Ch24: Money, Banks, and the Federal Reserve System – Page 13

Wall Street Journal: “Cooling Inflation Likely Ends Fed Rate Hikes”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest report on consumer prices the morning of November 14. The Wall Street Journal’s headline reflects the general reaction to the report: The inflation rate continued to decline, which made it less likely that the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee will raise its target range for the federal funds rate again at its December meeting. The following figure shows inflation measured as the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the same month in the previous year. It also shows the inflation rate measure using “core” CPI, which excludes prices for food and energy.

The inflation rate for the CPI declined from 3.7 percent in September to 3.2 percent in October. Core CPI declined from 4.1 percent in September to 4.0 percent in October. So, measured this way, inflation declined substantially when measured by the CPI including prices of all goods and services but only slightly when measured using core CPI.

The 12-month inflation rate is the one typically reported in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, but it has the drawback that it doesn’t always reflect accurately the current trend in prices. The following figure shows the 1-month inflation rate—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year— for CPI and core CPI. The 1-month inflation rate is naturally more volatile than the 12-month inflation rate. In this case, 1-month rate shows a sharp decline in the inflation rate for the CPI from 4.9 percent in September to 0.5 percent in October. Core inflation declined less sharply from 3.9 percent in September to 2.8 percent in October.

The release of the CPI report was treated as good news on Wall Street, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average increasing by 500 points and the interest rate on the 10-year U.S. Treasury Note declining from 4.6 percent just before the report was released to 4.4 percent immediately after. The increases in stock and bond prices (recall that the prices of bonds and the yields on the bonds move in opposite directions, so bond prices rose following release of the report) reflect the view of financial investors that if the FOMC stops increasing its target for the federal funds rate, the chance that the U.S. economy will fall into a recession is reduced.

A word of caution, however. In a speech on November 9, Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that the FOMC may need still need to implement additional increases to its federal funds rate target:

“My colleagues and I are gratified by this progress [against inflation] but expect that the process of getting inflation sustainably down to 2 percent has a long way to go…. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is committed to achieving a stance of monetary policy that is sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation down to 2 percent over time; we are not confident that we have achieved such a stance. We know that ongoing progress toward our 2 percent goal is not assured: Inflation has given us a few head fakes. If it becomes appropriate to tighten policy further, we will not hesitate to do so.”

So, while the latest inflation report is good news, it’s still too early to know whether inflation is on a stable path to return to the Fed’s 2 percent target. (It’s worth noting that the Fed uses inflation as measured by the personal consumption expenditure (PCE) price index rather than as measured by the CPI when evaluating whether it has achieved its 2 percent target.)

Who Is Wealthier, Iron Man or Batman?

Photo from Paramount Pictures via britannica.com.

Photo from Warner Brothers Pictures via insider.com.

Income and wealth are often confused. Media accounts of the “wealthy” typically switch back and forth between referring to people with high incomes and referring to people with substantial wealth. It’s possible to have a high income, but not much wealth, if you spend most of your income. It’s also possible, although less common, for someone to have substantial wealth while having a relatively low income.

As we discuss in the Don’t Let This Happen to You feature in Macroeconomics, Chapter 14 (also Economics, Chapter 24), Your income is equal to your earnings during the year, while your wealth is equal to the value of the assets you own minus the value of any debts you have. It’s also worth keeping in mind that income is a flow variable that is measured over a period of time—such as a year—while wealth is a stock variable that is measured at a particular point in time—such as the first or last day of the year.

Both income and wealth can be difficult to accurately measure. Although we typically think of a person’s income as being equal to the salary and wages the person earns, income, properly measured, also includes changes in the value of the assets the person owns. For example, suppose that at the start of the year you own shares of Apple stock worth $5,000. If at the end of the year, the price on the stock market of your Apple shares has risen to $5,500, the $500 increase is part of your income for the year. (Note that this capital gain on your stock is included in your taxable income only if you sell the stock. Whether you sell the stock or not, though, the capital gain is part of your income.)

