Janet Yellen laid out her take on current monetary policy in Boston on Friday at a luncheon, describing how a "high-pressure" economy may be necessary in order to boost growth. The speech comes at a time when the Federal Reserve is divided on whether to raise benchmark interest rates this year, or keep them steady at their historically-low levels. (More information on her speech can be found in this link from Reuters).
I have a few concerns about letting inflation run temporarily hot.
Shown above is the civilian unemployment from January 1948 to the most recent data point, September 2016. Shaded gray areas indicate economic recessions. There are two main take aways from this graph:
1. When looking at past economic expansions, a common signal that the expansion is coming to an end is when we start to see the slope of the unemployment rate line go to zero. This was seen prior to the recessions of 1970, somewhat in 1973-1975, again in ~1979 and ~1981, and notably just before the early 1990s recession, the early 2000s recession, and a bit before the Great Recession back in 2008. While one could nitpick and say the slope never did get to zero, merely eyeballing it shows that before recessions, the unemployment curve generally becomes flat, if not close to flat, as the economy reaches full employment.
Taking a look at our current position on the curve, we're right around (if not at) that point where the unemployment line's slope hits zero-ish. The table below illustrates this quite well:
The attached table shows civilian unemployment data from FRED, compared year-over-year for September of each year during the current economic expansion. We began the economic expansion in September 2009 with a change of -0.3% from then until September 2010. The YoY change in the unemployment rate from September 2015 to September 2016 was the smallest change throughout the entire economic expansion when looking at September YoY changes. I haven't run the data for all the months' YoY change, but going through a few more data points, it appears this could very well be the smallest YoY change throughout the entire expansion, including all months' YoY changes.
What does that tell us? Right now, the only thing we can plausibly assert is that the labor market is near full employment, based on how the slope of the unemployment line is getting closer and closer to zero. I don't believe this shows that a recession is barreling our way, primarily because the Fed is keeping monetary policy extremely accommodative and investor sentiment remains more-or-less high, though we saw an unexpected drop on the Consumer Sentiment Index on Friday. However, given the Consumer Sentiment Index is a lagging indicator, and by most other measures the domestic economy is still chugging along, I don't believe a recession is pending in the short-term.
2. Despite claims that the labor market is not yet at full employment, recent recessions indicate it could be. Referring back to the FRED unemployment rate chart, note how the minimum unemployment rate, or at least the point when the slope of the curve begins to flatten to zero, has been creeping up ever since April 2000, when it hit an expansion-low of 3.8%. The expansion-low prior to the Great Recession was 4.4%, hit multiple times from Fall 2006 to Summer 2007. Our expansion-low in our current economic expansion is 4.7%, from May 2016. The gradual uptick in apparent minima with respect to the unemployment rate could be a signal that our labor market is at full employment, in addition to the signal from the flattening slope of the curve.
______________________________________________________________
My other main concern resides in the fact that the stock market is already near record highs, and broke record highs this past summer. Allowing inflation to run hot could create a bubble, if one hasn't already been formed.
The chart above reflects the DJIA's history through early 1988 or so, on a weekly scale. Note how we are currently just below record highs reached earlier in the summer. Record stock prices generally come about around the peak of a bull market, and it's been my belief for some time that we are either at the peak or just past the peak of this current expansion's bull market. But that's not my primary point of discussion relating to the stock market.
Extraordinarily-accomodative monetary policy in the U.S. for the last many years, and expectations of continued accommodative policy, has led to prolonged risk-on sentiment, as reflected in the record highs for all three major equity indices this past summer, and the near-record-high valuations at present date. Many financial analysts promote the idea that this accommodative policy has led to the 'Central Bankers' Bubble', named after central banks' continued enforcement of such monetary policy that some believe has blown a bubble in more than just one specific asset. To be sure, this is by no means a prevailing opinion, as far as I can tell, and the theory that we are mid-bubble does not stand for all financial analysts. However, I do personally believe that this is the case, at least to some degree, and this is where my concerns over a 'high-pressure economy' come to light again.
In a general sense, inflation is bearish for the stock market. When inflation begins to ramp up, typically the Federal Reserve will act to tighten monetary policy by hiking interest rates, thus placing a more risk-off sentiment across financial markets as investors leave stocks and seek safer investments, like bonds. However, if the Federal Reserve were to maintain low interest rates while allowing inflation to rise, the 'lower-for-longer' concept (the idea that interest rates will stay lower for a longer period of time) that has boosted stock prices over the last few years would persist. Inflation would begin to eat away at the stock market, and at that point the Fed would begin tightening monetary policy, but until then it would be a continuation of low interest rates and more-or-less tepid inflation, until the 'high-pressure economy' kicks in and inflation rises.
Why the worry? With inflation expectations so low, we could be talking about a number of years in a low interest rate, low inflation environment, which would almost certainly blow an equities bubble, if one hasn't already begun forming. Consequentially, if/when inflation reaches a point that the Fed deems as conducive to hiking interest rates, the pullback in stock markets would be far sharper than it would be if the Fed were to hike rates today.
In my eyes, the Fed has dug itself into a hole by maintaining interest rates for so low. To be fair, this was a good choice when you see how steadily the unemployment rate fell. However, good cases could have been made for a rate hike in the last few FOMC meetings, particularly after some FOMC members began taking far more hawkish viewpoints. Then, when they didn't hike, the Fed began losing credibility, but that topic is for another write-up. By allowing a low-inflation, low-interest rate environment to persist, possibly for a prolonged time period (longer than Ms. Yellen believes, as the FOMC is notorious in recent history for being too aggressive in their inflationary expectations), equities would almost certainly enter into a bubble, and if other assets also enter into bubbles as ultra-accommodative monetary policy continues, the pullback if/when tightening occurs could be nasty.
