Showing posts with label NGDP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NGDP. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Money Is Now As "Easy" As It Was During The Great Depression!



The Ten year is currently yielding 2.09%.

The only difference is in the Great Depression was caused by a collapse in the money supply while the current recession is the result of a massive increase in the demand for cash.  The results are the exact same (although much less severe this time).

Monday, August 8, 2011

Debt Problems Are All About Insufficient Aggregate Demand

Look at this chart comparing Debt to NGDP...


It's pretty obvious that had NGDP been allowed to continue its trend growth, the US government debt burden would be significantly lower. Of course, raising NGDP by unexpectedly inflating is always an option (and always a bad one), but we are talking about continuing a trend that was the implicit goal of the Fed for the previous 20 years!

And remember, Lower NGDP resulted in lower real GDP as well. This increased government debt burden far beyond what the decline in NGDP relative to debt implies. Had NGDP continued to grow at trend, its reasonable to assume public debt would be closer to $7.6 trillion than $9.6 trillion.


Assuming NGDP stayed on trend (but debt still rose to $9.6 trillion), Debt/GDP would be 56% rather than 64%. Under a more plausible scenario, debt would have grown more slowly had NGDP stayed on trend and Debt/GDP would be even lower at ~44%.

Obviously entitlements are the biggest problem in the long run, and I think S&P was incorrect in downgrading the credit rating of the US, but this recession has still needlessly and dramatically increased our debt burden. Any true deficit hawk should be screaming for easier monetary policy.

Saturday, August 6, 2011

The Disaster That Is Federal Reserve policy.

Tim Duy nicely sums up how incompetent Fed policy has been over the past few years.
Bottom Line:  The market nosedive does not yet guarantee Fed action in the near future.  History has shown the Fed tends to react with a lag.  They should have learned better by now, but if they had learned anything, they would not have pushed forward with hawkish rhetoric earlier this year.  Arguably, they will hold firm, let the markets think they are out of the game and further bid down implied inflation expectations, and then, once the damage is done, up the level of stimulus.  Terrible way to run an economy, I know.
I think this is exactly right, and it shows how misguided the Fed is right now. If the Fed is looking at market inflation expectations (and they have made it clear they are) they seem to be forgetting that those expectations have expected monetary policy built into them. To the extent that expectations deviate from the Fed's implicit goal (2-3%), they already represent policy failure.

To use a "Sumnerian" analogy, it would be like the captain of the Titanic looking at market expectations of their eventual destination and saying "Expectations say we'll be in New York City on time, looks like my job is done!", without realizing those expectations exist because he is expected to appropriately react to changing conditions (and avoid icebergs!).

It's actually worse than this though, because the Fed will never make up for "lost" NGDP growth. They've already made it quite clear they aren't comfortable with inflation above ~2% under any circumstances, and so we are left with a permanently lower NGDP and 
price level trend.

To put this into perspective, in 2008, when the financial crisis began, a good guess for 2018 NGDP would have been about $26 trillion. Right now, even if we get 5% NGDP from this point forward it will be just over $22 trillion! Over the course of a decade this will have added up to a $27 trillion* difference in nominal income! Too bad for anyone paying wage contracts, but at least employees got a nice real wage boost! And sure, it hurts debtors, but investors have done fantastically! 
You may detect a hint of sarcasm. So much for the "trade offs" of inflation/deflation between creditors and debtors that some are pushing.

* I originally mistakenly wrote it would result in a $105 trillion difference because I forgot I was dealing with quarterly annualized numbers.

Friday, July 8, 2011

"The trade-offs (between growth and inflation) are getting less attractive at this point."

That was Bernanke during his April 27th press conference. What's happened since then?





Even if Bernanke was correct then, it seems clear that the trade-offs are once again incredibly attractive.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

How QE2's Announcement and Premature End Affected Asset Prices

Firstly, let me justify the beginning and end dates for QE2.

