The Everyday Economist

In Keynes’ General Theory, he explained that an equity market collapse could be blamed on either a weakening of confidence or of the state of credit — in modern parlance, these are referred to as “counter-party risk” and “liquidity risk” respectively. The importance of this observation, however, is given by Keynes subsequent assertion that “recovery requires the revival of both” (Keynes, 1936 [1973]: 158).

The point raised by Keynes is especially prescient given the current market turmoil. The realization that asset-backed securities were not worth what investors thought they were led to a collapse of both confidence and the state of credit. Financials were left wondering what the true size of their balance sheet was and therefore liquidity was in short supply, while simultaneously the increase in counter-party risk led these same institutions to be hesitant to lend. The result was a substantial increase in conventional measures of risk as reflected by the LIBOR-OIS spread and the TED spread as well as others. In an effort to ensure that both the collapse in confidence and of liquidity were reversed the Federal Reserve has taken drastic action. They have expanded the scope of the discount window through the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) and have created the Term Auction Facility (TAF) to ensure that firms have the liquidity that they need. In addition, the federal funds rate was lowered precipitously to 2%. Thus, the major question is whether this has worked.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that the Federal Reserve has been moderately successful, but that they need to hold their course (i.e. not raise rates) to prevent a further exacerbation of the crisis. On the other hand, I have recently advocated a tightening of the federal funds rate in an attempt to stave off ever-growing inflationary pressures from a world awash in liquidity and therefore would like to submit the current data to closer analysis.

Currently the spread between the 3-month LIBOR (the London Interbank Offer Rate) and the Overnight Indexed Swap remains relatively high. Similarly, although the TED spread has gone down it remains elevated. In a recent paper by John Taylor and John Williams, they argue that these elevated risk spreads in the aftermath of the creation of the TAF suggests that it has not been successful. They may be correct, but I would like to float a different hypothesis. It is my view that the creation of the TAF and the subsequent creation of the PDCF have only satisfied one aspect of the recovery process, namely, an increase in liquidity. Whereas the programs increase the scope of the Federal Reserve’s role as lender of last resort thus ensuring that there is liquidity to be had, the programs have not succeeded in restoring confidence. In other words, the conventional measures of risk are reflecting counter-party risk, rather than liquidity risk. As the allusion to Keynes earlier highlights, it is not enough to start a recovery by merely providing liquidity; confidence must also be restored. Although the Fed had hoped that the creation of such programs would encourage firms to accept the same collateral, they have provided no such increase (or at least very little increase) in the state of confidence (as reflected in the still elevated conventional measures of risk).

If I am correct in my hypothesis, this would suggest that the rate cuts by the Federal Reserve have gone too far and have not contributed substantially to the increase in liquidity nor to the alleviation of the crisis. Under such circumstances, it would therefore prove prudent for the Federal Reserve to begin raising rates to stave off inflationary pressures rather than relying on others to do so. Unfortunately, my hypothesis also suggests that the crisis is here to stay for some time as the financials sort things out and until, ultimately, confidence is restored.

Perhaps we should offer Ben Bernanke a do-over. On Wednesday the FOMC decided to hold interest rates steady despite the fact that global inflationary pressures are heating up. The statement released by the Fed hinted that they may raise rates in the future, but simultaneously talked of the weakening labor market and the perils of the credit markets. In doing so, the statement sent shivers down the spines of both those who are worried about inflation and those who are worried about rate hikes.

As an inflation hawk, I have been a bit careless with my recommendations to raise interest rates and I have not sufficiently answered those who are concerned with unemployment and the fragility of the economy. Thus, allow me to elaborate.

In a recent Bloomberg interview, Nobel laureate Ned Phelps wondered aloud whether or not the Fed understands anything about modern monetary policy. What Phelps was communicating is the fact that the Federal Reserve seems unable to distinguish between transitory changes in unemployment and those driven by structural changes in the economy. As Phelps rightly pointed out, the collapse of housing boom has created a restructuring within the economy. It is highly probable therefore that the natural rate of unemployment has risen. If so, any attempt by the Federal Reserve to combat rising unemployment with lower interest rates will prove to be futile. In light of such thinking, it is quite understandable that talk of rising unemployment in the FOMC statement was particularly troubling.

Worries about the credit markets are similarly overblown. So long as the Fed stands ready to serve as lender of last resort, a task they have admirably performed thus far, further crisis should remain averted even in the midst of higher interest rates.

