Williams, John C

Latest story

125 Shares119 Views

What’s Next for Interest Rates? An Era of ‘Peak Uncertainty.’

by

Federal Reserve officials could keep all options on the table at their meeting this week, even as data shape up according to plan.When Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, takes the stage at his postmeeting news conference on Wednesday, investors and many Americans will be keenly focused on one question: When will the Fed start cutting interest rates?Policymakers raised borrowing costs sharply between March 2022 and July, to a 22-year high of 5.25 to 5.5 percent, in a bid to wrestle rapid inflation under control by cooling the economy. They have paused since then, waiting to see how the economy reacted.But with inflation moderating and the job market growing at a more modest pace, Wall Street increasingly expects that the Fed could start cutting interest rates soon — perhaps even within the first three months of 2024.Fed officials have been hesitant to say when that might happen, or to even promise that they are done raising interest rates. That’s because they are still worried that the economy could pick back up or that progress taming inflation could stall. Policymakers do not want to declare victory only to have to walk that back.Mr. Powell is likely to strike a noncommittal tone this week given all the uncertainty, economists said. After their decision on Wednesday, Fed officials will release a fresh quarterly Summary of Economic Projections showing where they think rates will be at the end of 2024, which will indicate how many rate cuts they expect to make, if any. But the projections will offer few hints about when, exactly, any moves might come.And both the Fed’s forecasts and Wall Street’s expectations could mask a stark reality: There is a wide range of possible outcomes for interest rates next year, depending on what happens in the economy over the next couple of months.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

More stories

  • 88 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    How Long Will Interest Rates Stay High?

    by

    It’s pricey to borrow to buy a business, car or home these days. Interest rates are expected to fall in coming years — how much is up for debate.Dr. Alice Mills was thinking of selling her veterinary practice in Lexington, Ky., this year, but she decided to put the move off because she worried that it would be difficult to sell in an era of rising interest rates.“In a year, I think that there’s going to be less anxiety about the interest rates, and I’m hoping that they’re going to go down,” Dr. Mills, 69, said. “I have to put my faith in the fact that the practice will sell.”Dr. Mills is one of many Americans anxiously wondering what comes next for borrowing costs — and the answer is hard to guess.It is expensive to take out a loan to buy a business or a car in 2023. Or a house: Mortgage rates are around 7 percent, up sharply from 2.7 percent at the end of 2020. That is the result of the Federal Reserve’s campaign to cool the economy.The central bank has lifted its policy interest rate to a range of 5.25 to 5.5 percent — the highest level in 22 years — which has trickled out to increase borrowing costs across the economy. The goal is to deter demand and force sellers to stop raising prices so much, slowing inflation.But nearly a year and a half into the effort, the Fed is at or near the end of its rate increases. Officials have projected just one more in 2023, by a quarter of a point, and the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, John C. Williams, said in an interview that he didn’t see a need for more than that.“We’re pretty close to what a peak rate would be, and the question will really be — once we have a good understanding of that — how long will we need to keep policy in a restrictive stance, and what does that mean?” Mr. Williams said on Aug. 2.The economy is approaching a pivot point, one that has many consumers wondering when rates will come back down, how quickly and how much.“Eventually monetary policy will need over the next few years to get back to a more normal — whatever that normal is — a more normal setting of policy,” Mr. Williams said.So far, the jury is out on what normal means. Fed officials do expect to cut interest rates next year, but only slightly — they think it could be several years before rates return to a level between 2 and 3 percent, like their peak in the years before the pandemic. Officials do not forecast a return to near zero, like the setting that allowed mortgage rates to sink so low in 2020.That’s a sign of optimism: Rock-bottom rates are seen as necessary only when the economy is in bad shape and needs to be resuscitated.In fact, some economists outside the Fed think that borrowing costs might remain higher than they were in the 2010s. The reason is that what has long been known as the neutral rate — the point at which the economy is not being stimulated or depressed — may have risen. That means today’s economy may be capable of chugging along with a higher interest rate than it could previously handle.A few big changes could have caused such a shift by increasing the demand for borrowed money, which props up borrowing costs. Among them, the government has piled on more debt in recent years, businesses are shifting toward more domestic manufacturing — potentially increasing demand for factories and other infrastructure — and climate change is spurring a need for green investments.Whether that proves to be the case will have big implications for American companies, consumers, aspirational homeowners and policymakers alike.John C. Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesKristin Forbes, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it was important not to be too precise about guessing the neutral rate — it moves around and is hard to recognize in real time. But she thinks it might be higher than it was in the 2010s. The economy back then had gone through a very weak economic recovery from the Great Recession and struggled to regain its vigor.“Now, the economy has learned to function with higher interest rates,” Ms. Forbes said. “It gives me hope that we’re coming back to a more normal equilibrium.”Many economists think slightly higher rates would be a good thing. Before the pandemic, years of steadily declining demand for borrowed money depressed rates, so the Fed had to cut them to rock bottom every time there was an economic crisis to try to encourage people to spend more.Even near-zero rates couldn’t always do the trick: Growth recovered only slowly after the 2008 recession despite the Fed’s extraordinary efforts to coax it back.If demand for money is slightly higher on a regular basis, that will make it easier to goose the economy in times of trouble. If the Fed cuts rates, it will pull more home buyers, entrepreneurs and car purchasers off the sidelines. That would lower the risk of economic stagnation.To be sure, few if any prominent economists expect rates to stay at higher levels like those that prevailed in the 1980s and 1990s. Those who expect rates to stay elevated think the Fed’s main policy rate could hover around 4 percent, while those who expect them to be lower see something more in the range of 2 to 3 percent, said Joseph Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.That is because some of the factors that have pushed rates down in recent years persist — and could intensify.“Several of the explanations for the decline in long-term interest rates before the pandemic are still with us,” explained Lukasz Rachel, an economist at University College London, citing things like an aging population and low birthrates.When fewer people need houses and products, there is less demand for money to borrow to construct buildings and factories, and interest rates naturally fall.Such factors are enough for Mr. Williams, the New York Fed president, to expect neutral rates to stick close to their prepandemic level. He also pointed to the shift toward internet services: Streaming a movie on Netflix does not require as much continuing investment as keeping video stores open and stocked.“We are moving more and more to an economy that doesn’t need factories and lots of capital investment to produce a lot of output,” Mr. Williams said, later adding that “I think the neutral rate is probably just as low as it was.”That has some big implications for monetary policy. When inflation of around 3 percent is stripped out, the Fed’s policy rate sits at about 2.25 to 2.5 percent in what economists call “real” terms. That is well above the setting of 1 percent or less that Mr. Williams sees as necessary to start weighing on the economy.If price increases continue to fall, the Fed will inadvertently be clamping down on the economy harder in that “real” sense if it holds its policy interest rate steady, Mr. Williams said. That means officials will need to cut rates to avoid overdoing it, he said — perhaps even as soon as early next year.“I think it will depend on the data, and depend on what’s happening with inflation,” Mr. Williams said when asked if the Fed might lower interest rates in the first half of 2024. “If inflation is coming down, it will be natural to bring” the federal funds rate “down next year, consistent with that, to keep the stance of monetary policy appropriate.”For Dr. Mills, the Kentucky veterinarian, that could be good news, bringing partial retirement that much closer.“I would love to get back into zoo work,” she said, explaining that she had worked with big cats early in her career and would love to do so again once she sold her practice — which is itself cats only. “That’s something for retirement.” More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    A Fed Official Wonders: ‘Do We Need to Do Another Rate Increase?’