I consider August 27, 2010 to be the effective beginning of QE2. On this day Bernanke delivered the Jackson Hole speech in which he first hinted at another round of quantitative easing for the purpose of stimulating aggregate demand.

I consider April 27, 2011 to be the effective end of QE2 (although it would be more accurate to say "the end of any chance for additional easing of any kind unless things get much much worse"). The key quote by Bernanke was this :

“The trade-offs are getting — are getting less attractive at this point. Inflation has gotten higher. Inflation expectations are a bit higher. It’s not clear that we can get substantial improvements in payrolls without some additional inflation risk."

He hasn't given any indication he has changed his mind since, or that he plans to pursue any other form of easing.

Now that you know where I'm coming from, let's look at some asset prices!


No form of assets responded more clearly to the announcement and effective end of QE2 than equities did. Higher equity prices reflect better economic expectations and those expectations can become a self fulfilling prophecy through Tobin's q and wealth effects. Perhaps more importantly, higher stock prices also partially reflect a lower demand for dollars and that decreased demand immediately increases nominal spending. Also note the fall after QE2's "end".



Similarly, inflation expectations seem to have been strongly influenced by QE2's announcement. Again note the fall since QE2's end.


Treasury yields also noticeably rose in response to QE2. Many have pointed out that QE2 was supposed to reduce yields and have pointed to their rise as evidence against QE2's effectiveness (ignoring equity prices and inflation expectations), but higher yields were actually reflecting higher inflation real growth expectations. As Milton Friedman and Frederick Mishkin have pointed out, interest rates are NOT a reliable indicator of monetary policy and low interest rates can (and do) signal that money is tight. Higher interest rates usually reflect a healthier economy when rates are this low. Unsurprisingly, the lower rates of the past month have been associated with worsening economic conditions.


Finally, the dollar has almost certainly fallen as a result to QE2. A falling dollar can be a bad sign if it is associated with high inflation (or supply side issues), but high inflation is still not a concern. In this case, a falling dollar helped increase net exports (by cheapening domestic goods) and as reflected less dollar hoarding (which is associated with lower V and more NGDP at any given supply of money). And once again, just as any prospects for additional easing ended the dollar began to rise.

Several excellent economists including John Cochran and James Hamilton have expressed doubts about the effectiveness of QE2. It's true that from a purely mechanical perspective, QE2 was likely irrelevant. So why the impact on markets?

The most likely explanation is that QE2 impacted medium term (2-10 years in the future) NGDP expectations. Anything the Fed can do to convince people that they will push for a higher NGDP in the future will improve expectations. Improved expectations have immediate effects on NGDP as they raise expected inflation/real growth and reduce the demand for dollars (thereby increasing V) today.

If this is the case, why does the Fed seem so uncomfortable with higher future NGDP? I think it's mostly a year over year % change issue versus a level targeting one. The Fed is worried that even temporarily higher rates of inflation and NGDP growth (to catch up to past trends) will be hard to push back down. That would be reasonable if expected inflation was above 3%, but at barely 2% these concerns are completely unjustified. The Fed is also likely concerned about bubbles, but with unemployment at 9% and a tremendous amount of slack in the economy, those concerns need much more justification and evidence backing them before they can be legitimately used to prevent easier policy.

(Half way through creating this post I saw that Marcus Nunes beat me to it and posted something very similar. He makes somewhat different -- although equally valid -- points)

In the next few days I'll post something similar regarding the impact of QE2 on economic data.

