Archive for the ‘Federal Reserve’ Category
America’s central bank has become ever more powerful over the past century
Dec 21st 2013 | From the print edition
[Greg Ip] AS THE holiday season of 1913 drew near, only one thing stood between Woodrow Wilson and a long-awaited vacation on the Gulf of Mexico. Congress was still fighting over a bill to create the Federal Reserve, and Wilson had threatened to keep it in session over Christmas until the bill was ready for his signature.
A century later, the Fed is still overshadowing the festive season: as The Economist went to press, it was meeting to consider curbing its massive purchases of government bonds. What is more, the debate over its role is as febrile as ever. To succour the economy, it has in recent years bailed out chunks of Wall Street and taken on new oversight of the financial system, in addition to accumulating over $3 trillion in bonds. Many, including one of its former chairmen, Paul Volcker, worry that the Fed is “getting too big for its breeches”.
Read the rest of this entry »
Jul 11th 2013, 21:34 by G.I. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
Traders and economists both spend their days studying markets, yet I’m struck by how differently they approach the subject. Since traders profit from finding mispricings, they are biased to believe that prices are more often wrong than right. Fundamentals matter, but traders believe they are routinely overwhelmed by psychology, liquidity and other non fundamental factors.
Economists, by contrast, grow up believing prices are usually right. The intersection of supply and demand curves explains in elegant, intuitive and internally consistent fashion how each individual buyer and seller can have a different idea of what a price should be, yet their interactions collectively yield a single, objectively correct price. Economists don’t dispute the role of psychology – they’ve handed out Nobel prizes for precisely that – but the organizing principle of their lives is that market prices are usually an unbiased distillation of fundamental determinants.
These different world views help explain why traders have always been suspicious of quantitative easing (QE) and economists dismissive of those suspicions. Read the rest of this entry »
The Federal Reserve tries to clarify its goals
History shows the limits of macroprudential policy in curbing dangerous risk-taking
Jun 1st 2013 |From the print edition
[Greg Ip] AMERICA’S Federal Reserve faces a dilemma: to put the economy back on its feet it is keeping interest rates at zero and buying bonds; but in doing so, it worries, it is egging on dangerous risk-taking. Cue “macroprudential” policy. In theory, central banks would use regulatory and supervisory authority to stamp out excesses in specific markets while leaving monetary policy to take care of inflation and employment.
History suggests this is easier said than done. “Macroprudential” may be new jargon, but America has tried variants of it for decades, from credit controls to down-payment limits. And the record is not a ringing endorsement for macroprudential policy, according to a new working paper by Douglas Elliott of the Brookings Institution, Greg Feldberg of America’s Treasury Department and Andreas Lehnert of the Fed. Read the rest of this entry »
May 24th 2013, 18:39 by G.I. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
The Federal Reserve left a lot of people scratching their heads this week. Between Chairman Ben Bernanke’s testimony, and the release of the minutes to the May 1st Federal Open Market Committee, investors were struggling to figure whether an end to easy monetary policy was nigh. A headline in today’s The Wall Street Journal declares: “In Bid for Clarity, Fed Delivers Opacity.” Here is what I think is essential to understand about what the Fed is doing, what we learned this week, and why more crossed signals are likely ahead.
- The Fed has two exits to manage, not one. Read the rest of this entry »
May 1st 2013, 21:45 by G.I. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
THE Federal Reserve, as widely expected, stood pat today, reaffirming its commitment to near zero interest rates until unemployment fell to 6.5% or lower, and continuing to buy $85 billion of Treasury and mortgage-backed bonds until the jobs market improved substantially.
But its otherwise ho-hum statement jolted markets with this new line: “The Committee is prepared to increase or reduce the pace of its purchases to maintain appropriate policy accommodation as the outlook for the labor market or inflation changes.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Dec 13th 2012, 2:00 by G.I. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
[Greg Ip] Low inflation and full employment have been statutory goals of the Federal Reserve since 1977, but its officials always felt more comfortable with the first than the second. After all, in theory monetary policy can’t alter unemployment in the long run.
But the stubbornly weak economy of recent years prompted some at the Fed to question their historical neglect of the second half of their mandate. “The Fed’s dual mandate … has the force of law behind it,” Charlie Evans, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, said in September, 2011. “So, if 5% inflation would have our hair on fire, so should 9% unemployment.”