It can be difficult to measure the wealth of someone who owns significant assets that, unlike shares of stock, aren’t regularly bought and sold in a market. For instance, if someone owns a restaurant, determining what the price the restaurant would sell for—and, therefore, how wealthy the person is—can be difficult. Although other restaurants in the area may have sold recently, every restaurant is different, which makes it possible to determine only approximately what the sales price of a particular restaurant would be. As we discuss in the Apply the Concept feature “Should the Federal Government Begin to Tax Wealth?” in Microeconomics, Chapter 17 (also Economics, Chapter 17), the difficulty of valuing some types of wealth is one complication the federal government would face in enacting a tax on wealth.

If measuring the wealth of someone in the real world is difficult, measuring the wealth of a fictional character is even more daunting. Some years ago, undergraduate students, most of whom were economics majors at Lehigh University, estimated the wealth of Bruce Wayne, the alter ego of Batman. To narrow the focus, the students based their estimate on only the information available in the three Batman films directed by Christopher Nolan. On the basis of that information, they estimate that Bruce Wayne’s wealth is $11.6 billion. At the time the films were produced, that would have made Bruce Wayne the seventy-third wealthiest person in the world—if, of course, he had been a real person! You can read the details of their estimate here.

Bruce Wayne is apparently very wealthy, but is he as wealthy as Tony Stark, the alter ego of Iron Man? Apparently not, according to an estimate appearing on the business web site forbes.com. Although he doesn’t seem to give the details of how he arrived at the estimate, the author of the post values Tony Stark’s wealth at $9.3 billion, making him about 20 percent less wealthy than Bruce Wayne. Score one for the Caped Crusader!

Very Strong GDP Report

Photo from Lena Buonanno

This morning the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its advance estimate of GDP for the third quarter of 2023. (The report can be found here.) The BEA estimates that real GDP increased by 4.9 percent at an annual rate in the third quarter—July through September. That was more than double the 2.1 percent increase in real GDP in the second quarter, and slightly higher than the 4.7 percent that economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal last week had expected. The following figure shows the rates of GDP growth each quarter beginning in 2021.

Note that the BEA’s most recent estimates of real GDP during the first two quarters of 2022 still show a decline. The Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee only switched from a strongly expansionary monetary policy, with a target for the federal funds of effectively zero, to a contractionary monetary policy following its March 16, 2022 meeting. That real GDP was declining even before the Fed had pivoted to a contractionary monetary policy helps explain why, despite strong increases employment during this period, most economists were expecting that the U.S. economy would experience a recession at some point during 2022 or 2023. This expectation was reinforced when inflation soared during the summer of 2022 and it became clear that the FOMC would have to substantially raise its target for the federal funds rate.

Clearly, today’s data on real GDP growth, along with the strong September employment report (which we discuss in this blog post), indicates that the chances of the U.S. economy avoiding a recession in the future have increased and are much better than they seemed at this time last year.

Consumer spending was the largest contributor to third quarter GDP growth. The following figure shows growth rates of real personal consumption expenditures and the subcategories of expenditures on durable goods, nondurable goods, and services. There was strong growth in each component of consumption spending. The 7.6 percent increase in expenditures on durables was particularly strong, particularly given that spending on durables had fallen by 0.3 percent in the second quarter.

Investment spending and its components were a more mixed bag, as shown in the following figure. Overall, gross private domestic investment increased at a very strong rate of 8.4 percent—the highest rate since the fourth quarter of 2021. Residential investment increased 3.9 percent, which was particularly notable following nine consecutive quarters of decline and during a period of soaring mortgage interest rates. But business fixed investment was noticeably weak, falling by 0.1 percent. Spending on structures—such as factories and office buildings—increased by only 1.6 percent, while spending on equipment fell by 3.8 percent.

Today’s real GDP report also contained data on the private consumption expenditure (PCE) price index, which the FOMC uses tp determine whether it is achieving its goal of a 2 percent inflation rate. The following figure shows inflation as measured using the PCE and the core PCE—which excludes food and energy prices—since the beginning of 2015. (Note that these inflation rates are measured using quarterly data and as compound annual rates of change.) Despite the strong growth in real GDP and employment, inflation as measured by PCE increased only from 2.5 percent in the second quarter to 2.9 percent in the third quarter. Core PCE, which may be a better indicator of the likely course of inflation in the future, continued the long decline that began in first quarter of 2022 by failling from 3.7 percent to 2.9 percent.

