wricaplogo

Keyword Search

RETURN

Categories

Recent FedSpeak Highlights

  • William C. Dudley In my view, the case for retaining the current floor system is very compelling.

    [ April 18, 2018 ]

    For [the implementation of Fed’s policy framework], I see two options: return to the “corridor”-type system that was in place prior to the financial crisis, or remain with the framework that has been in place since the crisis—namely, a “floor” system.

    In my view, the case for retaining the current floor system is very compelling for a number of reasons.  First, it is operationally much less complex than a corridor system.  In the current regime, the setting of IOER is largely sufficient to maintain the federal funds rate within the FOMC’s target range, as we have seen over the past few years.10  In contrast, a corridor system requires forecasting the many exogenous factors that affect the amount of bank reserves outstanding, and then engaging in open market operations on a near daily basis to keep reserves at a level consistent with the FOMC’s target range. This task would likely be more difficult now because of greater fluctuation in these exogenous factors relative to when the corridor regime was last in place.

    Second, a corridor system constrains the Federal Reserve’s ability to provide the types of lender-of-last-resort backstops that can help support financial stability… My overall point is that broad-based, open-ended lender-of-last-resort facilities are more difficult to accommodate in a corridor system because of the need to drain any reserve additions to keep the federal funds rate close to the FOMC’s target.

  • John Williams The flattening of the yield curve that we’ve seen is so far a normal part of the process, as the Fed is raising interest rates, long rates have gone up somewhat -- but it’s totally normal that the yield curve gets flatter.

    [ April 17, 2018 ]

    [Williams] said a truly inverted yield curve “is a powerful signal of recessions” that historically has occurred “when the Fed is in a tightening cycle, and markets lose confidence in the economic outlook.” That is not the case now, he said.

    “The flattening of the yield curve that we’ve seen is so far a normal part of the process, as the Fed is raising interest rates, long rates have gone up somewhat -- but it’s totally normal that the yield curve gets flatter,” Williams said.

    “I don’t see the signs yet of an inverted yield curve.”

  • William C. Dudley I don't know what neutral is precisely, but I think 3% is a reasonable starting point in terms of thinking about what neutral might be over the long run.

    [ April 16, 2018 ]

    I don't know what neutral is precisely, but I think 3% is a reasonable starting point in terms of thinking about what neutral might be over the long run. But it depends on so many other factors. What's happening to the stock market, what's happening to the bond market, what's happening to the dollar. So this idea that there's this magic neutral rate that's sort of constant for all time I think is not a good way of looking at it.

  • Neel Kashkari It now seems much more likely that we are going to actually achieve our inflation target in the near future, which would be a good thing. And I do think that the fiscal packages have probably helped somewhat.

    [ April 16, 2018 ]

    I think it’s likely that the fiscal actions that have been taken are going to on the margin help us achieve our inflation target. I was much more skeptical of whether we were on track to hitting 2% over the medium term. It now seems much more likely that we are going to actually achieve our inflation target in the near future, which would be a good thing. And I do think that the fiscal packages have probably helped somewhat. And so that’s why I think that that does lend support for, you know, the path that the SEP is forecasting.

  • Eric Rosengren I am in favor of somewhat more tightening than the median [Federal Open Market Committee] member.

    [ April 13, 2018 ]

    Referring to the Fed’s current outlook that guides for about three rate rises this year, Mr. Rosengren said “my own forecast is somewhat stronger in terms of unemployment rates and inflation outcomes,” and he expects today’s 4.1% jobless rate to fall to 3.7% this year.

    Because of this robust outlook, “I am in favor of somewhat more tightening than the median [Federal Open Market Committee] member,” he said.

  • Robert S. Kaplan I’m not going to say blindly we should be raising rates if the curve keeps flattening.”

    [ April 10, 2018 ]

    “I, for one, am going to be watching the yield curve very carefully,” Kaplan said. “I’m not going to say blindly we should be raising rates if the curve keeps flattening.”

  • Charles L. Evans If inflation remains on track for 2 percent, continuing our slow, gradual increases will be appropriate to get us to the point where monetary policy isn’t really providing more lift to the economy.

    [ April 7, 2018 ]

    “Fiscal policy has been much more supportive of further growth and so the need for accommodative monetary policy is less than it was before,” Evans told reporters in comments after a talk at the University of Chicago Graduate China Forum.

    The Fed next meets to set policy in June. If it remains on track for 2 percent, and inflation expectations rise, “continuing our slow, gradual increases will be appropriate to get us to the point where monetary policy isn’t really providing more lift to the economy.”

    ...

    “I am optimistic that we are going get to 2 percent; it would be surprising if we didn’t, I just want to make sure we do,” he said. “In that environment, a gradual increase in our interest rate range objectives is appropriate.”

  • Jerome H. Powell As a nation, we are not bystanders. We can put policies in place that will support labor force participation and give us the best chance to achieve broad and sustained increases in productivity, and thus in living standards.