    by

    The head of the powerful New York Fed said that it was an “open question,” and that rates could fall next year.John C. Williams, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, thinks that the central bank’s push to cool the economy is near its peak and that he expects that interest rates could begin to come down next year.In an interview on Aug. 2, Mr. Williams said that inflation was coming down as hoped, and that while he expected unemployment to rise slightly as the economy cooled, by how much was unclear.The upshot is that interest rates are unlikely to rise much further than the current range of 5.25 to 5.5 percent. Fed officials could also consider cutting them soon: Mr. Williams did not rule out the possibility of lowering rates in early 2024, depending on economic data. His comments are a sign that moderating inflation could pave the way for a shift in policy approach. After months of focusing single-mindedly on bringing inflation under control, officials are increasingly focused on not overdoing it as they try to ease the economy through a gentle cooling.Below are edited highlights of the interview. (Read the full transcript here.)I wonder if there is anything that is on your mind that you want to talk about?We’re seeing continued strength in the economy. At the same time, a lot of the indicators are moving in the right direction. We’ve seen the job openings and other indicators are telling us that supply and demand are moving closer together.On the inflation front I definitely think that the data are moving similarly in the right direction, but I think that similarly, the only way we’re really going to achieve the 2 percent inflation on a sustained basis is really to bring that balance back to the economy.Clearly we’re not in a recession, or anything like that — but we need to see that process of getting supply and demand, from both sides, coming back into balance.Do you think additional rate increases are necessary to achieve that?I think that’s an open question, honestly.I think we’ve got monetary policy in a good place, it is definitely restrictive, but we have to watch the data. Are we seeing the supply-demand imbalances continue to shrink, move in the right direction? Are we seeing the inflation data move in the right direction, in order to decide that?Of course, there is another question, which is: How long do we have to keep the restrictive stance of policy? And that I think it’s going to be driven by the data.Are we talking about one more rate increase or more?Given what I see today, from the perspective of the data that we have, I think — it’s not about having to tighten monetary policy a lot. To me, the debate is really about: Do we need to do another rate increase? Or not?I think we’re pretty close to what a peak rate would be, and the question will really be — once we have a good understanding of that, how long will we need to keep policy in a restrictive stance, and what does that mean.When you say “what does that mean,” what do you mean by that?I think of monetary policy primarily in terms of real interest rates, and we set nominal rates.[Note: Real interest rates subtract out inflation, while nominal rates include it. Estimates of the so-called “neutral” rate setting that neither heats nor cools the economy are usually expressed in inflation-adjusted, real terms.]Assuming inflation continues to come down, it comes down next year, as many forecast, including the economic projections, if we don’t cut interest rates at some point next year then real interest rates will go up, and up, and up. And that won’t be consistent with our goals. So I do think that from my perspective, to keep maintaining a restrictive stance may very well involved cutting the federal funds rate next year, or year after, but really it’s about how are we affecting real interest rates — not nominal rates.My outlook is really one where inflation comes back to 2 percent over the next two years, and the economy comes into better balance, and eventually monetary policy will need over the next few years to get back to a more normal — whatever that normal is — a more normal setting of policy.Could you see a rate cut in the first half next year?I think it will depend on the data, and depend on what’s happening with inflation. The first half of next year is still a ways off.I don’t think the issue is exactly the timing, or things. It’s really more that if inflation is coming down, it will be natural to bring nominal interest rates down next year, consistent with that, to keep the stance of monetary policy appropriate for an economy that’s growing, and for inflation moving to the 2 percent level.Is inflation falling faster than expected?I do think that overall P.C.E. inflation for the year will probably come in at 3 percent, that depends on a lot of different things, and I expect core inflation to be above that, based on all the information we’re seeing.I do think that we are moving to an environment already where the underlying inflation rate has come down quite a bit. Mainly because — or not mainly, but in large part because the shelter inflation has come down so much. That’s been such a big driver of core inflation over the last couple of years.Is it coming down as expected, or quicker than expected? How has this compared to what you would have forecast three months ago?The data have surprised me and everybody a lot the past couple of years, because of the pandemic, the war, Russia’s war in Ukraine, all the things that happen. Surprises in data have become more the norm. For me, personally, the inflation data have been coming in as I had expected — and also hoped.What do you see as