The combination of strong growth in real GDP and declining inflation indicates that the Fed appears well on its way to a soft landing—achieving a return to its 2 percent inflation target without pushing the economy into a recession. There are reasons to be cautious, however.

GDP, inflation, and employment data are all subject to—possibly substantial—revisions. So growth may have been significantly slower than today’s advance estimate of real GDP indicates. Even if the estimate of real GDP growth of 4.9 percent proves in the long run to have been accurate, there are reasons to doubt whether output growth can be maintained at near that level. Since 2000, annual growth in real GDP has average only 2.1 percent. For GDP to begin increasing at a rate substantially higher than that would require a significant expansion in the labor force and an increase in productivity. While either or both of those changes may occur, they don’t seem likely as of now.

In addition, the largest contributor to GDP growth in the third quarter was from consumption expenditures. As households continue to draw down the savings they built up as a result of the federal government’s response to the Covid recession of 2020, it seems unlikely that the current pace of consumer spending can be maintained. Finally, the lagged effects of monetary policy—particularly the effects of the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note having risen to nearly 5 percent (which we discuss in our most recent podcast)—may substantially reduce growth in real GDP and employment in future quarters.

But those points shouldn’t distract from the fact that today’s GDP report was good news for the economy.

10/21/23 Podcast – Authors Glenn Hubbard & Tony O’Brien reflect on the Fed’s efforts to execute the soft-landing.

Join authors Glenn Hubbard & Tony O’Brien as they reflect on the Fed’s efforts to execute the soft landing, ponder if the effect will stick, and wonder if future economies will be tethered to an anchor point above two percent.

Another Mixed Inflation Report

Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Fed Vice-Chair Philip Jefferson this summer at the Fed conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. (Photo from the AP via the Washington Post.)

This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its report on the consumer price index (CPI) for September. (The full report can be found here.) The report was consistent with other recent data showing that inflation has declined markedly from its summer 2022 highs, but appears, at least for now, to be stuck in the 3 percent to 4 percent range—well above the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target.

The report indicated that the CPI rose by 0.4 percent in September, which was down from 0.6 percent in August. Measured by the percentage change from the same month in the previous year, the inflation rate was 3.7 percent, the same as in August. Core CPI, which excludes the prices of food and energy, increased by 4.1 percent in September, down from 4.4 percent in August. The following figure shows inflation since 2015 measured by CPI and core CPI.

Reporters Gabriel Rubin and Nick Timiraos, writing in the Wall Street Journal summarized the prevailing interpretation of this report:

“The latest inflation data highlight the risk that without a further slowdown in the economy, inflation might settle around 3%—well below the alarming rates that prompted a series of rapid Federal Reserve rate increases last year but still above the 2% inflation rate that the central bank has set as its target.”

As we discuss in this blog post, some economists and policymakers have argued that the Fed should now declare victory over the high inflation rates of 2022 and accept a 3 percent inflation rate as consistent with Congress’s mandate that the Fed achieve price stability. It seems unlikely that the Fed will follow that course, however. Fed Chair Jerome Powell ruled it out in a speech in August: “It is the Fed’s job to bring inflation down to our 2 percent goal, and we will do so.”

To achieve its goal of bringing inflation back to its 2 percent targer, it seems likely that economic growth in the United States will have to slow, thereby reducing upward pressure on wages and prices. Will this slowing require another increase in the Federal Open Market Committe’s target range for the federal funds rate, which is currently 5.25 to 5.50 percent? The following figure shows changes in the upper bound for the FOMC’s target range since 2015.

Several members of the FOMC have raised the possibility that financial markets may have already effectively achieved the same degree of policy tightening that would result from raising the target for the federal funds rate. The interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note has been steadily increasing as shown in the following figure. The 10-year Treasury note plays an important role in the financial system, influencing interest rates on mortgages and corporate bonds. In fact, the main way in which monetary policy works is for the FOMC’s increases or decreases in its target for the federal funds rate to result in increases or decreases in long-run interest rates. Higher long-run interest rates typically result in a decline in spending by consumrs on new housing and by businesses on new equipment, factories computers, and software.