Bernanke and the FOMC made a mistake by not raising interest rates on Wednesday (as indicated by the rising prices of gold, oil, and other commodities). The rise in unemployment is not temporary and therefore need not be of concern to the Fed. In the meantime, global inflation and inflationary expectations are on the rise. Let’s hope that the Fed doesn’t make the same mistake when August rolls around.

Recently, there has been a great deal of talk regarding oil prices and the possibility of a bubble. Predictions of $200 oil are now becoming more common. Folks like Paul Krugman don’t believe that prices are out of line with fundamentals. However, given the fact that oil prices have risen over 100% in the past 52 weeks, this must mean that something is wrong. Either we had the price wrong last year or the price is wrong this year. Arnold Kling therefore poses the following question:

Early in 2007, the price of oil was $60 a barrel. Recently, it has been above $130 a barrel. Which of the following does Paul Krugman believe:

(a) market fundamentals justified $60 a barrel then, and they justify $130 a barrel now; or

(b) market fundamentals justified a much higher price in 2007?

I believe that (b) is more likely to be true, meaning that we had what Tyler Cowen calls an “anti-bubble” in oil.

We know that Krugman does not believe that today’s oil price is out of line with fundamentals. Krugman’s view, in effect, is that if speculators artificially boost the price of oil, then supply will exceed demand, and the excess has to go somewhere. Where are the inventories?

This view ought to hold in reverse. If speculators artificially kept the price of oil too low early in 2007, then demand should have exceeded supply and inventories should have vanished. Yet they did not. So is Krugman forced by his model to conclude that the price of oil of $60 also reflected fundamentals?

Meanwhile, James Hamilton answers:

Where are the inventories? China already burned them.

So where do I come down on this question? I believe that we are in the midst of an oil price bubble. Let’s look at some of the facts:

1. As I have previously stated, the fact that oil prices are rising must faster than the real rate of interest (which may, in fact, be below zero) is causing oil companies to leave the black stuff in the ground.

2. Changes in daily futures prices for oil exhibit positive long-run persistence, which can suggest behavior consistent with herding.

3. The Federal Reserve is incredibly accommodative at the moment.

In my mind, there are too many factors that are pushing the price up that are beyond what the fundamentals would dictate.

FOMC statement:

The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to keep its target for the federal funds rate at 2 percent.

Recent information indicates that overall economic activity continues to expand, partly reflecting some firming in household spending. However, labor markets have softened further and financial markets remain under considerable stress. Tight credit conditions, the ongoing housing contraction, and the rise in energy prices are likely to weigh on economic growth over the next few quarters.

The Committee expects inflation to moderate later this year and next year. However, in light of the continued increases in the prices of energy and some other commodities and the elevated state of some indicators of inflation expectations, uncertainty about the inflation outlook remains high.

The substantial easing of monetary policy to date, combined with ongoing measures to foster market liquidity, should help to promote moderate growth over time. Although downside risks to growth remain, they appear to have diminished somewhat, and the upside risks to inflation and inflation expectations have increased. The Committee will continue to monitor economic and financial developments and will act as needed to promote sustainable economic growth and price stability.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; Timothy F. Geithner, Vice Chairman; Donald L. Kohn; Randall S. Kroszner; Frederic S. Mishkin; Sandra Pianalto; Charles I. Plosser; Gary H. Stern; and Kevin M. Warsh. Voting against was Richard W. Fisher, who preferred an increase in the target for the federal funds rate at this meeting. [Emphasis added.]

Despite the comments on inflation, I don’t think that this is an indication of an increase in August. Balanced with the talk of the credit markets and softening labor market, the comments on inflation do not stand out as being sufficiently hawkish to indicate a coming rate hike.

Those of us who have been hawkish on inflation have been lonely for several months now. However, recent data has suggested that the Federal Reserve may soon start raising rates again. Nevertheless, there are a group of individuals who believe that the inflation numbers are actually worse. Our friend Barry Ritholtz has been leading the charge claiming that BLS data is understating inflation and unemployment (some have referred to these claims as conspiracy theories). I think that Barry is correct to assert that inflation is worse than the numbers indicate, however, I do not think that the numbers are the problem.

The real problem is that our focus is always on the overall price level rather than relative prices. Commodity prices are on the rise, and will continue to be, so long as the world remains awash in liquidity and real interest rates remain low. The former stokes the demand fire and the latter provides a disincentive for discovery and investment. Looking at the overall price level, it seems as though inflation is quite modest all things considered (albeit above most economists comfort level). The reason that inflation seems so much worse than the numbers indicate is because the prices of things that most consumers consider necessities, like gasoline and food, are experiencing the most rapid increases. In an economy where homeowners were (are?) more leveraged than they have ever been, they are now seeing their wealth decline due to falling home prices while simultaneously experiencing an increase in the costs of food and gasoline.

