Bernanke's Conundrum

Can't the Fed legally also control long term rates, by buying and selling long term gov't bonds? Didn't they do so some decades ago? Why can't they do it again?

"One example is the lack of response in the mortgage and housing markets in 2004 and early 2005, when homebuyersÂ’ borrowing costs changed little as the Federal Reserve tightened."

Was the Fed really tightening? Could it be that they were raising the rate, but providing ample liquidity that offset the rising rate?

I'm not sure the Fed can aggressively cut rates at this point. The dollar could fall off a cliff and make a bad situation worse.

bill gross, bond shill as he may be, has been correct more often and much longer than roubini and his ilk.

Maybe gross (and his ilk) was correct on those frequent easy parts when nearly everybody got it right and roubini with few others got it right on those rare hard parts.
Shillin against the shills is me.

SteveB, Yes, the Fed can legally intervene in longer term instruments. I'm not sure how the market would react - if long rates rise when the Fed cuts it's because there is insufficient demand at lower rates. So the Fed intervening might cause more problems than it solves.

Still it might make sense to intervene at the long end if there was a serious threat of deflation. Otherwise I think the Fed will just live with the consequences - at least for a year or two.

Best Wishes.

The world central banks, working in concert, have significantly expanded the money supply across the board for years and liquidity keeps looking for a home. Much of it into bonds. That is why Long term yields are dropping. There is so much liquidity (thank you Alan and Ben) it has to go somewhere. Seems reasonable to believe that is also why the major US equity averages continue to defy gravity in the face of certain US recession. The conundrum is really about long term rates dropping, due to excess liquidity, in the face massive currency devaluation (money printing.)

Yes, the Fed does buy and sell treasuries and monetatize a portion of our debt. If you study Ben and IMF statements, it's probably a good bet they also intervene in both the real estate and equity markets, although it's through more indirect means, than outright purchase by the Fed.

I'd also make the the case that Long term interest rates are unimportant at this point. Home owners neeed lower short term rates to refinance the adjusting ARMS. That will buy them and the Fed more time.

China's role in this current "bond conundrum" cannot be dismissed. Their role in holding down the long-term yield is critical in their export-led growth strategy. They have been hoarding US treasuries knowing they will lose a good chunk of it when interest rate rises. They rationalize their holdings with a long term perspective that gains reaped from current massive investments years from now will outweigh losses in holding US treasuries. As long as we continue to go on our spending binge, they will gladly continue to provide the finance for bringing China economic proserity is a long-term gigantic project. They capitalize on our addiction to consumption. Whereas, we prefer instant gratification at the expense of our kids, the Chinese prefer to make the sacrifice now for a better future for their children.

Setser, while a great blogger, has been sooooooo wrong this cycle about the extent to which the dollar should have fallen and interest rates should have risen. He's trying a bit too hard to rationalize his view, in my opinion.

Az_cowbuy wrote,

"I'm not sure the Fed can aggressively cut rates at this point. The dollar could fall off a cliff and make a bad situation worse."

Agreed. The Federal Reserve cannot cut rates much because if it did then the dollar would weaken tremendously. Inflation would rise and we'd rapidly lose the inflow of dollars.

It's not merely whether the Fed is cutting (or increasing) short-term rates. It also needs to signal whether it is willing to keep those rates down (or up) for a significant time. If the Fed made it clear that it will keep short-term rates above 5% for two years, you can be sure that the 2-year rate would go north of 5% (and probably the 5-year as well).

One way central banks can make their intentions clear is by past history - a central bank that is calm and deliberate in setting rates will have more impact over longer rates, because the market will have fair confidence that a low short-term rate now will not suddenly become a high short-term rate next year. A central bank like the Greenspan Fed, which treated rates like a yo-yo (higher today, lower tomorrow) will necessarily dissipate this kind of credibility. So the Fed needs to jawbone - we will keep rates low! we will keep rates high! This eventually worked when it was cutting rates, but on the way up, the market already doubts the Fed will keep rates up, hence long-term rates are going down rather than up.

In brief, the Greenspan Fed has created addicts for cheap short-term credit. The addicts believe the Fed isn't going to cut them off cold turkey because of the cost to the economy, so it believes the Fed will keep the credit coming. It may well be right.

CR, I understand the theory that there is a greater disconnect between short-term and long-term rates. So I can see how long-term rates could rise as the Fed cuts short-term rates. But why do feel that will happen in this case?

Is it because you feel foreign money will move out of the U.S.?

Thanks.

The Fed has no choice but to lower rates....the dollar is unimportant ...they have made that clear

Inflating more of bubble economics is not making more of the money. Deficit spending bankrupts if you haven't notice. Prosperity is in the manufacturing and in the marketing of your and not in some dumped goods from over there.

Login or register to post comments
Syndicate content