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Lorie Logan, who serves on the FOMC, noted in a speech that “If long-term interest rates remain elevated … there may be less need to raise the fed funds rate.” Similarly, Fed Vice-Chair Philip Jefferson stated in a speech that: “I will remain cognizant of the tightening in financial conditions through higher bond yields and will keep that in mind as I assess the future path of policy.”

The FOMC has two more meetings scheduled for 2023: One on October 31-November 1 and one on December 12-13. The following figure from the web site of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta shows financial market expectations of the FOMC’s target range for the federal funds rate in December. According to this estimate, financial markets assign a 35 percent probability to the FOMC raising its target for the federal funds rate by 0.25 or more. Following the release of the CPI report, that probability declined from about 38 percent. That change reflects the general expectation that the report didn’t substantially affect the likelihood of the FOMC raising its target for the federal funds rate again by the end of the year.

The Fed Throws Wall Street a Curveball

A trader on the New York Stock Exchange listtening to Fed Chair Jerome Powell (from Reuters via the New York Times)

Accounting for movements in the market prices of stocks and bonds is not an exact exercise. Accounts in the Wall Street Journal and on other business web sites often attribute movements in stock and bond prices to the Fed having acted in a way that investors didn’t expect.

The decision by the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) at its meeting on September 20-21, 2023 to hold its target for the federal funds rate constant at a range of 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent wasn’t a surprise. Fed Chair Jerome Powell had signaled during his press conference on July 26 following the FOMC’s previous meeting that the FOMC was likely to pause further increases in the federal funds rate target. (A transcript of Powell’s July 26 press conference can be found here.)

In advance of the September meeting, some other members of the FOMC had also signaled that the committee was unlikely to increase its target. For instance, an article in the Wall Street Journal quoted Susan Collins, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, as stating that: “The risk of inflation staying higher for longer must now be weighed against the risk that an overly restrictive stance of monetary policy will lead to a greater slowdown than is needed to restore price stability.” And in a speech in August, Raphael Bostic, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, explained his position on future rate increases: “Based on current dynamics in the macroeconomy, I feel policy is appropriately restrictive. I think we should be cautious and patient and let the restrictive policy continue to influence the economy, lest we risk tightening too much and inflicting unnecessary economic pain.”

Although it wasn’t a surprise that the FOMCdecided to hold its target for the federal funds rate constant, after the decision was announced, stock and bond prices declined. The following figure shows the S&P 500 index of stock prices. The index declined 2.8 percent from September 19—the day before the FOMC meeting—to September 22—two days after the meeting. (We discuss indexes of stock prices in Macroeconomics, Chapter 6, Section 6.2; Economics, Chapter 8, Section 8.2; and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 8, Section 8.2.)

We see a similar pattern in the bond market. Recall that when the price of bonds declines in the bond market, the interest rates—or yields—on the bonds increase. As the following figure shows, the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note rose from 4.37 percent on September 19 to 4.49 percent on September 21. The 10-year Treasury note plays an important role in the financial system, influencing interest rates on mortgages and corporate bonds. So, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note increasing from 3.3 percent in the spring of 2023 to 4.5 percent following the FOMC meeting has the effect of increasing long-term interest rates throughout the U.S. economy.

What explains the movements in the prices of stocks and bonds following the September FOMC meeting? Investors seem to have been surprised by: 1) what Chair Powell had to say in his news conference following the meeting; and 2) the committee members’ Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), which was released after the meeting.

Powell’s remarks were interpreted as indicating that the FOMC was likely to increase its target for the federal funds rate at least once more in 2023 and was unlikely to cut its target before late 2024. For instance, in response to a question Powell said: “We need policy to be restrictive so that we can get inflation down to target. Okay. And we’re going to need that to remain to be the case for some time.” Investors often disagree in their interpretations of what a Fed chair says. Fed chairs don’t act unilaterally because the 12 voting members of the FOMC decide on the target for the federal funds rate. So chairs tend to speak cautiously about future policy. Still, their seemed to be a consensus among investors that Powell was indicating that Fed policy would be more restrictive (or contractionary) than had been anticipated prior to the meeting.