Fed Funds and Aggregate Demand Watch 6/15/2011



S&P 500
April 27 : 1357
May 26 : 1325.69
June 8 : 1279.56
June 15 : 1265.42

Treasuries
2 year
April 27: 0.64
May 26 : 0.48
June 8 : 0.38
June 15 : 0.38
10 Year
April 27 : 3.35
May 26 : 3.06
June 8 : 2.94
June 15 : 2.97
30 Year
April 27 : 4.45
May 26 : 4.22
June 8 : 4.19
June 15 : 4.20

Inflation Expectations
2 year inflation swaps
April 27 : 2.65
May 26 : 2.12
June 8 : 2.01
June 15 : 2.00
5 Year TIPS Breakeven rate
April 27 : 2.35
May 26 : 2.07
June 8 : 2.02
June 15 : 2.01
10 Year TIPS spread
April 27 : 2.6
May 26 : 2.34
June 8 : 2.27
June 15 : 2.29
30 Year TIPS spread
April 27 : 2.68
May 26 : 2.47
June 8 : 2.45
June 15 : 2.44

Bloomberg Commodity Index
April 27 : 1766.98
May 26 : 1684.28
June 8 : 1713.68
June 15 : 1674.20

EUR USD
April 27 : 1.4738
May 26 : 1.4129
June 8 : 1.4577
June 15 : 1.4172

(Data from bloomberg.com)

Thanks to the beating stocks took today, data were once again mixed compared to last week. Stocks and commodities are signaling lower aggregate demand expectations, while the Euro/Dollar exchange rate and federal funds futures are signaling higher expectations. Despite a better than expected retail sales number (which was still negative), economic data has continued to disappoint. At this point, I consider "mixed" markets good news.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Fed Funds and Aggregate Demand Watch 6/1/2011 : Expectations Continue to Fall




S&P 500
April 27 : 1357
May 26 : 1325.69
June 1: 1314.55

Treasuries
2 year
April 27: 0.64
May 26 : 0.48
June 1: 0.44
10 Year
April 27 : 3.35
May 26 : 3.06
June 1: 2.95
30 Year
April 27 : 4.45
May 26 : 4.22
June 1: 4.14

Inflation Expectations
2 year inflation swaps
April 27 : 2.65
May 26 : 2.12
June 1: 2.05
5 Year TIPS Breakeven rate
April 27 : 2.35
May 26 : 2.07
June 1: 2.01
10 Year TIPS spread
April 27 : 2.6
May 26 : 2.34
June 1: 2.28
30 Year TIPS spread
April 27 : 2.68
May 26 : 2.47
June 1: 2.42

Bloomberg Commodity Index
April 27 : 1766.98
May 26 : 1684.28
June 1: 1691.51

EUR USD
April 27 : 1.4738
May 26 : 1.4129
June 1: 1.4329

(Data from bloomberg.com)

It's amazing how quickly things have gone down the drain since Bernanke's press conference. A lot of press coverage has focused on how the earthquake in Japan may be behind some of the disappointing economic data, but markets are signaling that longer term expectations have fallen as well.

Lower Fed Fund futures expectations, stock prices, bond yields, exchange rates, commodity prices, and inflation expectations are all signs of tighter monetary policy. Lower fed funds rates and treasury yields signaling tighter money may sound counter-intuitive, but the Fed won't raise rates until the economy is in better shape, and lower treasury yields reflect lower inflation and real growth expectations.

I hereby predict that 
1) Economic data will continue to get worse until the Fed intervenes in some manner. Markets have already priced in some response by the Fed, but every day without intervention will drive markets down further. Markets are waiting for easier money. (Translation: tight money is the economy's biggest problem)
2) Regardless of how the Fed intervenes, the direction of economic activity will quickly turn around, although the magnitude of the recovery depends on what method the Fed chooses in it's intervention (Translation : monetary policy doesn't have long and variable lags to the extent it is commonly believed)
3) Any kind of a long term anchor (explicit NGDP/CPI targeting) or adjustable policy (changing IOR or asset purchases monthly based on the latest data) will be more effective  than ambiguous and rigid policies (QE2, keeping the Fed Funds rate at 0% for "an extended period of time") (Translation: Monetary policy needs to commit to changing along with the state of the economy to be effective. It's not clear what rates of inflation the Fed is willing to put up with and what the Fed is willing to do to make sure it reaches its goals)

These are all verifiable predictions. We'll see how they do!

