Thursday, August 29, 2013

Forward Guidance – Who Are You Going to Believe, the Fed or Your Lying Eyes?


August 29, 2013

Forward Guidance – Who Are You Going to Believe, the Fed or Your Lying Eyes?

Recently, a commentary published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, “How Stimulatory Are Large-Scale Asset Purchases?”, came to my attention. In this commentary, the co-authors,Vasco Cúrdia and Andrea Ferrero, state:

“The Federal Reserve’s large-scale purchases of long-term Treasury securities most likely provided a moderate boost to economic growth and inflation. Importantly, the effects appear to depend greatly on the Fed’s guidance that short-term interest rates would remain low for an extended period. Indeed, estimates from a macroeconomic model suggest that such interest rate forward guidance probably has greater effects than signals about the amount of assets purchased.”

Cúrdia and Ferrero (C&F), similar to so many of their mainstream brethren, believe that the degree of aggregate-demand stimulation emanating from Fed purchases of long-maturity securities depends on the degree of decline in yields on long-maturity securities resulting from these purchases. But C&F argue that Fed purchases of long-maturity securities alone sow the seeds of their own ineffectiveness in stimulating aggregate demand. According to C&F, any initial decline in yields on long-maturity securities will quickly be offset by a subsequent rise in yields as market participants revise their expectations for an earlier Fed-induced increase in the federal funds rate and/or a larger increase in the federal funds rate due to stronger growth in nominal demand resulting from the Fed’s purchases of longer-maturity securities. Got that? So, according to C&F, if Fed purchases of long-maturity securities are going to be more effective in stimulating aggregate demand, the Fed needs to provide forward guidance as to at a minimum, when it intends to begin lifting the federal funds rate.

Before I comment on “forward guidance” as a monetary policy tool, let me once again provide you with my explanation of how Fed purchases of securities, long- or short-maturity, it does not matter, stimulate aggregate spending. The Fed purchases a security from me. The funds that I receive from the Fed did not come from you or anyone else. The funds came from the Fed’s figurative printing press. These are net new immediately spendable funds in the economy. It is as if these funds were created out of thin air. I have three options with which to use these funds. Option One would be for me to spend these funds to purchase goods, services or assets, including financial assets. Option One directly increases nominal spending. Option Two would be for me to lend these funds to someone else. Most people borrow funds to spend them on something – a good, a service or an asset, including a financial asset. So, Option Two indirectly increases nominal spending. Option Three would be for me to simply hold these funds at my bank. If my bank is unable to use these funds to acquire any new earning assets, perhaps because of capital constraints, then Option Three would not result in any new nominal spending in the economy. Other than extreme risk aversion, it is difficult for me to rationalize persisting with Option Three for any length of time. Although yields may be gyrating all over the place for all kinds of reasons after the Fed engages in purchases of securities, to me the effect on nominal aggregate demand from Fed purchases of securities boils down to if Bernanke prints it, someone will spend it.
Alright, let’s get on to forward guidance. Suppose the economy has been dead in the water and the federal funds rate is fallen to zero. Under these conditions, the Fed states that it has no intention of lifting the federal funds rate in the coming x-number of months. This “forward guidance” with regard to the Fed’s target of the federal funds rate is quite credible. Why would anyone expect the Fed to raise the federal funds rate so long as the economy is “in irons” (hint – it is a sailing term)?

A few months pass and the economy remains moribund. In response, the Fed begins a program of securities purchases, with Options One and/or Two, as discussed above, being operative. That is, nominal spending begins to grow faster. At the same time, the Fed reiterates its statement that it has no intention of lifting the federal funds rate in the coming x-number of months. Is the Fed’s same forward guidance as credible now, after the implementation of its program of securities purchases and after tangible evidence of a pick-up in nominal spending? If it is to you, I have some bonds I want to sell you.

The Fed can provide all of the forward guidance it wants. But if its actual policy actions, in contrast to its words, and the incoming economic evidence suggest that a prudent monetary policy should run counter to the Fed’s forward guidance, who are you going to believe – the Fed or your lying eyes? After years of observing the behavior of financial markets, I bet that you are going to conclude that your eyes are not lying and that you will make portfolio adjustments accordingly. After you and other market participants have altered your portfolios in accordance with reality, the Fed will eventually will alter its guidance.

Paul L. Kasriel
Econtrarian, LLC
1-920-818-0236

Monday, August 5, 2013

Does the Recent Decline in the Unemployment Rate Reflect an Improving Labor Market?


August 5, 2013

Does the Recent Decline in the Unemployment Rate Reflect an Improving Labor Market?

Last Friday the BLS reported that the national unemployment rate declined by two-tenths of a percentage point in July vs. June. On the surface, that would seem to be good news for the labor market, right? Not according to the knee-jerk analysis by a lot of jerks on cable financial news. You see, to these jerks, if the unemployment rate declines at the same time that the labor force and/or the participation rate declines, the decline in the unemployment rate probably is the result of people exiting the labor force because they have given up hope of finding gainful employment. Sometimes the jerks are correct. Of late, however, they have been wrong.

Not everyone that drops out of the labor force has given up hope of finding a job. People exit the labor force for a variety of other reasons. Some people actually retire voluntarily. Following the birth of a child, some dads (or on occasion, even some moms) choose to exit the labor force in order to nurture the newborn. Some people become disabled.

In the Household Survey, from which the unemployment rate is calculated, those respondents who say they are out of the labor market are asked if they currently want a job. Chart 1 shows the year-over-year change in both the total number of the civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force and the number of these who indicate that they do want a job. In July 2013, the number of people of the noninstitutional population who were not in the labor force had increased by 1,732 thousand. At the same time, of this 1,732 increase in people not in the labor force, there was an increase of only 25 thousand people (nearly invisible in the chart) who wanted a job. So, in the past 12 months, only 1.4% of the increase in people not in the labor force indicated that they wanted a job. In other words, the bulk of people dropping out of the labor force in the past 12 months did not drop out in despair over poor job prospects.



Chart 1


With these data, we can calculate an “expanded” unemployment rate that incorporates the people who have exited the labor market out of despair over their poor employment prospects but who have indicated that they really do want a job. To calculate this “expanded” unemployment rate, we have to add the number of these people back into both the labor market and unemployed totals. For July 2013, this “expanded” unemployment rate was 11.55% vs. 7.69% for the official unemployment rate, both unadjusted for seasonal variation. As shown in Chart 2, the
year-over-year decline in the official unemployment rate (unadjusted for seasonal variation) in July 2013 was 0.87 percentage points. The “expanded” unemployment rate (unadjusted for seasonal variation) declined by slightly less, 0.84 percentage points.


Chart 2


If the primary factor accounting for the downward trend in the official unemployment rate in the past 12 months had been people dropping out of the labor force due to despair over their poor employment prospects, then the “expanded” unemployment rate either would not have declined or it would have declined significantly less than did the official unemployment rate. The fact that both the official and the “expanded” unemployment rates fell by almost the same percentage point amounts in this time period implies that labor market conditions have indeed improved. Investing on the basis of knee-jerk analysis provided by the jerks on cable financial news can be hazardous to your wealth.

Paul L. Kasriel
Econtrarian, LLC
econtrarian@gmail.com
1-920-818-0236