when the Minutes have been disengaged?)
Given the violent reaction in the bond market to the election, it’s bound to be killing Yellen to not nod as to how the Fed is apt to react come December 14th. But the truth is the market has already placed its bet, pegging the probability of a quarter-percentage-point hike at a neat 100 percent. That gets us to the “What’s next?” portion of the program, which is when things begin to look a little hazardous.
The brilliant (word not used with even a scintilla of hyperbole) William White was recently honored with the Adam Smith prize, the highest on offer from the National Association of Business Economics. White’s career has been long and esteemed. In 2008, he retired from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and is now chairman of the Economic Development Review Committee of the OECD in Paris. On a personal level, yours truly has been honored to get to know White as fellow participants at The Ditchley Foundation’s annual gatherings.
But back to that, “What’s next?” for Yellen et al. Let’s just say White has uncovered the answer. To mark the occasion of his receiving the Adam Smith award, White penned, “Ultra-Easy Money: Digging a Deeper Hole?” Gotta love the subtlety in that title.
Do yourself a favor and Google the paper and read it in its entirety. It is blessedly readable and free of econometrics, as in approachable by those outside the insular field of economics.
White has never been one to kowtow to his peers. Rather than blindly acquiesce to the notion that monetary policy can solve all the world’s problems, White rightly recognizes the elephant in the room, namely that, “by encouraging still more credit and debt expansion, monetary policy has ‘dug a deeper hole.’” White’s basic premise is that central bankers’ hubris (my word) has deluded them into believing the economy can be modelled, “as an understandable and controllable machine rather than as a complex, adaptive system.”
Prior to the financial crisis, monetary policy was “unnaturally easy” and after the crisis broke, “ultra-easy.” Put differently, the failure of lower for longer was not recognized as a failure and taken as an opportunity from which to learn and grow into a new paradigm. Rather, monetary policymakers dug the hole deeper, insisting that failure be not acknowledged, but instead institutionalized. And so policy has been lower for even longer, exit delayed time and again.
Into this breach, Yellen steps again, one year after her first stab at a rate hike. The rest of the world can be thankful she wears sensible shoes, as opposed to strappy, red stilettos, given the potentially dangerous landing for this second rate hike since 2006. Maybe the Minutes will reveal how heated the discussion was about the impending December hike and its aftermath. We can only hope.
Most of the market’s focus since the election has been on major currencies’ moves against the dollar in reaction to the near one percentage point rise in the benchmark 10-year Treasury off its post-Brexit lows. No doubt, the move in the euro has been nothing short of magnificent. The powers that be at the Bundesbank have to be sweating out the ramifications of the next potential move given the double whammy of an interest rate increase here and a losing vote for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s referendum on December 4th.
You’d never know it given the euphoria in the stock market, but a strong dollar can be harmful to the global economy’s health. While in no way inconsequential, the euro’s weakness pales compared to that of the shellacking underway in emerging market (EM) currencies. According to the BIS, since the financial crisis, outstanding dollar-denominated credit extended to non-bank borrowers outside the United States has increased from $6 trillion to $9.8 trillion.
The game changer in the current episode is the catalyst that drove the growth in EM dollar-denominated debt, namely unconventional Fed policy. The yield drought created by seven years of zero interest rate policy and quantitative easing pushed investors to show EM debt issuers the money. In prior periods, cross border bank loans were the source of the growth. Let’s see. Is it investors or bankers who are more likely and able to panic and run?
“This raises the specter of currency mismatch problems of the sort seen in the South Eastern Asia crisis of 1997,” worries White. “The fact that many of the corporate borrowers have rather low credit ratings also raises serious concerns, as does the maturity profile. About $340 billion of such debt matures between 2016 and 2018.”
Talk about a black box of uncertainty that’s sure to dominate the discussion at the upcoming FOMC meeting. The differences between last December and now, however, cannot be captured in any model. That should prove vexing to current members of the FOMC who’d prefer to not wander blindly onto a field littered with landmines.
As White forewarns, “Future economic setbacks tied to ultra-easy money could threaten social and political stability, particularly given the many signs of strains already evident worldwide. In short, the policy stakes are now very high.”
Oh how the Fed must long for the days of yore, when it was feasible to make policy in a domestic vacuum. Though the new reality set in over a matter of years, last August’s rude reminder on the part of People’s Bank of China abruptly ended that bygone era once and for all. The Fed can jawbone all it likes, in tiptoe style in the Minutes, or in gaudy fashion in an endless parade of FedSpeak.
