Blog Post

Blogs review: The Bernanke doctrine and the separation between forward guidance and tapering

What’s at stake: In the US, a somewhat forgotten intellectual distinction between forward guidance and asset purchases has resurfaced following the June 19 FOMC talks of tapering. Until recently, the Fed had a precise state-dependent threshold for the future lift-off in short-term interest rates, but wasn’t specific about the timing for the tapering of its asset purchases. By providing specific forward guidance about asset purchases, the Fed has attempted to establish a distinction between these two tools. This has proven easier said than done.

By: Date: July 15, 2013 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

What’s at stake: In the US, a somewhat forgotten intellectual distinction between forward guidance and asset purchases has resurfaced following the June 19 FOMC talks of tapering. Until recently, the Fed had a precise state-dependent threshold for the future lift-off in short-term interest rates, but wasn’t specific about the timing for the tapering of its asset purchases. By providing specific forward guidance about asset purchases, the Fed has attempted to establish a distinction between these two tools. This has proven easier said than done.

A hard message to sell

Tim Duy writes that the Federal Reserve is having a difficult time convincing market participants that quantitative easing and interest rates represent two separate policy tools.  They want to severe the perception that the two are connected – a reduction in the pace of asset purchases thus does not signal a change in the expected lift-off from the zero bound.

Ben Bernanke talked about the mix of instruments being used to provide the overall accommodation during the Q&A following his presentation at the NBER. The Fed has two instruments that we’ve been using in the context of interest rates close to the zero lower bound. The first, asset purchases, we have thought about, and I’ve frequently described as, providing some near-term momentum to the economy. In other words, we have said that we are trying to achieve a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market in the context of price stability. The second tool that we have is our rate policy, short-term interest rates, and associated with that is the forward guidance that we provided to the public about our expectations for when rates might change. There is some prospective gradual and possible change in the mix of instruments. But that shouldn’t be confused with the overall thrust of policy, which is highly accommodative.

Paul Krugman writes that the Fed grossly misunderstood the nature of the relationship between its statements and market expectations. It believed that the market was listening closely to the details of what it said. In fact, the market doesn’t — and probably shouldn’t. Instead, it listens to the tone of Fed statements, and also Fed actions; it’s more a matter of character judgment than mathematics. And what the Fed conveyed with the tapering talk was a sense that its heart really isn’t in this stimulus thing. Gavyn Davies illustrates in the graph below that the markets have not yet indeed accepted this separation between the balance sheet and short rates.

Less QE, more guidance, and more disagreements

Jan Hatzius writes that Paul Krugman has the right explanation; merely repeating the current short-term interest rate guidance may not be sufficient to halt the selloff at the front end of the yield curve. And even postponing the taper by a couple of meetings might not be very powerful in reversing the damage to short-term rate expectations. A more promising avenue would be to strengthen the forward rate guidance—either an upfront reduction in the 6.5% unemployment threshold or a more explicit indication in the FOMC statement that unexpected weakness in inflation and/or labor force participation will result in a lower threshold. 

Joe Weisenthal writes that Bernanke didn’t quite change the threshold for where the first rate hike could be considered, but at a Q&A following his NBER presentation he all-but moved to a more dovish stance on keeping interest rates low for a long time. He said, for example, that the current rate of unemployment was probably understanding the labor market weakness, due to the low participation rate. And he promised that after unemployment fell to 6.5%, rates would still stay low for quite some time. It seems very likely that the Fed will basically do what Hatzius suggests, move down the Evan’s Rule threshold.

Tim Duy picked up an interesting point from the Fed minutes: there was no discussion inside the FOMC for a 7% unemployment trigger for tapering asset purchases, unlike what Bernanke said.  So where did that number come from?  Must have been Bernanke revealing his own preference.  This was confirmed by Bullard who said that when Mr. Bernanke said the bond buying program will likely end when a 7% jobless rate is achieved, he was not stating official FOMC policy. The committee itself has not voted on or approved any threshold for the [bond buying] program. It’s not clear we would.

Wallace Neutrality redux

Stephen Williamson notes that this distinction isn’t new and that the Fed has consistently segmented QE from forward guidance, particularly in the FOMC statement. It even has segmented different kinds of QE (reserves for long Treasuries, short Treasuries for long Treasuries, reserves for MBSs) arguing that these are different tools. Does it now think that one type of intervention is preferable to another, or that there were different circumstances along the path we have followed since the financial crisis that warrant different approaches? None of that is clear from Fed communications. The only explanation we have is that these are different tools, and that when you have a lot of tools and you’re in a predicament, you should use them all. Maybe there’s little difference among the effects (if any) of these different tools. If so, the Fed is needlessly confusing us. Williamson also notes that there is no explanation whatsoever about where the $85 billion per month number comes from, which makes him suspicious that they simply don’t know.