that sustainable pace of job growth?A lot of the labor force growth we’ve seen over the past year or so has been a rebound, and a return to a strong labor market conditions after the pandemic. That can’t continue every year forever: I mean the high labor force participation can continue, but it can’t continue to grow and grow and grow forever.Like a 100,000, or 150,000, gain in monthly employment?I’m not sure exactly, but it’s more in that 100,000 range than where it is today. We can’t be really precise about what exactly that means.What about wage growth? How much do you think you need to get wage growth down in order to feel confident that inflation is going to come down?I view wage growth, in terms of your question, as more of an indicator, rather than a goal or a target. So I don’t sit there thinking: We need to see wage growth do one thing or another in the next year or two.We’re still in an economy where demand exceeds supply, it’s a strong labor market, clearly, and wage growth has been very strong and it’s higher than inflation.Now, in the longer run, when you think about — over the next five years or something — you would expect real wages, wages adjusted for inflation, to grow consistent with productivity trends. Right now, I don’t think that’s exactly what I’m focused on. I’m more focused on: what are all these indicators, all the different data telling us about the overall balance or imbalance between supply and demand and what that implies for inflation.Would you be comfortable skipping a rate increase in September?We get a lot of data between now and the September meeting, and we will have to analyze that and make the right decision. I personally don’t have any preference of what we need to do at a future meeting.From my perspective, we have gone from a place — a year, a year and a half ago, where the inflation was way too high, not moving in the right direction, and the risks were all on inflation being too high, to one where the risks are on both sides.We have the two-sided risks that we need to balance, making sure that we don’t do too much, and weaken the economy too much — more than we need to in order to achieve our goals — and at the same time make sure that we do enough to make sure that we convincingly bring inflation back to 2 percent.Do you think that unemployment needs to go up in order for inflation to come down?Right now the unemployment rate is below many people’s view of a long-run normal unemployment rate, but not by a lot. A few tenths or so. From that perspective, I would expect the unemployment rate would move back to a more normal level. Will it rise above that, in order to really get inflation back to 2 percent? I don’t know the answer to that, in my own projection, my own forecast, I expect that the unemployment rate will rise above 4 percent next year, but I can’t say with any conviction how much will that need to happen.What do you think the criteria will be for cutting interest rates next year?To me, I think the main criteria that I’m thinking about in my forecast, is that really about with inflation coming down, needing to adjust interest rates with that so that we’re not inadvertently tightening policy more and more just because inflation is down. That is my baseline forecast — obviously, if the economic outlook changes, or other factors happen, there are other reasons why you’d change interest rates.A risk that people are talking about right now is this possibility of not just no landing, but re-acceleration. It’s possible that the economy takes back off and you guys have to do more down the road. I wonder how you think about the possibility?It’s a possibility. Being data-dependent means that if we see the data moving in that direction, we’ll need to act appropriately, as we have in the past.To me I guess if that risk were to materialize, it probably would be more that, demand is a lot stronger than I had been expecting, and we probably need more restrictive policy to bring supply and demand back into balance.A question we get from our readers all the time is: Are mortgage rates ever going to go back down to where they were before the pandemic disruptions? And I wonder what you think of that, as the person who’s done all of the research on interest rates?My expectation is that over time, over years, real interest rates will actually come back down from the levels they’re at.I haven’t seen really any strong evidence that neutral rates have yet risen much beyond what they were, say before the pandemic.If there’s a risk of going back to very low neutral rates, which obviously carries this inherent risk of ending up back at zero, why not just raise the inflation target now? It seems like you could deal with two problems at once, both giving yourself more headroom and making it easier to hit the inflation target.I think the experience of the past few years has taught me that 4 percent inflation is not considered price stability — it has not felt like price stability by the general public, or quite honestly, by policymakers; 4 percent inflation seems very high in the modern world. 3 percent seems high; 2 percent was already the compromise, of saying: Why not go all the way to zero? And there’s some technical reasons that you might not want to go all the way to zero, but 2 percent was to provide a buffer.[When the Fed reviewed its approach to setting policy in 2020] I personally felt comfortable that a 2 percent target, along with a commitment to achieving 2 percent inflation on average over time, positioned us well to achieve those goals. More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Rate Increases Have ‘A Ways to Go,’ Top Official Says