But the reality of it is, if the rest of the world’s economic vulnerabilities and systemic fault lines are laid bare by this December’s hike, Fed officials’ words won’t amount to much more than trash talk, kind of like their vociferous vows to raise rates four times this year. In the end, their word proved to be as strong as, well, West Texas Oak.
For a full archive of my writing, please visit my website Money Strong LLC at www.DiMartinoBooth.com
Manager TIM Venture Capital, I am inventor of a new economic model at quantum leap level combined with a virtual central bank in dimensions made possible in 2019 through EC and EP the acceptance of virtual.
8 年The clearing houses have deposit the money at the FED, so the maximum calculated risk is the interest of what the FED pays,, the money which is not invested and parked for several hours or a few days.That is the playingfield for the Algoritmen. Are the financial firms allowed based on their deposit to open an extra creditline? If that is the case then you have to correct the parameters in your algoritmen, so that the calculated risk is brought down. Suppose the exchange crash, and there is not enough money to cover the losses. All the investors are dealing with the margin call.So the billions are lost. Only the FED may create money, again the thinkfailure will harm the real economy.The solution offered here will not work, when the counterparty is the central bank. The central bank need as counterparty the quantum virtual central bank .then it will works. The quantum economy is leading the financial world,by changing your perception there will be opened a new world ,where all solutions work at quantum level and there you can close all the positions don;t park the money in the real world but in the virtual environment.Here you have all creating power of the money which is needed for the real world.
Software Development Contractor
8 年In 2014, the price of oil is cut roughly in 2 (actually by 3, to $30 or so from $100, although the current $50 is roughly half). The costs and 'shortage' of oil were a 'constraint' on the global economy, although such 'constraint' required the development of considerable efficiency in things like aircraft, cars, and ships. At the point where the price of oil collapsed, vast opportunity spaces appeared, however many others disappeared. With the oil markets saturated, the demand for steel tubing collapsed, as one example. In the meantime, air travel could be priced for groups of consumers that were previously 'beyond reach'. Products that were expensive to ship could reach more distant markets, and products that were energy intensive became 'affordable' to far more people. While oil profits collapsed, the profits of energy consumers notched upwards, sometimes significantly. This was great for airlines, cruise liners, building materials manufacturers, and so forth. It also had a further perverse consequence: it was cheaper to make solar cells, wind turbines, and extract energy storage raw materials such as lithium. The oil price story is 'one among many' - with other examples being continuing improvements in computer power, data communications bandwidth, memory density, and so forth. Somewhere in these supply chains there are significant profits, whether visible or obscured. A lot of these profits are saved, either because the saver needs the money for their retirement, or because they see no point in reinvesting profits in their existing operations. They may also have have no idea of anything else to do with it. Banking systems end up housing hoards of cash that no one needs to borrow. 'Emerging markets' are sources of many of these profits, but local insecurities drive the savers to park their money in 'havens' such as European and North American government bonds. Smaller countries, such as Switzerland and Denmark, see absolutely no point in paying foreigners interest, therefore the debt they issue is so insignificant that people pay them to hold their cash. This is the proverbial 'negative interest rate'. Low rates are being blamed on all kinds of people, including central bankers. The idea that the Fed is going to raise rates from 'nearly zero' to, say, 0.75% is laughable given that 'interbank rates' in the 1990's could run 2% to 3%. Raising interest rates has the effect of diminishing the supply of circulating currency. Trillions of dollars of US debt is already 'hidden away' in foreign country central banks in order to defend local currencies. If the Fed 'prints money' it could 'disappear' into a number of 'black holes', never to be seen in current human lifetimes. Do Chinese home builders really need to build more houses? The point of this question is that people tend to get on a trajectory and stay on it, even if it no longer makes sense. What 'China really needs' right now is a way to transmit electricity from wind farms in the interior of the country to coastal cities, however few if any builders are oriented towards that kind of work. So they create new housing projects in Malaysia right next to Singapore. A lot of effort in building fancy hotels, shopping districts, and housing would be better spent creating new and improved water purification and distribution systems. These are 'boring' and are bought by governments rather than homeowners, suggesting that profits are limited to roughly 'the cost of staying in business', rather than 'what the market will bear' from indiscriminate private buyers. Thus resources get directed towards savings from profits on private sales and away from meeting immediate human needs. Even if Central Bankers raise rates, people still have the overall incentive to serve private consumers in comparison to parsimonious public entities. Fed policymakers may be lost in the wilderness, but this should not be translated into being deliberately hostile to savers. Blaming specific officials for something that is at work all around the globe simply exposes ignorance - a dangerous situation when people are planning and managing retirement savings. It is far more desirable to seek alternative viewpoints, and consider explanations that don't point fingers.