Fed worried about its loose policies

cawacko

Well-known member
Shocking that keeping rates low for as long as they did could be threatening.



The Fed grows worried its loose policy threatens US financial stability


The Federal Reserve's most recent interest rate hike came amid worries that keeping policy loose was posing increasing risks to financial stability and the economy.

Fed officials indicated a determination to continue raising rates even with muted inflation levels, which they considered to be temporary and likely to rise over the long run to a targeted level of 2 percent, according to a summary from the June meeting of the policymaking Federal Open Market Committee.

The Fed raised its benchmark rate target a quarter point at the meeting and outlined a plan to reduce its $4.5 trillion balance sheet of bond holdings it accrued while trying to stimulate the economy during and after the financial crisis. Meeting minutes released Wednesday indicated that Fed officials believe the balance sheet can be reduced with "limited" disruption to financial markets.

Officials also expressed little concern that low inflation would persist.

However, Fed officials were divided on when the balance sheet runoff should begin, and did not release a timetable on when it would happen.

Recent readings below the Fed's 2 percent goal were attributed to "idiosyncratic factors, including sharp declines in prices of wireless telephone services and prescription drugs, and expected these developments to have little bearing on inflation over the medium run."

The rate hike came as several officials voiced concern over the effect, or lack thereof, that their recent measures were having on financial markets. Rather than causing conditions to tighten, they actually have grown looser since the central bank embarked on a series of hikes.

While the Fed has increased its benchmark rate target four times since December 2015, government bond yields have declined in recent months. Stocks have continued to gain in the second-longest bull market ever recorded, and multiple other measures of financial conditions remain loose.

The meeting minutes reflected considerable discussion over why that was happening.

Low bond yields, they reasoned, could be the product of "sluggish longer-term economic growth" as well as the Fed's $4.5 trillion balance sheet of bond holdings.

On stock prices, FOMC members "suggested that increased risk tolerance among investors might be contributing to elevated asset prices more broadly; a few participants expressed concern that subdued market volatility, coupled with a low equity premium, could lead to a buildup of risks to financial stability."

In addition to approving a quarter-point hike at the meeting, the committee also set the parameters under which it would unwind the balance sheet. The Fed currently reinvests the proceeds it gets from the bonds, but will begin allowing $10 billion to roll off in quarterly increments until it reaches $50 billion a month. That process is likely to continue until the balance sheet reaches about $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion.

Fed Chair Janet Yellen has said that the hope is to have the balance sheet reduction happen in "the background" with little notice from markets.

"The effect on financial market conditions of the eventual announcement of the beginning of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet normalization was expected to be limited," the minutes said.

The moves to raise rates and reduce the balance sheet come amid some worry in markets over whether the Fed should be tightening with inflation so low. The central bank's preferred measure of inflation is running at about a 1.4 percent annual level, well below the 2 percent Fed target.

Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari was the sole dissenter during the policy vote, reasoning that the committee should await more evidence that inflation is moving toward the goal. Some economists have encouraged the Fed to raise its inflation target.

Members also debated whether the Fed should allow the unemployment rate, currently at 4.3 percent, to undershoot what the Fed considers full employment, or 4.7 percent. The discussion again turned to the financial stability risks of loose policy. More hawkish committee members worry that if the Fed stays too low for too long, it could be forced to tighten hastily and risk economic damage.

"A couple of participants expressed concern that a substantial undershooting of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment could pose an appreciable upside risk to inflation or give rise to macroeconomic or financial imbalances that eventually could lead to a significant economic downturn," the minutes said.


http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/05/fed-minutes-inflation-to-rise-loose-policy-posing-risks.html
 
"Shocking that keeping rates low for as long as they did could be threatening"

Keep rates and reserve requirements too low for too long can contribute to inflation, too much money in circulation, which is why they are concerned, seems it hasn't to the degree and rate that they had anticipated. Since anything they do is planned to show results over time, this development has caught their attention in terms of future action
 
"Shocking that keeping rates low for as long as they did could be threatening"

Keep rates and reserve requirements too low for too long can contribute to inflation, too much money in circulation, which is why they are concerned, seems it hasn't to the degree and rate that they had anticipated. Since anything they do is planned to show results over time, this development has caught their attention in terms of future action

They kept rates at near zero for years which had led to our current stock market and housing bubble. If just printing money had no negative repercussions we would do it forever.
 
They kept rates at near zero for years which had led to our current stock market and housing bubble. If just printing money had no negative repercussions we would do it forever.

It's not "printing money," they lowered interest rates, plus reserve requirements, and bought securities which put money into circulation, in an recession it is necessary to keep the economy from slipping into a depression.