    by

    Christopher Waller, a Federal Reserve governor, said he favored a quarter-point move. Many of his colleagues agree — or haven’t ruled it out.Christopher Waller, a Federal Reserve governor, added his voice on Friday to a chorus of central bank officials who favor slowing rate increases at the central bank’s Feb. 1 meeting. That most likely locks in place market expectations for a return to smaller policy adjustments after a series of jumbo rate moves.Mr. Waller spoke on the eve of the central bank’s quiet period before its meeting, which means investors will not hear any more commentary from Fed officials before they make their rate decision. His comments were in line with what many of his colleagues have said: Several openly support slowing down rate increases at the meeting, and top policymakers who haven’t made up their minds have not ruled it out.Central bankers raised rates rapidly in 2022, lifting borrowing costs in three-quarter-point increments for much of the year, before slowing to a half-point move in December. But they are entering a new phase that is focused more on how high interest rates rise and less on how quickly they get there. The thinking is that rates are now high enough to meaningfully slow the economy, and that adjusting them more gradually will give policymakers time to see how their policy is working.That has nudged policymakers toward a quarter-point increase, also known as 25 basis points, an increment that was common before the pandemic.“After climbing steeply and using monetary policy to significantly raise interest rates throughout the economy, it was apparent to me that it was time to slow, but not halt, the rate of ascent,” Mr. Waller said of the December downshift. “There appears to be little turbulence ahead, so I currently favor a 25-basis-point increase” at the Fed’s next meeting, he said.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Strong Wage and Jobs Growth Keeps Fed on Track for Big Rate Increase

    by

    The Federal Reserve is trying to cool down the economy to bring inflation under control, but the job market is still going strong.A surprisingly robust June employment report reinforced that America’s labor market remains historically strong even as recession warnings reach a fever pitch. But that development, while good news for the Biden administration, is likely to keep the Federal Reserve on its aggressive path of interest rate increases as it tries to cool the economy and slow inflation.Today’s world of rapid price increases is a complicated one for economic policymakers, who are worried that an overheating job market could exacerbate persistent inflation. Instead of viewing roaring demand for labor as an unmitigated good, they are hoping to engineer a gradual and controlled slowdown in hiring and wage growth, both of which remain unusually strong. Friday’s report offered early signs that the desired cooling is taking hold as both job gains and pay increases moderated slightly. But hiring and earnings remained solid enough to reinforce the view among Fed officials that the labor market, like much of the economy, is out of whack: Employers still want far more workers than are available. The new data will likely keep central bankers on track to make another supersize rate increase at their meeting later this month as they try to restrain consumer and business spending and force the economy back into balance. “We’re starting to see those first signs of slowdown, which is what we need,” Raphael Bostic, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said in a CNBC interview after the report was released. Still, he called the wage data “only slightly” reassuring and said that “we’re starting to inch in the right direction, but there’s still a lot more to do, and a lot more we’ll have to see.”Fed officials began to raise interest rates from nearly zero in March in an attempt to make borrowing of many kinds more expensive. Last month, the central bank lifted its policy rate by 0.75 percentage points, the largest single increase since 1994. Central bankers typically adjust their policy only in quarter-point increments, but they have been picking up the pace as inflation proves disturbingly rapid and stubborn. While Fed policymakers have said they will debate a move between 0.5 or 0.75 percentage points at their meeting on July 26 and 27, a chorus of officials have in recent days said they would support a second 0.75 percentage point move given the speed of inflation and strength of the job market.As the Fed tries to tap the brakes on the economy, Wall Street economists have warned that it may instead slam it into a recession — and the Biden administration has been fending off declarations that one is already arriving. A slump in overall growth data, a pullback in the housing market and a slowdown in factory orders have been fueling concern that America is on the brink of a downturn. Construction workers in New York City. Employers added 372,000 workers in June.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesThe employment data powerfully contradicted that narrative, because a shrinking economy typically does not add jobs, let alone at the current brisk pace. Mr. Biden celebrated the report on Friday, saying that “our critics said the economy was too weak” but that “we still added more jobs in the past three months than any administration in nearly 40 years.”Private sector voices concurred that the employment report showed an economy that did not appear to be tanking. “Wage growth remains elevated and rates of job loss are low,” Nick Bunker, economic research director at the job website Indeed, wrote in a reaction note. “We’ll see another recession some day, but today is not that day.”The State of Jobs in the United StatesJob gains continue to maintain their impressive run, easing worries of an economic slowdown but complicating efforts to fight inflation.June Jobs Report: U.S. employers added 372,000 jobs and the unemployment rate remained steady at 3.6 percent ​​in the sixth month of 2022.Care Worker Shortages: A lack of child care and elder care options is forcing some women to limit their hours or has sidelined them altogether, hurting their career prospects.Downsides of a Hot Market: Students are forgoing degrees in favor of the attractive positions offered by employers desperate to hire. That could come back to haunt them.Slowing Down: Economists and policymakers are beginning to argue that what the economy needs right now is less hiring and less wage growth. Here’s why.The contradictory moment in the economy — with prices rising fast, economic growth contracting and the unemployment rate hovering near a 50-year low — has posed a challenge for Mr. Biden, who has struggled to convey sympathy for consumers struggling with higher prices while seeking credit for the strength of the jobs recovery. Mr. Biden’s approval ratings have slumped as price growth has accelerated. Confidence has taken an especially pronounced battering in recent months amid rising gas prices, which topped $5 a gallon on average earlier this summer. On Friday, Mr. Biden emphasized that fighting inflation was his top economic priority while also praising recent job market progress. “I know times are tough,” Mr. Biden said, speaking in public remarks. “Prices are too high. Families are facing a cost-of-living crunch. But today’s economic news confirms the fact that my economic plan is moving this country in a better direction.” But unfortunately for the administration and for workers across America, tackling high prices will probably come at some cost to the labor market. As price increases bedevil consumers at the gas pump and in the grocery aisle, the Fed believes that it needs to bring inflation under control swiftly in order to set the economy on a path toward healthy and sustainable growth. The Fed’s tool to achieve that positive long-term outcome works by causing short-term economic pain. By making money expensive to borrow, the central bank can slow down home buying and business expansions, which will in turn slow hiring and wage increases. As companies and families have fewer dollars to spend, the theory goes, demand will come into better alignment with supply and prices will stop rocketing higher. Officials expect unemployment to eventually tick up as rate increases bite and the economy weakens, though they are hoping that it will only rise slightly. Fed policymakers are still hoping to engineer what they often call a “soft landing,” in which hiring and pay gains slow gradually, but without plunging the economy into a painful recession. But pulling it off will not be easy — and officials are willing to clamp down harder if that is what it takes to tame inflation. “Price stability is absolutely essential for the economy to achieve its potential and sustain maximum employment over the medium term,” John C. Williams, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said in a speech in Puerto Rico on Friday. “I want to be clear: This is not an easy task. We must be resolute, and we cannot fall short.”Federal funds rate since January 1998

