Verdeeldheid bij de Fed
De notulen van de vergadering van de Federal Open Market Committee kwamen
gisteren uit – en hieruit valt op te maken dat er geen concensus is.
“Fed Divisions Led to a Compromise on Interest Rates — No one knows what to
do to fix the economy. At their meeting this month, Federal Reserve policy
makers were in strong disagreement, with some advocating aggressive options
to stimulate the economy and others pressing to do nothing, according to
minutes released on Tuesday. At the time of the Aug. 9 meeting, the Fed
disclosed three dissenting votes — unusual given that most decisions are
reached by consensus — but it was not known until Tuesday that there was
such a broad array of disagreement and such vigorous debate about the
options. In the end, the Federal Open Market Committee took a middle ground,
agreeing to keep interest rates near zero through mid-2013.”
Voor de volledigheid ook de
link naar de officieele Fed site.
Recessie was dieper dan gedacht
Je vraagt je af waar die verdeeldheid door komt. Over de economie zijn de
medewerkers het wel eens lijkt het: “Staff Review of the Economic Situation
– The information reviewed at the August 9 meeting indicated that the pace
of the economic recovery remained slow in recent months and that labor
market conditions continued to be weak. In addition, revised data for 2008
through 2010 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicated that the recent
recession was deeper than previously thought and that the level of real
gross domestic product (GDP) had not yet attained its pre-recession peak by
the second quarter of 2011. Moreover, the downward revision to first-quarter
GDP growth and the slow growth reported for the second quarter indicated
that the recovery was quite sluggish in the first half of this year. Overall
consumer price inflation moderated in recent months, and survey measures of
long-run inflation expectations remained stable.”
Vooruitzichten
En de vooruitzichten zijn ook niet al te vrolijk: “Staff Economic Outlook –
The information on economic activity received since the June FOMC meeting
was weaker than the staff had anticipated, and the projection for real GDP
growth in the second half of 2011 and in 2012 was marked down notably.
Moreover, the lower estimates of real GDP in recent years that were
contained in the annual revisions to the NIPA led the staff to lower its
estimate of potential GDP growth, both during recent years and over the
forecast period, and to mark down further the staff forecast. The staff
continued to expect some rebound in economic activity in the near term as
the Japan-related supply chain disruptions in the motor vehicle sector
eased. More generally, the staff still projected real GDP to accelerate
gradually over the next year and a half, supported by accommodative monetary
policy, improved credit availability, and a pickup in consumer and business
sentiment. However, the increase in real GDP was projected to be sufficient
to reduce slack in the labor market only slowly, and the unemployment rate
was expected to remain elevated at the end of 2012.”
[lees ook “Double
Dip Recession Or Year 5 Of 2007 Recession?” bij Ritholz ) en
“Recession Measures” bij CalculatedRisk ]
Inflatie-angst blijft
Als bovenstaande de basis is van een discussie over monetair beleid, dan zou
je denken: de groei is te laag, werkloosheid te hoog en inflitie stabiel,
dus: stimuleren maar! Maar vooral over die inflatie verschillen de meningen:
“…Measures of inflation expectations had remained stable. Nevertheless, a
number of participants noted that core inflation had moved up, on balance,
since last fall. Some indicated that the rise in inflation from very low
levels reflected the Committee’s accommodative stance of monetary policy,
which had helped address the deflation risks of a year ago. A couple of
others, however, suggested that the juxtaposition of higher core inflation
and somewhat lower unemployment could imply that the level of potential
output was lower than had been thought. …”
Er wordt lijkt me impliciet met een aantal modellen gewerkt, en de laatste
opmerking sluit aan bij de mode om de beroerde economische situatie aan
structurele, in plaats van cyclische problemen te wijten. De drie ‘haviken’
( Fisher, Kocherlakota en Plosser.) die tegen het voorstel (… to keep the
target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent. The Committee
currently anticipates that economic conditions--including low rates of
resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium
run--are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds
rate at least through mid-2013.) stemden gaven aan dat ze liever het vage
"extended period," dan “at least through mid-2013” wilden horen.
Ze zijn duidelijk geen Keynesianen. Omdat de haviken al genoeg exposure
krijgen, hier de mening van een duif: “Chicago Fed's Evans Calls For 'Much
More' Fed Easing - …
"We need to do much more to increase the level of accommodation," Mr. Evans
said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, calling the 9.1%
unemployment rate "totally incompatible" with the Fed's goals. … He worries
the public has tended to be too quick to assume the Fed will raise interest
rates whenever the economy perks up a little and says that view is
undermining the recovery.” Ik ben het eens met Evans. Zolang er
niet naar de duiven geluisterd wordt, zijn het goede tijden voor de
obligatiehouders. En gisteren heeft Bill Gross van Pimco dat
schoorsteenvoetend toegegeven: “Bill
Gross has something to say - … I get that it was my/our mistake in thinking
that the US economy can chug along at 2 per cent real growth rates. It
doesn’t look like it can.”
Jacob Jurg is verbonden aan AFS en
verantwoordelijk voor nieuws en research.
Volg de markten op Z24 Beurs
Dit artikel is oorspronkelijk verschenen op z24.nl