Their concern now is that as the economy is growing they are raising the rates, the reserve requirements and selling securities, but it is not having the desired effect of pulling currency out nor adding to inflation at the rate that they had anticipated. As I noted, when planning for years down the road as all monetary policy does, this would cause concern for the future
 
I wouldn't put it past the "establishment" to get the fed to hike rates to cause a hit to the market to damage Trump. I am watching closely in case I need to go into cash and short the market. Could be a mega money making opportunity


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Shocking that keeping rates low for as long as they did could be threatening.



The Fed grows worried its loose policy threatens US financial stability


The Federal Reserve's most recent interest rate hike came amid worries that keeping policy loose was posing increasing risks to financial stability and the economy.

Fed officials indicated a determination to continue raising rates even with muted inflation levels, which they considered to be temporary and likely to rise over the long run to a targeted level of 2 percent, according to a summary from the June meeting of the policymaking Federal Open Market Committee.

The Fed raised its benchmark rate target a quarter point at the meeting and outlined a plan to reduce its $4.5 trillion balance sheet of bond holdings it accrued while trying to stimulate the economy during and after the financial crisis. Meeting minutes released Wednesday indicated that Fed officials believe the balance sheet can be reduced with "limited" disruption to financial markets.

Officials also expressed little concern that low inflation would persist.

However, Fed officials were divided on when the balance sheet runoff should begin, and did not release a timetable on when it would happen.

Recent readings below the Fed's 2 percent goal were attributed to "idiosyncratic factors, including sharp declines in prices of wireless telephone services and prescription drugs, and expected these developments to have little bearing on inflation over the medium run."

The rate hike came as several officials voiced concern over the effect, or lack thereof, that their recent measures were having on financial markets. Rather than causing conditions to tighten, they actually have grown looser since the central bank embarked on a series of hikes.

While the Fed has increased its benchmark rate target four times since December 2015, government bond yields have declined in recent months. Stocks have continued to gain in the second-longest bull market ever recorded, and multiple other measures of financial conditions remain loose.

The meeting minutes reflected considerable discussion over why that was happening.

Low bond yields, they reasoned, could be the product of "sluggish longer-term economic growth" as well as the Fed's $4.5 trillion balance sheet of bond holdings.

On stock prices, FOMC members "suggested that increased risk tolerance among investors might be contributing to elevated asset prices more broadly; a few participants expressed concern that subdued market volatility, coupled with a low equity premium, could lead to a buildup of risks to financial stability."

In addition to approving a quarter-point hike at the meeting, the committee also set the parameters under which it would unwind the balance sheet. The Fed currently reinvests the proceeds it gets from the bonds, but will begin allowing $10 billion to roll off in quarterly increments until it reaches $50 billion a month. That process is likely to continue until the balance sheet reaches about $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion.

Fed Chair Janet Yellen has said that the hope is to have the balance sheet reduction happen in "the background" with little notice from markets.

"The effect on financial market conditions of the eventual announcement of the beginning of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet normalization was expected to be limited," the minutes said.

The moves to raise rates and reduce the balance sheet come amid some worry in markets over whether the Fed should be tightening with inflation so low. The central bank's preferred measure of inflation is running at about a 1.4 percent annual level, well below the 2 percent Fed target.

Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari was the sole dissenter during the policy vote, reasoning that the committee should await more evidence that inflation is moving toward the goal. Some economists have encouraged the Fed to raise its inflation target.

Members also debated whether the Fed should allow the unemployment rate, currently at 4.3 percent, to undershoot what the Fed considers full employment, or 4.7 percent. The discussion again turned to the financial stability risks of loose policy. More hawkish committee members worry that if the Fed stays too low for too long, it could be forced to tighten hastily and risk economic damage.

"A couple of participants expressed concern that a substantial undershooting of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment could pose an appreciable upside risk to inflation or give rise to macroeconomic or financial imbalances that eventually could lead to a significant economic downturn," the minutes said.


http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/05/fed-minutes-inflation-to-rise-loose-policy-posing-risks.html

That headline seems a bit alarmist given the excerpt......give it a few hours for the gang over at ZeroHedge to jazz it up a bit...
 
It's not "printing money," they lowered interest rates, plus reserve requirements, and bought securities which put money into circulation, in an recession it is necessary to keep the economy from slipping into a depression.

Their concern now is that as the economy is growing they are raising the rates, the reserve requirements and selling securities, but it is not having the desired effect of pulling currency out nor adding to inflation at the rate that they had anticipated. As I noted, when planning for years down the road as all monetary policy does, this would cause concern for the future

I understand what QE is and what it's proclaimed goals were. We weren't in danger of going into a depression for five straight years yet they kept rates at zero the entire time. Now we have to pay the piper.
 
I understand what QE is and what it's proclaimed goals were. We weren't in danger of going into a depression for five straight years yet they kept rates at zero the entire time. Now we have to pay the piper.