    Rate is the federal funds target rate until Dec. 15, 2008, and thereafter it is the upper limit of the federal funds target rate range.Source: The Federal ReserveBy The New York TimesStocks fell after the release of the employment numbers, likely because investors saw them as a sign that the Fed would continue constraining the economy.“The tremendous momentum in the economy to me suggests that we can move at 75 basis points at the next meeting and not see a lot of protracted damage to the broader economy,” Mr. Bostic said Friday.Fed officials are closely watching wage data in particular. Average hourly earnings climbed by 5.1 percent in the year through June, down slightly from 5.3 percent the prior month. Wages for non-managers climbed by a swift 6.4 percent from a year earlier. While that pace of increase is slowing somewhat, it is still much higher than normal — and could keep inflation elevated if it persists, as employers charge more to cover climbing labor costs.“Wages are not principally responsible for the inflation that we’re seeing, but going forward, they would be very important, particularly in the service sector,” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said at his news conference in June.“If you don’t have price stability, the economy’s really not going to work the way it’s supposed to,” he added later. “It won’t work for people — their wages will be eaten up.”Wage growth may be slowing in retail and hospitality jobs.Percent change in earnings for nonmanagers since January 2019 by sector More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Officials Firm Up Plans for Swift Pullback of Economic Help

    by

    Federal Reserve officials are coalescing around a plan to raise interest rates steadily starting in March and then move swiftly to shrink the central bank’s big bond holdings as policymakers look to cool the economy at a moment of rapid inflation.While policymakers are likely to keep an eye on the conflict in Ukraine as they proceed with those plans, for now geopolitical developments seem unlikely to be enough to derail the central bank’s campaign to beat back price increases.Policymakers have spent the past week broadcasting that the interest rate increase they plan to make at their March meeting — one that investors already fully expect — will be the first in a string of rate moves. Central bankers also appeared to be converging on a plan to promptly start shrinking the Fed’s holdings of government-backed debt, which were vastly expanded during the pandemic downturn as the Fed snapped up bonds in a bid to keep markets functioning and cushion the economy.The central bank bought $120 billion in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities for much of 2020 and 2021, but officials have been tapering those purchases and are on track to stop them entirely in March. By quickly pivoting to allow securities on its nearly $9 trillion balance sheet to expire without reinvestment — reducing its holdings over time — the Fed would take away an important source of demand for government-backed debt and push rates on those securities higher. That would work together with a higher Fed policy interest rate to make many types of borrowing more expensive.Higher borrowing costs should weigh on lending and spending, tempering demand and helping to slow price gains, which have been uncomfortably rapid. Data out this week is expected to show further acceleration in the central bank’s preferred inflation gauge, which was already running at its fastest pace in 40 years.Lael Brainard, a Fed governor who has been nominated by President Biden to serve as vice chair, said last week that she believed a “series” of rate increases were warranted.“I do anticipate that it will be appropriate, at our next meeting, which is in just a few weeks, to initiate a series of rate increases,” she said on Friday at a forum held by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in New York. Ms. Brainard said the Fed would then turn to shrinking its balance sheet, a process that could be appropriate to start “in coming meetings.”Understand Inflation in the U.S.Inflation 101: What is inflation, why is it up and whom does it hurt? Our guide explains it all.Your Questions, Answered: We asked readers to send questions about inflation. Top experts and economists weighed in.What’s to Blame: Did the stimulus cause prices to rise? Or did pandemic lockdowns and shortages lead to inflation? A debate is heating up in Washington.Supply Chain’s Role: A key factor in rising inflation is the continuing turmoil in the global supply chain. Here’s how the crisis unfolded.Michelle Bowman, another Fed governor, echoed that balance sheet reduction could start imminently, saying in a speech on Monday that the Fed needs to begin to reduce its bond holdings “in the coming months.”The precise timing of shrinking the balance sheet is a topic of debate. John C. Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, suggested on Friday that the process could start “later this year,” which could suggest in coming months or slightly later. But officials have been uniformly clear that a pullback is coming, and likely more quickly than investors had expected until just recently.Although policymakers plan to shrink their holdings of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities by allowing them to expire, rather than by selling the debt, the Fed’s latest meeting minutes suggested that officials could eventually move to outright sales of mortgage-tied securities. The minutes also suggested that officials thought “a significant reduction” in the balance sheet would be warranted.The pace of the moves would be rapid compared with the last time the Fed increased interest rates, from 2015 to the end of 2018. Then, officials shrank the balance sheet only gradually and pushed up interest rates glacially, once per quarter at fastest.Borrowing costs have already begun to rise as investors adjust to the Fed’s more rapid-fire plans. Markets expect six or seven quarter-point interest rate increases this year. The rate on a 30-year mortgage has climbed to 3.9 percent from about 2.9 percent last fall, when the Fed began its policy pivot.The Fed’s policy changes “will bring inflation down over time, while sustaining a recovery that includes everyone,” Ms. Brainard said, adding that as the Fed signals that it will raise rates, “the market is clearly aligned with that.”But tensions between Russia and Ukraine could create both additional inflationary pressures and risks to growth. So far, there has been little signal that the fallout will be enough to prompt the Fed to change course.“The Federal Reserve pays very close attention to geopolitical events, and this one of course in particular as it’s the most prominent at this point,” Ms. Bowman said on Monday, ahead of the escalation in tensions.“We do recognize that there are significant opportunities for potential impacts on the energy markets, as we’re moving forward, if things were to deteriorate,” she added.Oil and gas prices have already risen during the conflict and could continue to climb, leading to a higher peak in headline inflation, which includes prices at the pump. The Fed typically avoids reacting to fluctuations in energy prices when setting its policy, given their volatility, but the potential disruption could make inflation trends all the more painful for consumers.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 6What is inflation? More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    A Top Official Says the Fed Will ‘Grapple’ With a Faster Bond-Buying Taper