The FOMC releases the SEP four times per year. The most recent SEP before the September meeting was from the June meeting. The table below shows the median of the projections, or forecasts, of key economic variables made by the members of the FOMC at the June meeting. Note the second row from the bottom, which shows members’ median forecast of the federal funds rate.

The following table shows the median values of members’ forecast at the September meeting. Look again at the next to last row. The members’ forecast of the federal funds rate at the end of 2023 was unchanged. But their forecasts for the federal funds rate at the end of 2024 and 2025 were both 0.50 percent higher.

Why were members of the FOMC signaling that they expected to hold their target for the federal funds rate higher for a longer period? The other economic projections in the tables provide a clue. In September, the members expected that real GDP growth would be higher and the unemployment rate would be lower than they had expected in June. Stronger economic growth and a tighter labor market seemed likely to require them to maintain a contractionary monetary policy for a longer period if the inflation rate was to return to their 2.0 percent target. Note that the members didn’t expect that the inflation rate would return to their target until 2026.

9/16/23 Podcast – Authors Glenn Hubbard & Tony O’Brien discuss inflation, the current status of a soft-landing, and the green economy.

Join authors Glenn Hubbard & Tony O’Brien as they discuss the economic landscape of inflation, soft-landings, and the green economy. This conversation occurred on Saturday, 9/16/23, prior to the FOMC meeting on September 19th-20th.

Pearson Economics · Hubbard O'Brien Economics Podcast – 09-16-23 – Inflation, Soft-Landing, & Green Economy

Powell at Jackson Hole: No Change to Fed’s Inflation Target

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 2023 (Photo from the Associated Press.)

Congress has given the Federal Reserve a dual mandate to achieve price stability and high employment. To reach its goal of price stability, the Fed has set an inflation target of 2 percent, with inflation being measured by the percentage change in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index.

It’s reasonable to ask whether “price stability” is achieved only when the price level is constant—that is, at a zero inflation rate. In practice, Congress has given the Fed wide latitude in deciding when price stability and high employment has been achieved. The Fed didn’t announce a formal inflation target of 2 percent until 2012. But the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had agreed to set a 2 percent inflation target much earlier—in 1996—although they didn’t publicly announce it at the time. (The transcript of the FOMC’s July 2-3, 1996 meeting includes a discussion of the FOMC’s decision to adopt an inflation target.) Implicitly, the FOMC had been acting as if it had a 2 percent target since at least the mid–1980s.

But why did the Fed decide on an inflation target of 2 percent rather than 0 percent, 1 percent, 3 percent, or some other rate? There are three key reasons:

As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.4 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 29.4 and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 13, Section 13.4), price indexes overstate the actual inflation rate by 0.5 percentage point to 1 percentage point. So, a measured inflation of 2 percent corresponds to an actual inflation rate of 1 to 1.5 percent.
As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.5 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.5), the FOMC has a target for the long-run real federal funds rate. Although the target has been as high as 2 percent, in recent years it has been 0.5 percent. With an inflation target of 2 percent, the long-run nominal federal funds rate target is 2.5 percent. (The FOMC’s long-run target federall funds target can be found in the Summary of Economic Projections here.) As the Fed notes, with an inflation target of less than 2 percent “there would be less room to cut interest rates to boost employment during an economic downturn.”
An inflation target of less than 2 percent would make it more likely that during recessions, the U.S. economy might experience deflation, or a period during which the price level is falling. Deflation can be damaging if falling prices cause consumers to postpone purchases in the hope of being able to buy goods and services at lower prices in the future. The resulting decline in aggregate demand can make a recession worse. In addition, deflation increases the real interest rate associated with a given nominal interest rate, imposing costs on borrowers, particularly if the deflation is unexpected.

The following figure shows that for most of the period from late 2008 until the spring of 2021, the inflation rate as measured by the PCE was below the Fed’s 2 percent target. Beginning in the spring of 2021, inflation soared, reaching a peak of 7.0 percent in June 2022. Inflation declined over the following year, falling to 3.0 in June 2023.

