The Apolitical Fed and the “Big, Fat, Ugly Bubble”

“ … nothing at the Fed is political.”                                                     Neil Kashkari, new head of the Minneapolis Fed

The Federal Reserve Board was designed to be a nonpartisan entity, existing solely for the benefit of the American economy. Apparently, there is a flaw in the design.

During the first debate between presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Mr. Trump accused the Federal Reserve Board of keeping interest rates near zero to help Democrats in November, while creating a “big, fat, ugly bubble” that will pop after the election when the central bank raises rates.

According to Ruchir Sharma, chief global strategist for Morgan Stanley, “This riff has some truth to it.”djia

“Since the Fed began aggressive monetary easing in 2008,” Sharma wrote on Zero Hedge, “my calculations show that nearly 60% of stock market gains have come on those days, once every six weeks, that the Federal Open Market Committee announces its policy decisions.

“Put another way, the S&P 500 index has gained 699 points since January 2008, and 422 of those points came on the 70 Fed announcement days. The average gain on announcement days was 0.49%, or roughly 50 times higher than the average gain of 0.01% on other days.”

It must be a coincidence that gains are 50 times higher on days when the FOMC announces policy decisions.

Sharma’s conclusions are further supported by this chart from Showrealhist.com, which shows an inflation-adjusted Dow Jones Industrial Average.  Note the upward surge that began when the Fed began QE in 2008.

Read more

ZIRP Everlasting

Some things never change.  Apparently, the interest rate for Federal funds is one of them.

To the surprise of no one – except the “experts” and journalists who have been writing about an anticipated rate increase – the Federal Reserve Board voted last week to keep interest rates flatlined at about zero, which is where they’ve been since 2008.

The Fed may not have raised interest rates, but it at least raised interest this time. The International Business Times called it, “one of the most widely anticipated Federal Reserve decisions in decades.”

Really?  Why was this meeting any different from previous Fed meetings where interest rates remained unchanged?  Because the media-academic-pundit intelligentsia decided that it was time to increase rates.Yellen

In a Wall Street Journal poll of economists in August, 82% of economists thought the Fed would raise rates in September.  The week before the Fed met, 46% picked September as the most likely time for the Fed’s rate hike, 9.5% said the Fed would wait until October and 35% predicted that the Fed would wait until December.  Just 9.5% predicted the Fed would wait until 2016 to raise rates.

The economists polled don’t have seats on the Federal Open Market Committee, but everyone assumes they must know something.

Read more

Maybe the Fed Is Just Lazy

Just last month we reported that the Federal Reserve Board’s policy statement was almost identical to its previous policy statement.  Now the Fed has issued another policy statement – and it’s almost identical to the last one.

Granted, there’s not much to say.  The economy has flatlined, the Fed has run out of policy tools and it’s mid-summer … a time when many people spend more time avoiding work than actually working.  But this is the Federal Reserve Board we’re talking about – the people who are in charge of our economy, since neither President Obama nor Congress want to do much about it.

So, for those of you who remember what a “carbon copy” is, the latest policy statement is a carbon copy of the last one.  Maybe we should just re-run our previous blog post. Yellen, Janet

“The most notable change,” as Goldman Sachs’ Chief Economist Jan Hatzius wrote, “was the addition of the word ‘some’ in the committee’s description of desired progress in the labor market.  Specifically, the June FOMC statement said that it will be appropriate to raise interest rates ‘when it has seen further improvement in the labor market’ (and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to two percent).  Today’s statement said that rate hikes would be appropriate after ‘some further improvement in the labor market.’ ”

So “further” became “some further.” 

Read more

No Animals Harmed in Drafting Fed Policy Statement

Thousands of years ago, Roman soothsayers would visit the oracles and interpret the entrails of slaughtered animals.  We haven’t advanced much since then.

Fortunately, no animals are slaughtered today, but many brain cells seem to die in the reading and interpretation of policy statements of the Federal Open Market Committee.  Like the soothsayers of old, today’s economists, journalists and pundits interpret the news and report it as fact – even though they generally haven’t a clue about what’s being said.  We’re not even sure the FOMC has a clue about what’s being said. Animal

The policy statements themselves are an anachronism.  In today’s world, most news is immediate.  By the time a newsworthy event ends, it’s been tweeted, blogged and reported on by anyone and everyone who is interested.

Yet the Fed issues policy statements on its Federal Open Market Committee meetings two months after the meetings take place.  Apparently, it takes the FOMC that long to agree on language that says nothing and can be interpreted however the reader would like it to be interpreted.

Many well-paid experts make a living off of these interpretations.  They will tell you, with certainty, that the Fed will definitely maybe raise interest rates sometime this year – or maybe next year – but they’re just guessing.

Read more