    by

    The president of the New York Federal Reserve said Omicron could prolong supply and demand mismatches, causing some inflation pressures to last.John C. Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said the latest variant of the coronavirus could prolong the bottlenecks and shortages that have caused inflation to run hotter than expected, and is a risk Fed officials will assess as they “grapple” with how quickly to remove economic support.It is still too soon to know how the Omicron variant, which public health officials in southern Africa identified just last week, will affect the economy, Mr. Williams said Tuesday in an interview with The New York Times. But if the new version of the virus leads to another wave of infections, it could exacerbate the disruptions that have caused prices to rise at their fastest pace in three decades.“Clearly, it adds a lot of uncertainty to the outlook,” Mr. Williams said of the new variant. He later added that a risk with the new variant is that it “will continue that excess demand in the areas that don’t have capacity, and will stall the recovery in the areas where we actually have the capacity.”That, he said, would “mean a somewhat slower rebound overall” and “also does increase those inflationary pressures, in those areas that are in high demand.”Mr. Williams’s comments are the latest indication that policymakers are growing more concerned about inflation and are weighing how to respond. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, signaled on Tuesday that the central bank could move to withdraw economic support more quickly than it initially expected and suggested that such a decision could come as soon as the Fed’s December meeting.The Fed had been buying $120 billion in government-backed securities each month throughout much of the pandemic to bolster the economy by keeping money flowing in financial markets. In November, officials announced plans to wind down that program gradually through the end of the year and the first half of 2022, a process known as “tapering.” But Mr. Powell indicated on Tuesday that the central bank could wrap up its bond-buying more quickly.Mr. Williams, who is vice chair of the Fed’s policymaking Open Market Committee and is a top adviser to Mr. Powell, did not explicitly endorse a faster tapering process, saying that “there’s a lot to learn and digest and think about coming up to the next meeting.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-1kpebx{margin:0 auto;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1kpebx{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1gtxqqv{margin-bottom:0;}.css-19zsuqr{display:block;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}But he emphasized that the economy had rebounded more strongly this year than he and other officials had been expecting, and said the unemployment rate had fallen quickly. That economic strengthening at a moment of high inflation may warrant less Fed support, he said.“The question is: Would it make sense to end those purchases somewhat earlier, by maybe a few months, given how strong the economy is?” he said. “That’s a decision, discussion, I expect we’ll have to grapple with.”Inflation has proved a thornier problem than the Fed and most private-sector economists predicted earlier this year. In March, Fed officials said they expected their preferred inflation measure to show consumer prices rising at 2.4 percent at the end of 2021; by September, they had revised that forecast to 4.2 percent.That’s likely to increase further. The central bank’s preferred inflation gauge climbed 5 percent in its most recent reading. Policymakers are closely watching to see what happens in a Consumer Price Index report set for release on Dec. 10, just before the Fed’s meeting on Dec. 14 and 15.Mr. Williams acknowledged that inflation had proved stronger and more lasting than he initially expected. But he said the error wasn’t the result of a misunderstanding of how the economy works; rather, it was his failure to anticipate the resurgence of the pandemic itself. Mr. Powell made similar comments in his testimony before the Senate on Tuesday.The spread of the Delta variant over the summer delayed the return of workers to the labor force by disrupting child care and making some people nervous to return to in-person work. It also contributed to supply-chain issues by causing a new round of factory shutdowns in some parts of the world and by extending the pandemic-era shift in consumer spending away from services and toward goods.Empty office space in New York this summer when the Delta variant wave delayed the return of workers. A new wave of cases could lead to more and longer-lasting inflation.Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times“These are all things that are driven — I think in large part, not totally, but in large part — to Covid, and the ability so far for us to get control of that,” he said. “This is just lasting a lot longer than expected.”The new variant, Mr. Williams added, “has that potential to just extend this process we’ve been going through.”If the Omicron variant further delays the return of workers and the easing of supply shortages, that could lead to more and longer-lasting inflation. But a new wave of virus cases could also hurt the demand side of the economy, leading people to spend less at restaurants and movie theaters and provoking a new wave of layoffs.Understand the Supply Chain CrisisCard 1 of 5Covid’s impact on the supply chain continues. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Top Fed officials say the labor market needs more time to heal.