On August 25, at the Fed’s annual monetary policy symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Fed Chair Jerome Powell made clear that the Fed intended to continue a restrictive monetary policy until the inflation rate had returned to 2 percent: “It is the Fed’s job to bring inflation down to our 2 percent goal, and we will do so.” (The text of Powell’s speech can be found here.) Some economists have been arguing that once the Fed had succeeded in pushing the inflation rate back to 2 percent it should, in the future, consider raising its inflation target to 3 percent. At Jackson Hole, Powell appeared to rule out this possibility: “Two percent is and will remain our inflation target.”

Why might a 3 percent inflation target be preferrable to a 2 percent inflation target? Proponents of the change point to two key advantages:

Reducing the likelihood of monetary policy being constrained by the zero lower bound. Because the federal funds rate can’t be negative, zero provides a lower bound on how much the FOMC can cut its federal funds rate target in a recession. Monetary policy was constrained by the zero lower bound during both the Great Recession of 2007–2009 and the Covid recession of 2020. Because an inflation target of 3 percent could likely be achieved with a federal funds rate that is higher than the FOMC’s current long-run target of 2.5 percent, the FOMC should have more room to cut its target during a recession.
During a recession, firms attempting to reduce costs can do so by cutting workers’ nominal wages. But, as we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 13, Section 13.2 (Economics, Chapter 23, Section 23.2 and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 15, Section 15.2), most workers dislike wage cuts. Some workers will quit rather than accept a wage cut and the productivity of workers who remain may decline. As a result, firms often use a policy of freezing wages rather than cutting them. Freezing nominal wages when inflation is occurring results in cuts to real wages. The higher the inflation rate, the greater the decline in real wages and the more firms can reduce their labor costs without laying off workers.

Why would Powell rule out increasing the Fed’s target for the inflation rate? Although he didn’t spell out the reasons in his Jackson Hole speech, these are two main points usually raised by those who favor keeping the target at 2 percent:

A target rate above 2 percent would be inconsistent with the price stability component of the Fed’s dual mandate. During the years between 2008 and 2021 when the inflation rate was usually at or below 2 percent, most consumers, workers, and firms found the inflation rate to be low enough that it could be safely ignored. A rate of 3 percent, though, causes money to lose its purchasing power more quickly and makes it less likely that people will ignore it. To reduce the effects of inflation people are likely to spend resources in ways such as firms reprinting menus or price lists more frequently or labor unions negotiating for higher wages in multiyear wage contracts. The resources devoted to avoiding the negative effects of inflation represent an efficiency loss to the economy.
Raising the target for the inflation rate might undermine the Fed’s credibility in fighting inflation. One of the reasons that the Fed was able to bring down the inflation rate without causing a recession—at least through August 2023—was that the expectations of workers, firms, and investors remained firmly anchored. That is, there was a general expectation that the Fed would ultimately succeed in bringing the inflation back down to 2 percent. If expectations of inflation become unanchored, fighting inflation becomes harder because workers, firms, and investors are more likely to take actions that contribute to inflation. For instance, lenders won’t assume that inflation will be 2 percent in the future and so will require higher nominal interest rates on loans. Workers will press for higher nominal wages to protect themselves from the effects of higher inflation, thereby raising firms’ costs. Raising its inflation target to 3 percent may also cause workers, firms, and investors to question whether during a future period of high inflation the Fed will raise its target to an even higher rate. If that happens, inflation may be more persistent than it was during 2022 and 2023.

It seems unlikely that the Fed will raise its target for the inflation rate in the near future. But the Fed is scheduled to review its current monetary policy strategy in 2025. It’s possible that as part of that review, the Fed may revisit the issue of its inflation target.

Glenn on Bank Regulation

(Photo from the Wall Street Journal.)

This opinion column first appeared on barrons.com. It is also on the web site of the American Enterprise Institute.