    [ April 6, 2018 ]

    To summarize this discussion, some of the factors weighing on longer-term growth are likely to be persistent, particularly the slowing in growth of the workforce. Others are hard to predict, such as productivity. But as a nation, we are not bystanders. We can put policies in place that will support labor force participation and give us the best chance to achieve broad and sustained increases in productivity, and thus in living standards. These policies are mostly outside the toolkit of the Federal Reserve, such as those that support investment in education and workers' skills, business investment and research and development, and investment in infrastructure.

  • Jerome H. Powell The FOMC's patient approach has paid dividends and contributed to the strong economy we have today... My FOMC colleagues and I believe that, as long as the economy continues broadly on its current path, further gradual increases in the federal funds rate will best promote these goals. 

    [ April 6, 2018 ]

    At our meeting last month, the FOMC raised the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/4 percentage point, bringing it to 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 percent. This decision marked another step in the ongoing process of gradually scaling back monetary policy accommodation. The FOMC's patient approach has paid dividends and contributed to the strong economy we have today.

    Over the next few years, we will continue to aim for 2 percent inflation and for a sustained economic expansion with a strong labor market. As I mentioned, my FOMC colleagues and I believe that, as long as the economy continues broadly on its current path, further gradual increases in the federal funds rate will best promote these goals. 

  • John Williams Our recent projections indicate that the center of the distribution of FOMC projections foresees a total of three to four rate increases this year and further gradual rate increases over the next two years, bringing the target federal funds rate to around 3-1/2 percent by the end of 2020. In my view, this is the right direction for monetary policy.

    [ April 6, 2018 ]

    The good news is for most of the past year, inflation has been running closer to 2 percent. With the economy strong, and strengthening further, I expect that we’ll see inflation reach and actually slightly exceed our longer-run 2 percent goal for the next few years.

    ...

    [O]ur recent projections indicate that the center of the distribution of FOMC projections foresees a total of three to four rate increases this year and further gradual rate increases over the next two years, bringing the target federal funds rate to around 3-1/2 percent by the end of 2020. In my view, this is the right direction for monetary policy.

    ...

    To sum up: the outlook is very positive. The economy is on course to be as strong as we have seen in many decades and inflation is moving closer to our target. The challenge for monetary policy is to keep it that way. This is never an easy task, but we are well positioned to achieve our goals, and to respond to any unexpected twists and turns that may lie in the economic road ahead.

  • Raphael Bostic I am actually very comfortable going above the 2 percent by some amount… I think it is also important that we take a stance so that everyone understands that the 2 percent level is an average, not a ceiling.

    [ April 5, 2018 ]

    “I am actually very comfortable going above the 2 percent by some amount -- 2.2, 2.3 -- I don’t think that is a crisis of overheating,” he told Bloomberg Television’s Michael McKee in an interview Thursday in Sarasota, Florida. “I think it is also important that we take a stance so that everyone understands that the 2 percent level is an average, not a ceiling.”

  • James Bullard It is possible that the nominal yield curve will invert sometime in the next year, but recently the 10-year yield has increased enough to keep pace with the FOMC’s rate increases.

    [ April 4, 2018 ]

    It is possible that the nominal yield curve will invert sometime in the next year, but recently the 10-year yield has increased enough to keep pace with the FOMC’s rate increases.

  • Lael Brainard The quarterly assessment of financial stability is a critical input into the Board's processes for adjusting the supervisory scenarios used in the stress test and the setting of the countercyclical capital buffer--the two tools that permit the Board to respond to vulnerabilities that build over time.

    [ April 3, 2018 ]

    The primary focus of financial stability policy is tail risk (outcomes that are unlikely but severely damaging) as opposed to the modal outlook (the most likely path of the economy). The objective of financial stability policy is to lessen the likelihood and severity of a financial crisis. Guided by that objective, our financial stability work rests on four interdependent pillars: systematic analysis of financial vulnerabilities; standard prudential policies that safeguard the safety and soundness of individual banking organizations; additional policies, which I will refer to as "macroprudential," that build resilience in the large, interconnected institutions at the core of the system; and countercyclical policies that increase resilience as risks build up cyclically.

    ...

    [T]he quarterly assessment of financial stability is a critical input into the Board's processes for adjusting the supervisory scenarios used in the stress test and the setting of the countercyclical capital buffer--the two tools that permit the Board to respond to vulnerabilities that build over time.

  • Patrick Harker It’s more the firming of inflation that’s moved me from two to three.

    [ March 29, 2018 ]

    WSJ: How much of the change, then, from two to three [rate increases in the baseline projection] is because of the fiscal policy, the aggregate demand boost.

    MR. HARKER: For me, it’s more the firming of inflation that’s moved me from two to three. And again, if I see inflation continuing to move toward 2% and if it would accelerate, then I would consider even further increases. But again, I’d need to see the data before I make that decision.

  • Raphael Bostic Coming into this year, we had penciled in three moves for the year. And I think the risks are to the upside.