Lucky for us, all of this is hypothetical, and assuming the FOMC goes along with Yellen's ideals. While she posed the high-pressure economy as a 'question that needs more research', it's quite frank that she is looking for every excuse to not hike interest rates, and it's entirely plausible that the chairwoman is able to convince the FOMC to follow suit.
Andrew
I have a few concerns about letting inflation run temporarily hot.
 |
| FRED - Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis |
1. When looking at past economic expansions, a common signal that the expansion is coming to an end is when we start to see the slope of the unemployment rate line go to zero. This was seen prior to the recessions of 1970, somewhat in 1973-1975, again in ~1979 and ~1981, and notably just before the early 1990s recession, the early 2000s recession, and a bit before the Great Recession back in 2008. While one could nitpick and say the slope never did get to zero, merely eyeballing it shows that before recessions, the unemployment curve generally becomes flat, if not close to flat, as the economy reaches full employment.
Taking a look at our current position on the curve, we're right around (if not at) that point where the unemployment line's slope hits zero-ish. The table below illustrates this quite well:
The attached table shows civilian unemployment data from FRED, compared year-over-year for September of each year during the current economic expansion. We began the economic expansion in September 2009 with a change of -0.3% from then until September 2010. The YoY change in the unemployment rate from September 2015 to September 2016 was the smallest change throughout the entire economic expansion when looking at September YoY changes. I haven't run the data for all the months' YoY change, but going through a few more data points, it appears this could very well be the smallest YoY change throughout the entire expansion, including all months' YoY changes.
What does that tell us? Right now, the only thing we can plausibly assert is that the labor market is near full employment, based on how the slope of the unemployment line is getting closer and closer to zero. I don't believe this shows that a recession is barreling our way, primarily because the Fed is keeping monetary policy extremely accommodative and investor sentiment remains more-or-less high, though we saw an unexpected drop on the Consumer Sentiment Index on Friday. However, given the Consumer Sentiment Index is a lagging indicator, and by most other measures the domestic economy is still chugging along, I don't believe a recession is pending in the short-term.
2. Despite claims that the labor market is not yet at full employment, recent recessions indicate it could be. Referring back to the FRED unemployment rate chart, note how the minimum unemployment rate, or at least the point when the slope of the curve begins to flatten to zero, has been creeping up ever since April 2000, when it hit an expansion-low of 3.8%. The expansion-low prior to the Great Recession was 4.4%, hit multiple times from Fall 2006 to Summer 2007. Our expansion-low in our current economic expansion is 4.7%, from May 2016. The gradual uptick in apparent minima with respect to the unemployment rate could be a signal that our labor market is at full employment, in addition to the signal from the flattening slope of the curve.
______________________________________________________________
My other main concern resides in the fact that the stock market is already near record highs, and broke record highs this past summer. Allowing inflation to run hot could create a bubble, if one hasn't already been formed.
 |
| Big Charts - Marketwatch |
Extraordinarily-accomodative monetary policy in the U.S. for the last many years, and expectations of continued accommodative policy, has led to prolonged risk-on sentiment, as reflected in the record highs for all three major equity indices this past summer, and the near-record-high valuations at present date. Many financial analysts promote the idea that this accommodative policy has led to the 'Central Bankers' Bubble', named after central banks' continued enforcement of such monetary policy that some believe has blown a bubble in more than just one specific asset. To be sure, this is by no means a prevailing opinion, as far as I can tell, and the theory that we are mid-bubble does not stand for all financial analysts. However, I do personally believe that this is the case, at least to some degree, and this is where my concerns over a 'high-pressure economy' come to light again.
In a general sense, inflation is bearish for the stock market. When inflation begins to ramp up, typically the Federal Reserve will act to tighten monetary policy by hiking interest rates, thus placing a more risk-off sentiment across financial markets as investors leave stocks and seek safer investments, like bonds. However, if the Federal Reserve were to maintain low interest rates while allowing inflation to rise, the 'lower-for-longer' concept (the idea that interest rates will stay lower for a longer period of time) that has boosted stock prices over the last few years would persist. Inflation would begin to eat away at the stock market, and at that point the Fed would begin tightening monetary policy, but until then it would be a continuation of low interest rates and more-or-less tepid inflation, until the 'high-pressure economy' kicks in and inflation rises.
Why the worry? With inflation expectations so low, we could be talking about a number of years in a low interest rate, low inflation environment, which would almost certainly blow an equities bubble, if one hasn't already begun forming. Consequentially, if/when inflation reaches a point that the Fed deems as conducive to hiking interest rates, the pullback in stock markets would be far sharper than it would be if the Fed were to hike rates today.
In my eyes, the Fed has dug itself into a hole by maintaining interest rates for so low. To be fair, this was a good choice when you see how steadily the unemployment rate fell. However, good cases could have been made for a rate hike in the last few FOMC meetings, particularly after some FOMC members began taking far more hawkish viewpoints. Then, when they didn't hike, the Fed began losing credibility, but that topic is for another write-up. By allowing a low-inflation, low-interest rate environment to persist, possibly for a prolonged time period (longer than Ms. Yellen believes, as the FOMC is notorious in recent history for being too aggressive in their inflationary expectations), equities would almost certainly enter into a bubble, and if other assets also enter into bubbles as ultra-accommodative monetary policy continues, the pullback if/when tightening occurs could be nasty.
Lucky for us, all of this is hypothetical, and assuming the FOMC goes along with Yellen's ideals. While she posed the high-pressure economy as a 'question that needs more research', it's quite frank that she is looking for every excuse to not hike interest rates, and it's entirely plausible that the chairwoman is able to convince the FOMC to follow suit.
Andrew
No comments:
Post a Comment