Runs at Silicon Valley Bank and others emerged quickly and drove steep losses in regional bank equity values. Regulators shouldn’t have been caught by surprise, but at least they should take lessons from the shock. The subsequent ad hoc fixes to deposit insurance and assurances that the banking system is sufficiently well-capitalized don’t yet suggest a serious policy focus on those lessons. Calls for much higher levels of bank capital and tighter financial regulation notwithstanding, deeper questions about bank regulation merit greater attention.

Runs are a feature of banking. Banks transform short-term, liquid (even demandable) deposits into longer-term, sometimes much less liquid assets. Bank capital offers a partial buffer against the risk of a run, though a large-scale dash for cash can topple almost any institution, as converting blocks of assets to cash quickly to satisfy deposit withdrawals is almost sure to bring losses. The likelihood of a run goes up with bad news or rumors about the bank and correlation among depositors’ on their demand for funds back. That’s what happened at Silicon Valley Bank. Think also George Bailey’s impassioned speech in the classic movie It’s a Wonderful Life, explaining how maturity and liquidity transformations can unravel, with costs to depositors, bankers, and credit reductions to local businesses and households. The bank examiner in the movie, eager to get home, didn’t see it coming.

While bank runs and banking crises can be hard to predict, a simple maxim can guide regulation and supervision: Increase scrutiny in areas and institutions in which significant changes are occurring over a short period. On an aggregate level, the sharp, rapid increase in the federal funds rate since March 2022 should have focused attention on asset values and interest rate risks. So, too, should the fast potential compression in values of office real estate in many locations as a consequence of pandemic-related working shifts and rate hikes. At the bank level, significant inflows of deposits—particularly uninsured deposits—merit closer risk review. This approach isn’t limited to banking. A recent report of the Brookings-Chicago Booth Task Force on Financial Stability, co-chaired by Donald Kohn and me, put forth a similar change-based approach to scrutiny of nonbank financial institutions.

Such an approach would have magnified supervisory attention to Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank . It also suggests the desirability of greater scrutiny and stress testing of midsize banks generally facing interest rate and commercial real estate risk. Those stress tests can give the Fed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. an indication of capital adequacy concerns that could give rise to mergers or bank closures.

Even with this enhanced regulatory and supervisory attention, two major questions remain: For bank liabilities, what role should deposit insurance play in forestalling costly runs? For bank assets, what role should banks play in commercial lending?

Actions taken since Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse have effectively increased deposit-insurance guarantees for troubled institutions. But the absence of a clearer policy framework for dealing with uninsured deposits dragged out the unwinding of First Republic Bank and threatens other institutions experiencing rapid deposit increases and interest rate risk. When regulators asserted in the wake of the runs that the status quo of a $250,000 limit remained unchanged, they lacked both credibility and a means to reduce uncertainty about future policy actions in a run. That makes runs at vulnerable institutions both more likely and more severe. One reform would be to increase deposit insurance limits for transaction accounts of households and small and midsize firms, as recently proposed by the FDIC. Of course, even this reform raises concerns about implementation, how to price the enhanced coverage, and whether supervision will shift toward the “focus on the changes” framework I outlined earlier.

Retaining a more modest role for deposit insurance raises a larger question: What role should banks play in business lending for working capital, investment, and commercial real estate? The FDIC is mandated to resolve bank failures at the least cost to the deposit-insurance fund, but following that path may lead to more mergers of vulnerable institutions into the nations’ largest banks. While consolidation may mitigate risks for depositors with greater diversification of deposits, it leaves open effects on the mix of lending. Knowing local borrowers better, small and midsize banks have a prominent local lending presence in commercial and industrial loans and real estate. Whether such projects would be financed in a similar mix by local branches of megabanks is a question. Congress should consider whether other alternatives might be reasonable. It might permit consolidation among smaller institutions, even if more costly in resolution in the near term to taxpayers. Or nonbank institutions could be permitted to play a role in resolving troubled banks. The latter mechanism should be considered, as nonbank asset managers like Blackstone or BlackRock could fund loans originated by local banks.

Two lessons for regulation loom large. The first is that attention should be paid to policy risk management as well as bank risk management in identifying areas of concern. Think easy money and the reach for yield, inflationary fiscal and monetary policy during the pandemic, and the Fed’s rapid-fire increase in short-term rates to combat stubborn inflation. Second, regulators and Congress need to be wary of both too much deposit insurance (with likely increased risk-taking and pressure on supervision) and too little deposit insurance (with likely jumps in banking concentration and disruption of local credit to businesses).