    by

    Top Federal Reserve officials emphasized on Monday that the labor market was far from completely healed, underlining that the central bank will need to see considerably more progress before it will feel ready to raise interest rates.“We still have a long way to go until we achieve the Federal Reserve’s maximum employment goal,” John C. Williams, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said in a speech Monday afternoon.Leading Fed officials — including Mr. Williams, Lael Brainard and Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair — have given similar assessments of the outlook in recent days and weeks. They have pointed out that the economy is swiftly healing, bringing back jobs and normal business activity, and that existing disruptions to supply chains and hiring issues will not last forever.But they say that the recovery is incomplete and that it’s worth being modest about the path ahead, especially as the Delta variant demonstrates the coronavirus’s ability to disrupt progress.“Delta highlights the importance of being attentive to economic outcomes and not getting too attached to an outlook that may get buffeted by evolving virus conditions,” Ms. Brainard, a Fed governor, said on Monday.Those comments came on the heels of the Fed’s September meeting, at which the central bank’s policy-setting committee clearly signaled that officials could begin to pare back their vast asset-purchase program as soon as November. They have been buying $120 billion in government and government-backed securities each month.The speeches on Monday emphasized that as officials prepare to make that first step away from full-fledged economic support, they are trying to separate the decision from the Fed’s path for its main policy interest rate, which is set to zero.Central bankers have said they want to see the economy return to full employment and inflation on track to average 2 percent over time before lifting rates away from rock bottom.That makes the debate over the labor market’s potential a critical part of the Fed’s policy discussion.Some regional Fed presidents, including James Bullard at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Robert S. Kaplan at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, have suggested that the labor market may be tighter than it appears, citing data including job openings and retirements.But Mr. Williams said on Monday that the job market still had substantial room to improve. While the unemployment rate has fallen from its pandemic high, he said the Fed was looking at more than just that number, which tracks only people who are actively looking for work. The Fed also wants the employment rate to rebound. He pointed out that a high level of job openings is not a clear signal that the job market has healed.“Even if job postings are at a record high, job postings are not jobs,” Mr. Williams said. “These vacancies won’t be filled instantly.”Although Mr. Williams said he had been watching the impact of school reopenings on the labor market, he said he did not think they would cause a huge surge in people returning to work this month or in October.“It may take quite a bit longer for the labor supply to come fully back,” he said.Ms. Brainard batted back the idea that labor force participation — the share of adults who are working or looking for jobs — might not return to its prepandemic level.“The assertion that labor force participation has moved permanently lower as a result of a downturn is not new,” she said. A similar debate played out following the 2008 financial crisis and labor force participation ultimately rebounded, especially for people in their prime working years.Ms. Brainard warned that Delta was slowing job market progress. Last week there were more than 2,000 virus-tied school closures across nearly 470 school districts, she said, and “the possibility of further unpredictable disruptions could cause some parents to delay their plans to return to the labor force.” More

  • 125 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Officials’ Trading Draws Outcry, and Fuels Calls for Accountability