The world has largely been awash in liquidity for the better part of this decade. Despite this increase in liquidity, price indices have largely been held down by the rapid productivity growth beginning at the end of the 1990s and continuing through the first half of this decade. These low levels of inflation, however, were providing incorrect signals to central banks and fears of deflation reinforced the easy money policies. The proverbial chickens, however, are now coming home to roost. Productivity has begun to slow and can no longer be counted on to hold down prices.

What can the Fed do?

The best solution that the Fed can provide is to begin raising the Federal funds rate. Aggressively raising rates should start to reign in liquidity and lower inflation expectations. Higher real interest rates should provide the incentive for an increase in oil production and reigning in liquidity should reduce demand thereby putting downward pressure on oil prices and likely other commodities as well. Critics may charge that the economy cannot cope with higher interest rates. However, so long as the Fed stands ready to act as lender of last resort (a role they have performed well thus far), the U.S. economy should be able to weather the storm.

There may not be an inflation conspiracy, but inflation is a much bigger problem than the numbers indicate. It is time for the Fed to reverse course and start raising interest rates.

It’s time for another edition of “Inflation? What Inflation?” Two stories from the WSJ today:

• U.K. Says Higher Rates Would Take Heavy Toll:
  

  New data showed the United Kingdom’s annual inflation rate jumped to 3.3% in May, and Bank of England Gov. Mervyn King set a two-year timeframe to nudge the rate to the central bank’s 2% target.

  [...]

  Data showed the annual rate of inflation rose to 3.3% in May — its highest level since 1992 — from 3% in April. Mr. King said the rate is expected to move above 4% in the second half of this year and remain “markedly above” the 2% target well into 2009.

  When the inflation rate is above 3%, the central bank governor is required to write a letter to the government explaining why prices are rising and what the bank intends to do about it.

• Fed Faces Dilemma as Costs Soar, Activity Slows:
  

  Data released by the Labor Department on Tuesday show companies are facing rising costs for an array of supplies, which may prompt them to increase prices on their products in the months ahead. The producer-price index rose 1.4% in May from the month before, partly reflecting a surge in crude-oil prices that pushed gasoline prices up 9.3%. Prices for other commodities also jumped.

  The index for core prices, which excludes energy and food, rose by a more muted 0.2% in May from the month before, but was up 3% from a year earlier, the biggest jump on a yearly basis since 1991.

It is time to restrain monetary growth on a global scale.

Bloomberg reports:

Traders predict the Federal Open Market Committee, meeting today in Washington, will lower the overnight lending rate by a full percentage point, based on futures prices in Chicago. That would be the biggest reduction since 1984, when Paul Volcker led the central bank, and would bring the benchmark rate down to 2 percent.

Yeesh.

UPDATE: Robert Murphy and Lee Hoskins plead for a stop to the rate cuts:

The Fed has abandoned the one thing it can truly control–the long-run increase in price levels–in a self-defeating attempt to keep the economy growing. A good portion of the housing mess itself is the result of Fed policy: In response to the 2000-2001 recession, chairman Alan Greenspan brought the federal funds rate down to a shocking 1% by June 2003, then held it there for a full year. The rate was then steadily ratcheted back up, reaching 5.25% by June 2006.

These actions first helped inflate the home-price bubble and then helped burst it. Naturally, there are many factors–and perhaps even villains–that helped create the housing bubble, but excessively low interest rates were surely a necessary ingredient.

Regardless of past mistakes, the Fed must now make the best of a bad situation. It must stop chasing the financial markets, and even the broader economy. Creating more dollar bills will not add to the nation’s wealth, or make workers more productive.

Indeed.

Larry White writes:

Note that, using the year-over-year CPI as a measure of current inflation, the Fed funds rate is currently negative in real terms: 3.0 - 4.1 = -1.1. Not surprisingly foreign investors are dumping short-term dollar assets with the result that, as Forbes headlined, “Dollar slumps to new all-time euro low as Bernanke hints at rate cuts”.

Yeesh! Meanwhile, Barry Ritholtz provides the visual:

Recall from the equation of exchange that:

MV = PY

where M is money, V is velocity, P is the price level, and Y is real output. Therefore, when written as growth rates (assuming velocity is constant):

Inflation = Money (M2) growth - Real GDP growth

Inflation is thus graphed below:

The graph begs the question, “where are the inflation hawks?”

James Hamilton discusses rising inflation.