Mike Konczal notes that it is useful to revisit the debate about the impact of the steps the Fed took in 2012 to understand how changing the mix of instruments will work. To recap, the Fed took two major steps in 2012. First, it used a communication strategy to say that it would keep interest rates low until certain economic states were hit. Second, the Fed started purchasing $85 billion a month in assets until this goal was hit.  In his major September 2012 paper, Woodford (see also our previous review on Wallace Neutrality) argued that the latter step, the $85 billion in purchases every month, doesn’t even matter, because "’portfolio-balance effects’ do not exist in a modern, general-equilibrium theory of asset prices." So moving future purchases up or down at the margins, keeping the expected future path of short-term interest rates constant, shouldn’t matter either.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More by this author
 

Blog Post

It’s hard to live in the city: Berlin’s rent freeze and the economics of rent control

A proposal in Berlin to ban increases in rent for the next five years sparked intense debate in Germany. Similar policies to the Mietendeckel are currently being discussed in London and NYC. All three proposals reflect and raise similar concerns – the increase in per-capita incomes is not keeping pace with increases in rents, but will a cap do more harm than good? We review recent views on the matter.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 8, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The breakdown of the covered interest rate parity condition

A textbook condition of international finance breaks down. Economic research identifies the interplay between divergent monetary policies and new financial regulation as the source of the puzzle, and generates concerns about unintended consequences for financing conditions and financial stability.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou and Bruegel Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 1, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The June Eurogroup meeting: Reflections on BICC

The Eurogroup met on June 13th to discuss the deepening of the economic and monetary union (EMU) and prepare the discussions for the Euro Summit. From the meeting came two main deliverables: an agreement over a budgetary instrument for competitiveness and convergence and the reform of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) treaty texts. We review economists’ first impressions.

By: Bruegel and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 24, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The campaign against ‘nonsense’ output gaps

A campaign against “nonsense” consensus output gaps has been launched on social media. It has triggered responses focusing on the implications of output gaps for fiscal policy under EU rules, especially for Italy. But the debate about the reliability of output-gap estimates is more wide-ranging.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou and Bruegel Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 17, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The inverted yield curve

Longer-term yields falling below shorter-term yields have historically preceded recessions. Last week, the US 10-year yield was 21 basis points below the 3-month yield, a feat last seen during the summer of 2007. Is the current yield curve a trustworthy barometer for future growth?

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo and Bruegel Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: June 11, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The 'seven' ceiling: China's yuan in trade talks

Investors and the public have been looking at the renminbi with caution after the Trump administration threatened to increase duties on countries that intervene in the markets to devalue/undervalue their currency relative to the dollar. The fear is that China could weaponise its currency following the further increase in tariffs imposed by the United States in early May. What is the likelihood of this happening and what would be the consequences for the existing tensions with the United States, as well as for the global economy?

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo and Bruegel Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: June 3, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The next ECB president

On May 28th, EU heads of state and government will start the nomination process for the next ECB president. Leaving names of possible candidates aside, this review tries to isolate the arguments about what qualifications the new president should have and what challenges he or she is likely to face.

By: Bruegel and Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 27, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

The latest European growth-rate estimates

The quarterly growth rate of the euro area in Q1 2019 was 0.4% (1.5% annualized), considerably higher than the low growth rates of the previous two quarters. This blog reviews the reaction to the release of these numbers and the discussion they have triggered about the euro area’s economic challenges.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 20, 2019
Read article More by this author
 

Blog Post

Is an electric car a cleaner car?

An article published by the Ifo Institute in Germany compares the carbon footprint of a battery-electric car to that of a diesel car, and argues a higher share of electric cars will not contribute to reducing German carbon dioxide emissions. Respondents rejected the authors’ calculations as unrealistic and biased, and pointed to a series of studies that conclude the opposite. We summarise the article and responses to it.

By: Michael Baltensperger Topic: Energy & Climate, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: May 13, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

All eyes on the Fed

Last week the US Federal Reserve left the federal funds rate unchanged and lowered the interest rate on excess reserves. We review economists’ recent views on the monetary policy conduct and priorities of the United States’ central bank system.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: May 6, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

Is this blog post legal (under new EU copyright law)?

How new EU rules on using snippets from news publishers and on copyright infringement liability might affect circulation of information, revenue distribution, market power and EU business competitiveness.

By: Catarina Midões Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 8, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Secular stagnation and the future of economic stabilisation

Larry Summers’ and Łukasz Rachel’s most recent study documents a secular fall in neutral real rates in advanced economies. According to the authors, this fall would be even more marked in the absence of offsetting fiscal policies. Policymaking in a world of permanently low interest rates may be hard to navigate, especially in troubled waters. We review economists’ views on the matter

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo and Bruegel Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 1, 2019
Load more posts