But the Fed REPEATEDLY pointed out that they were left to row the boat alone, when congress determined that it hated Obama much more than it loved America....

One day historians WILL ask why

Congress either couldn't or wouldn't.....in either case, the reasons will not flatter this Nation.

Go ahead.....ask for the exhibit.......it is as depressing as it is damning....
 
I wouldn't put it past the "establishment" to get the fed to hike rates to cause a hit to the market to damage Trump. I am watching closely in case I need to go into cash and short the market. Could be a mega money making opportunity


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What an ignoramus.
The non partisan Fed, composed of bank presidents is going to fuck the economy to hurt Trump?
:rofl:
 
But the Fed REPEATEDLY pointed out that they were left to row the boat alone, when congress determined that it hated Obama much more than it loved America....

One day historians WILL ask why

Congress either couldn't or wouldn't.....in either case, the reasons will not flatter this Nation.

Go ahead.....ask for the exhibit.......it is as depressing as it is damning....

Congress passed the stimulus, obamacare and dodd-frank; three very large pieces of legislation and in the last two nothing that stimulated the economy.

We saw the folly in the '00's about leaving interest rates low. History repeating itself.
 
Congress passed the stimulus, obamacare and dodd-frank; three very large pieces of legislation and in the last two nothing that stimulated the economy.

We saw the folly in the '00's about leaving interest rates low. History repeating itself.

And how does the contribution of Fiscal policy to GDP in the years 2009-2017 compare to that of other recent periods?

Say, for example, the .75% average of the Reagan era? (That's right, folks........federal spending contributed 0.75% per year to Reagan's gdp numbers)
 
I should add that the Obama years saw a level of Congressional sabotage unprecedented in the history of our nation......These inbred yahoos should be frogmarched out of their offices and garotted on the Mall.
 
And how does the contribution of Fiscal policy to GDP in the years 2009-2017 compare to that of other recent periods?

Say, for example, the .75% average of the Reagan era? (That's right, folks........federal spending contributed 0.75% per year to Reagan's gdp numbers)

So you're trying to absolve the Fed of it's failures and turn this into a partisan bitch fight.
 
So you're trying to absolve the Fed of it's failures and turn this into a partisan bitch fight.

I'm just telling you what is....if it is in conflict with your preferred Narrative, you should avert your eyes....there was no Fed failure....there was a complete abdication on the part of Congress with respect to its responsibilities....

6a00e551f08003883401b7c8aef9e5970b-pi



See the red parts.........does a discrepancy appear to you?


"partisan bitch fight", my fucking ass....
 
I'm just telling you what is....if it is in conflict with your preferred Narrative, you should avert your eyes....there was no Fed failure....there was a complete abdication on the part of Congress with respect to its responsibilities....

6a00e551f08003883401b7c8aef9e5970b-pi



See the red parts.........does a discrepancy appear to you?


"partisan bitch fight", my fucking ass....

Is it accurate to say you want the federal gov't to be in a constant state of 'stimulus' spending?
 
Is it accurate to say you want the federal gov't to be in a constant state of 'stimulus' spending?

First I would observe that you consistently dodge the point......

the graph describes about 45 years.....in 32, discretionary fiscal policy made a POSITIVE contribution to GDP growth....in 10 they were a drag......50% of those instances occurred in the course of the terms of the same president.....coincident with the worst Recession since The Great Depression.

what are the odds, right? (I could actually come up with a number for this, but I beseech you not to tempt me to)

again...historians will ask - was this because congress WOULDN'T or COULND'T......either way it's bad news for Deplorables...
 
First I would observe that you consistently dodge the point......

the graph describes about 45 years.....in 32, discretionary fiscal policy made a POSITIVE contribution to GDP growth....in 10 they were a drag......50% of those instances occurred in the course of the terms of the same president.....coincident with the worst Recession since The Great Depression.

what are the odds, right? (I could actually come up with a number for this, but I beseech you not to tempt me to)

again...historians will ask - was this because congress WOULDN'T or COULND'T......either way it's bad news for Deplorables...

so you are arguing Congress didn't spend enough money after it passed job killing legislation in ACA and Dodd-Frank.

Nice try Fed pumper.
 
Congress passed the stimulus, obamacare and dodd-frank; three very large pieces of legislation and in the last two nothing that stimulated the economy.

We saw the folly in the '00's about leaving interest rates low. History repeating itself.
Dems passed the stimulus, and Congress refused to fund it after the teabag wave. Not allowing banks to act as predators most certainly did help the economy. The credit card industry alone had to back off on a number of predatory practices, leaving more money in the hands of the consumer.

Obamacare had a rather large beneficial affect on the healthcare industry across the board.
 
Back
Top