    by

    Central bank regional presidents traded securities in markets in which Fed choices mattered in 2020. Here’s why critics find that troubling.Federal Reserve officials traded stocks and other securities in 2020, a year in which the central bank took emergency steps to prop up financial markets and prevent their collapse — raising questions about whether the Fed’s ethics standards have become too lax as its role has vastly expanded.The trades appeared to be legal and in compliance with Fed rules. Million-dollar stock transactions from the Dallas Fed president, Robert S. Kaplan, have drawn particular attention, but none took place when the central bank was most actively backstopping financial markets in late March and April.However, the mere possibility that Fed officials might be able to financially benefit from information they learn through their positions has prompted criticism of perceived shortcomings in the institution’s ethics rules, which were forged decades ago and are now struggling to keep up with the central bank’s 21st century function.“What we have now is an ethics system built on a very narrow conception of what a central bank is and should be,” said Peter Conti-Brown, a Fed historian at the University of Pennsylvania.On Thursday, Mr. Kaplan and Eric Rosengren, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, said they would sell all the individual stocks they own by Sept. 30 and move their financial holdings into passive investments.“While my financial transactions conducted during my years as Dallas Fed president have complied with the Federal Reserve’s ethics rules, to avoid even the appearance of any conflict of interest, I have decided to change my personal investment practices,” Mr. Kaplan said in a statement. He added that “there will be no trading in these accounts as long as I am serving as president of the Dallas Fed.”Mr. Rosengren, who had drawn criticism for trading in securities tied to real estate, also said he would divest his stock holdings and expressed regret about the perception of his transactions.“I made some personal investment decisions last year that were permissible under Fed ethics rules,” he said in a statement. “Regrettably, the appearance of such permissible personal investment decisions has generated some questions, so I have made the decision to divest these assets to underscore my commitment to Fed ethics guidelines. It is extremely important to me to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and I believe these steps will achieve that.”It was unclear on Thursday evening whether those moves would be enough to stop the groundswell of criticism as economists, academics and former employees asked why Fed officials are allowed to invest so broadly.The Fed has gone from serving as a lender of last resort mostly to banks to, at extreme moments in both 2008 and 2020, using its tools to rescue large swaths of the financial system. That includes propping up the market for short-term corporate debt during the Great Recession and backstopping long-term company debt and enabling loans to Main Street businesses during the 2020 pandemic crisis.That role has helped to make the Fed and its officials privy to information affecting every corner of finance.Yet central bankers can still actively buy and sell most stocks and some types of bonds, subject to some limitations. They have long been barred from owning and trading the securities of supervised banks, in a nod to the Fed’s pivotal role in bank oversight, but those clear-cut restrictions have not widened alongside the Fed’s influence.“Just as there is a set of rules for bank stocks, why not look to see if it is valuable to expand that to other assets that are directly affected by Fed policy?” said Roberto Perli at Cornerstone Macro, a former Fed Board employee himself. “There are plenty of people out there who think the Fed does nefarious things, and these headlines may contribute to that perception.”The 2020 batch of disclosures has received extra attention because the Fed spent last year unveiling never-before-attempted programs to save a broad array of financial markets from pandemic fallout. Regional Fed presidents like Mr. Kaplan did not vote on the backstops, but they were regularly consulted on their design.Critics said that raised the possibility — and risked creating the perception — that Fed presidents had access to information that could have benefited their personal trading.Mr. Kaplan made nearly two dozen stock trades of $1 million or more last year, a fact first reported by The Wall Street Journal. Those included transactions in companies whose stocks were affected by the pandemic — such as Johnson & Johnson and several oil and gas companies — and in firms whose bonds the Fed eventually bought in its broad-based program.None of those transactions took place between late March and May 1, a Fed official said, which would have curbed Mr. Kaplan’s ability to use information about the coming rescue programs to earn a profit.But the trades drew attention for other reasons. Mr. Conti-Brown pointed out that Mr. Kaplan was buying and selling oil company shares just as the Fed was debating what role it should play in regulating climate-related finance. And everything the Fed did in 2020 — like slashing rates to near zero and buying trillions in government-backed debt — affected the stock market, sending equity prices higher.“It’s really bad for the Fed, people are going to seize on it to say that the Fed is self-dealing,” said Sam Bell, a founder of Employ America, a group focused on economic policy. “Here’s a guy who influences monetary policy, and he’s making money for himself in the stock market.”Mr. Perli noted that Mr. Kaplan’s financial activity included trading in a corporate bond exchange-traded fund, which is effectively a bundle of company debt that trades like a stock. The Fed bought shares in that type of fund last year.Other key policymakers, including the New York Fed president, John C. Williams, reported much less financial activity in 2020, based on disclosures published or provided by their reserve banks. Mr. Williams told reporters on a call on Wednesday that he thought transparency measures around trading activity were critical.“If you’re asking should those policies be reviewed or changed, I think that’s a broader question that I don’t have a particular answer for right now,” Mr. Williams said.Washington-based board officials reported some financial activity, but it was more limited. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, reported 41 recorded transactions made by him or on his or his family’s behalf in 2020, but those were typically in index funds and other relatively broad investment strategies. Randal K. Quarles, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, recorded purchases and sales of Union Pacific stock last summer. Those stocks were assets of Mr. Quarles’s wife and he had no involvement in the transactions, a Fed spokesman said.The Fed system is made up of a seven-seat board in Washington and 12 regional reserve banks. Board members — called governors — are politically appointed and answer to Congress. Regional officials — called presidents — are appointed by their boards of directors and confirmed by the Federal Reserve Board, and they do not answer to the public directly. Regional branches are chartered as corporations, rather than set up as government entities.The most noteworthy 2020 transactions happened at the less-accountable regional banks, which could call attention to Fed governance, said Sarah Binder, a political scientist at George Washington University and the author of a book on the politics of the Fed.“It highlights the crazy, weird, Byzantine nature of the Fed,” Ms. Binder said. “It’s just almost impossible to keep the rules straight, the lines of accountability straight.”The board and the regional banks abide by generally similar ethics agreements. Employees are prohibited from using nonpublic information for gain. Officials cannot trade in the days around Fed meetings and face 30-day holding periods for many securities. Regional banks have their own ethics officers who regularly consult with ethics officials at the Fed’s Board, and presidents and governors alike disclose their financial activity annually.Even with Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Rosengren’s individual responses, pressure could grow for the Fed to adopt more stringent rules, recognizing the special role the central bank plays in markets. That could include requiring officials to invest in broad indexes. The Fed could also apply stricter limits to how much officials can change their investment portfolios while in office, or expand formal limitations to ban trading in a broader list of Fed-sensitive securities, legal experts and former Fed employees suggested in interviews.Fed-related financial activity has drawn other negative attention recently. Janet L. Yellen, the former central bank chair, faced criticism when financial documents filed as part of her nomination for Treasury secretary showed that she had received more than $7 million in bank and corporate speaking fees in 2019 and 2020, after leaving her top central bank role.The Federal Reserve Act limits governors’ abilities to go straight to bank payrolls if they leave before their terms lapse, but speaking fees from the finance industry are permitted.Defenders of the status quo sometimes argue that the Fed would struggle to attract top talent if it curbed how much current and former officials can participate in markets and the financial industry. They could face big tax bills if they had to turn financial holdings into cash upon starting central bank jobs. Because Fed officials tend to have financial backgrounds, banning financial sector work after they leave government could limit their options.But few if any argue that former officials would command such large speaking fees if they had never held central bank leadership positions. And it is widely accepted that the ability to trade while in office as a Fed president raises issues of perception.“People will ask, fairly or otherwise, about the extent to which his views about the balance sheet are interest rates are influenced by his personal investments in the stock market,” Ms. Binder said of Mr. Kaplan’s trades, speaking before his Thursday announcement. “That is not good for the Fed.” More