One can reasonably anticipate additional erosion of capital in non-money-center banks from rising interest rates and lower office real estate collateral values, hopefully motivating a quick grasp of these lessons. While banks don’t have to mark assets to market if current and can survive turbulence until monetary policy eases, potential runs can upset this equilibrium. Declining regional bank stock prices make this risk clear. Only good fortune or a more thoughtful policy stand in the way of additional bank distress and attendant credit supply reductions.

The Fed Continues to Walk a Tightrope

Photo from the Associated Press of Fed Chair Jerome Powell at a news conference

At its Wednesday, May 3, 2023 meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) raised its target for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point to a range of 5.00 to 5.25. The decision by the committee’s 11 voting members was unanimous. After each meeting, the FOMC releases a statement (the statement for this meeting can be found here) explaining its reasons for its actions at the meeting.

The statement for this meeting had a key change from the statement the committee issued after its last meeting on March 22. The previous statement (found here) included this sentence:

“The Committee anticipates that some additional policy firming may be appropriate in order to attain a stance of monetary policy that is sufficiently restrictive to return inflation to 2 percent over time.”

In the statement for this meeting, the committee rewrote that sentence to read:

“In determining the extent to which additional policy firming may be appropriate to return inflation to 2 percent over time, the Committee will take into account the cumulative tightening of monetary policy, the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation, and economic and financial developments.”

This change indicates that the FOMC has stopped—or at least suspended—use of forward guidance. As we explain in Money, Banking, and the Financial System, Chapter 15, Section 5.2, forward guidance refers to statements by the FOMC about how it will conduct monetary policy in the future.

After the March meeting, the committee was providing investors, firms, and households with the forward guidance that it intended to continue raising its target for the federal funds rate—which is what the reference to “additional policy firming” means. The statement after the May meeting indicated that the committee was no longer giving guidance about future changes in its target for the federal funds rate other than to state that it would depend on the future state of the economy. In other words, the committee was indicating that it might not raise its target for the federal funds rate after its next meeting on June 14. The committee didn’t indicate directly that it was pausing further increases in the federal funds rate but indicated that pausing further increases was a possible outcome.

Following the end of the meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell conducted a press conference. Although not yet available when this post was written, a transcript will be posted to the Fed’s website here. Powell made the following points in response to questions:

He was not willing to move beyond the formal statement to indicate that the committee would pause further rate increases.
He believed that the bank runs that had led to the closure and sale of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank were likely to be over. He didn’t believe that other regional banks were likely to experience runs. He indicated that the Fed needed to adjust its regulatory and supervisory actions to help ensure that similar runs didn’t happen in the future.
He repeated that he believed that the Fed could achieve its target inflation rate of 2 percent without the U.S. economy experiencing a recession. In other words, he believed that a soft landing was still possible. He acknowledged that some other members of the committee and the committee’s staff economist disagreed with him and expected a mild recession to occur later this year.
He stated that as banks have attempted to become more liquid following the failure of the three regional banks, they have reduced the volume of loans they are making. This credit contraction has an effect on the economy similar to that of an increase in the federal funds rate in that increases in the target for the federal funds rate are also intended to reduce demand for goods, such as housing and business fixed investment, that depend on borrowing. He noted that both those sectors had been contracting in recent months, slowing the economy and potentially reducing the inflation rate.
He indicated that although inflation had declined somewhat during the past year, it was still well above the Fed’s target. He mentioned that wage increases were still higher than is consistent with an inflation rate of 2 percent. In response to a question, he indicated that if the inflation rate were to fall from current rates above 4 percent to 3 percent, the FOMC would not be satisfied to accept that rate. In other words, the FOMC still had a firm target rate of 2 percent.

In summary, the FOMC finds itself in the same situation it has been in since it began raising its target for the federal funds rate in March 2022: Trying to bring high inflation rates back down to its 2 percent target without causing the U.S. economy to experience a significant recession.