Continuing on my
previous thoughts on this matter:
BOSTON--Federal
Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley said Saturday the U.S. tool
kit to deal with financial imbalances remains some distance from where it needs
to be.
"My own view is that while the
use of macroprudential tools holds promise, we are a long way from being able
to successfully use such tools in the United States," Mr. Dudley said in
the text of remarks to be delivered at a conference held by the Boston Fed.
The Fed is 100 years old, and central banking in the west
traces its history more than three hundred years. Yet they haven’t, to this time, developed
such tools.
…he said he doesn't see any
imminent threat when it comes to bubbles in the financial sector.
"While we work to sort all
this out, we should take considerable solace from the fact that we have made
the financial system more resilient to shocks," Mr. Dudley said. While it
may be hard to spot the next round of imbalances, "with higher capital and
liquidity requirements and the use of stress tests to assess emerging
vulnerabilities, I think we are much better placed than we have been in the
past," he said.
In this, I think he is correct. In working through my (adolescent) understand
of tools available to the Fed and the complications in the analysis introduced
by the unprecedented level of excess reserves, I have come to a similar conclusion. The financial system is “more resilient to
shocks.” The “higher capital and
liquidity requirements” are in the excess reserves.
This is not to suggest that the market will not eventually
win; it always does. Only that I don’t envision
an almost uncontrollable collapse as occurred in 2008.
In any case, the solution to this apparently intractable
problem is simple; it can be found in the market. Bubbles of any meaningful macro-economic danger
do not form when poor business judgement is allowed to meet its just ends. Profit and loss is a healthy teacher and
disciplinarian. The invisible hand is
very skilled at spotting and popping bubbles before they become too big to pop.
As to interest rates and the daily fawning over every word
by any Fed official:
Fed officials and many others would
rather use these set of facilities to quell brewing bubbles rather than to use
the blunt tool of raising interest rates, which comes with a cost to the
broader economy in terms of weaker employment levels and slower growth.
Raising interest rates isn’t in the Fed’s hands; as I
concluded in the above-linked post, given the level of excess reserves the only
plausible direct means by which the Fed can increase rates is via an increase
in the interest rate paid on excess reserves – the very shortest-term rate on
the most secure financial asset, digits held by the Fed. Maybe they will do this.
What do I think? The market
will decide for the Fed; the Fed will not decide for the market.
"...I have come to a similar conclusion. The financial system is “more resilient to shocks.” The “higher capital and liquidity requirements” are in the excess reserves."
ReplyDeleteI agree... as long as it is clear that just because the financial industry is more resilient (due to the reasons you mentioned), doesn't mean that the stock and bond market bubbles more broadly aren't there to crash.
"Only that I don’t envision an almost uncontrollable collapse as occurred in 2008." I assume you mean in the financial industry specifically. I too don't think the financial industry will be as exposed as it was last time. However, I think David Stockman does a great job in The Great Deformation in explaining the extent to which the "financial armageddon" was exaggerated in 2008. In other words, there really wasn't an uncontrollable collapse that would have wiped out the western world, per the insane claims of Hank Paulson-- the damage was limited to a handful of the over-leveraged and exposed banks.
Thank you for the comment, Mr. Engel.
Delete"...doesn't mean that the stock and bond market bubbles more broadly aren't there to crash."
I don't expect asset prices to fall as dramatically or rapidly as they did in 2008. I believe the excess reserves provide liquidity sufficient to allow time for the Fed to react before asset owners are forced to sell due to lack of liquidity.
"In other words, there really wasn't an uncontrollable collapse that would have wiped out the western world..."
I think for several months it was relatively uncontrolled; I do not think it would have wiped out the western world had markets been allowed to clear naturally.
The Fed can increase interest rates indirectly by selling some of its assets.
ReplyDeleteIt could thereby expose enough malinvestments to push the USA into a recession. I doubt that the Fed could precisely control any interest rates in this fashion. If the Fed did sell enough assets to raise rates on the 10 year T-bills by just 50 basis points, who would benefit? Who would be hurt? The answers could guide us in predicting whether the owners of the Fed could profit from rising rates.
Why should we be assured that the Fed will not sell assets to raise rates?
I think until they sell enough assets to soak up $2 trillion ++ of excess reserves, selling assets might have little effect. But I am not sure....
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-fed-and-interest-rates.html
Thank you for your succinct reply, and for your enlightening previous post which fully addressed my question.
Delete