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Fed Funds and Aggregate Demand Watch 5/26/2011



S&P 500
April 27 : 1357
May 26 : 1325.69

Treasuries
2 year
April 27: 0.64
May 26 : 0.48
10 Year
April 27 : 3.35
May 26 : 3.06
30 Year
April 27 : 4.45
May 26 : 4.22

Inflation Expectations
2 year inflation swaps
April 27 : 2.65
May 26 : 2.12
5 Year TIPS Breakeven rate
April 27 : 2.35
May 26 : 2.07
10 Year TIPS spread
April 27 : 2.6
May 26 : 2.34
30 Year TIPS spread
April 27 : 2.68
May 26 : 2.47

Bloomberg Commodity Index
April 27 : 1766.98
May 26 : 1684.28

EUR USD
April 27 : 1.4738
May 26 : 1.4129

(Data from bloomberg.com)

NGDP expectations are much lower than they were a month ago. On the economic data side, GDP, retail sales, initial claims, and industrial production numbers continue to disappoint. My guess is expectations and data will continue to fall as long as the Fed stays silent.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Fed Funds and Aggregate Demand Watch 5/18/2011



S&P 500
April 27 : 1357
May 7 : 1347.32
May 11 : 1342.08
May 18 : 1340.68

Treasuries
2 year
April 27: 0.64
May 7 : 0.59
May 11 : 0.55
May 18 : 0.55
10 Year
April 27 : 3.35
May 7 : 3.22
May 11 : 3.15
May 18 : 3.18
30 Year
April 27 : 4.45
May 7 : 4.32
May 11 : 4.30
May 18 : 4.29

Inflation Expectations
2 year inflation swaps
April 27 : 2.65
May 7 : 2.62
May 11 : 2.32
May 18 : 2.16
5 Year TIPS Breakeven rate
April 27 : 2.35
May 7 : 2.43
May 11 : 2.24
May 18 : 2.19
10 Year TIPS spread
April 27 : 2.6
May 7 : 2.57
May 11 : 2.45
May 18 : 2.42
30 Year TIPS spread
April 27 : 2.68
May 7 : 2.67
May 11 : 2.59
May 18 : 2.53

Bloomberg Commodity Index
April 27 : 1766.98
May 7 : 1728.18
May 11 : 1638.78
May 18 : 1672.35

EUR USD
May 7 : 1.486
May 11 : 1.4197
May 18 : 1.4249

(Data from bloomberg.com)

Overall asset prices are signaling NGDP growth expectations are similar to what they were last week. Lower inflation expectations might make the Fed more comfortable in easing policy (through more QE, lower interest on reserves, inflation level targeting, etc.) but it's still hard to see additional easing until things get much worse. More than anything else, the issue may be putting off "tightening" policy (through raising rates or reducing balance sheet size), but that is a long way off and it can't be seen in fed funds futures. 

It's also getting harder and harder to believe the fed is concerned with anything other than year over year growth rates; that's not a good sign if you're looking for a strong recovery.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Fed Funds Futures and Aggregate Demand Watch 5/4/2011

Data from : http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/interest-rates/stir/30-day-federal-fund.html
(Before data corresponds with April 27 and After corresponds with today's closing prices)

S&P 500
Before : 1357
After : 1347

Treasuries
2 year
Before : 0.64
After : 0.59
10 Year
Before : 3.35
After : 3.22
30 Year
Before : 4.45
After : 4.32

Inflation Expectations
2 year inflation swaps
Before : 2.65
After : 2.62
5 Year TIPS
Before : 2.38
After : 2.44
10 Year TIPS
Before : 2.6
After : 2.57
30 Year TIPS
Before : 2.68
After : 2.67

Bloomberg Commodity Index
Before : 1766.98
After : 1728.18

Lower equity prices, lower nominal and real yields, lower inflation expectations, lower federal funds futures, and lower commodity prices... all signal lower aggregate demand expectations. Markets are clearly less optimistic about the US economy than they were a week ago, but the change is relatively modest.

(Non-fed funds futures data from bloomberg.com)

Sunday, May 1, 2011