    [ March 27, 2018 ]

    WSJ: So does the fiscal boost, with the unemployment rate being historically low, change your view about the path of monetary policy right now?

    MR. BOSTIC: Not immediately. If you look at my expectations around monetary policy, the risks are now to the upside now. So coming into this year, we had penciled in three moves for the year. And I think the risks are to the upside. We’re going to be monitoring—I’ll tell you that the business contacts that we’ve reached out to, they’re saying they’re not expecting significant changes to their capital expenditures for the first half of this year. So if you think about what it’s going to look like for this year, I don’t think we’re going to see a huge ramp up, if what they’re reporting is accurate. And so we’re really looking in the out years. And a lot of what we’re going to be trying to get a handle on is what does the trajectory of the economy look like in the out years—2019, 2020, 2021.

  • Loretta J. Mester If the economy evolves as I anticipate, I believe further gradual increases in interest rates will be appropriate this year and next year.

    [ March 26, 2018 ]

    “If the economy evolves as I anticipate, I believe further gradual increases in interest rates will be appropriate this year and next year,” Mester said in a speech at Princeton University. The Fed must “avoid a build-up in risks to macroeconomic stability that could arise if the economy were allowed to overheat,” she added.

  • Eric Rosengren I am going to suggest that policymakers should view financial stability tools more holistically. Indeed, I would like to suggest that the ability to appropriately set financial stability tools is integrally related to the ability to fully utilize fiscal, monetary, and financial stability policy tools to respond to a large adverse financial shock.

    [ March 23, 2018 ]

    Financial stability policy is generally associated with regulatory and supervisory measures, so the exercise of financial stability policy is often seen as being independent from the stance of monetary and fiscal policy. However, I am going to suggest that policymakers should view financial stability tools more holistically. Indeed, I would like to suggest that the ability to appropriately set financial stability tools is integrally related to the ability to fully utilize fiscal, monetary, and financial stability policy tools to respond to a large adverse financial shock.

    The use of financial stability tools is generally seen as being conditioned on and calibrated to the severity of likely economic stresses – but I would argue that it is also critically important to take into account the extent to which monetary and fiscal policy are equipped to respond to an adverse financial shock, so that policymakers can best coordinate the response to a crisis across all available tools. Much of what I have in mind has to do with assessing each policy tool’s capacity to respond.

    For example, suppose that a country’s government-debt-to-GDP ratio is high, limiting the ability or willingness to use fiscal tools to offset financial and other shocks. If that country has also not developed sufficient financial stability response tools, then most of the countercyclical policy response will likely fall to monetary policy. Alternatively, if the government-debt-to- GDP ratio is extremely high and interest rates are already at or near the effective lower bound, and the country is unable or unwilling to use less-conventional monetary tools like quantitative easing, then financial stability tools are likely to be more important. In sum, it is important to consider whether there is sufficient capacity in the toolkit for policymakers to adequately (let alone optimally) respond to severe financial shocks.

  • James Bullard You would not have to go very high in this environment to be in a restrictive policy stance.  If we went too far we would start to put downward pressure on inflation in an environment where inflation is already below target.

    [ March 11, 2018 ]

    James Bullard, the St Louis Fed president and one of a handful of doves in the Fed system, said lifting rates four times in 2018 could drive down inflation — especially when the central bank’s programme of reducing its asset holdings is becoming “more and more forceful”.

    The central bank began gradually unwinding its $4.5tn balance sheet in October last year.

    “You would not have to go very high in this environment to be in a restrictive policy stance,” Mr Bullard said in a Financial Times interview. “If we went too far we would start to put downward pressure on inflation in an environment where inflation is already below target.”

  • Eric Rosengren I expect that it will be appropriate to remove monetary policy accommodation at a regular but gradual pace – and perhaps a bit faster than the three, one-quarter point increases envisioned for this year in the assessment of appropriate policy from the December 2017 FOMC meeting.

    [ March 9, 2018 ]

    [T]he stock and bond markets have become much more volatile in recent weeks. This likely reflects, in part, the realization that financial markets need to factor in the risk that wages and prices could grow too quickly, if there were too much fiscal and monetary stimulus – particularly with the economy currently at or beyond full employment and inflation approaching the Fed’s goal. I view the underlying insight as a healthy realization by market participants that the risks are two-sided: Unsustainably strong growth that leads to excessive inflation or financial imbalances is now as much a risk as growth that falls short. And there is a realization that monetary policymakers need to be vigilant in calibrating the level of accommodation, if continued sustainable growth is to be achieved...

    To keep the economy on a sustainable path, I expect that it will be appropriate to remove monetary policy accommodation at a regular but gradual pace – and perhaps a bit faster than the three, one-quarter point increases envisioned for this year in the assessment of appropriate policy from the December 2017 FOMC meeting.

  • Charles L. Evans My own preference would be to wait a little bit longer, let the March anomalous inflation rate from a year ago fall out.

    [ March 9, 2018 ]
    Chicago Federal Reserve President Charles Evans told CNBC on Friday he's still nervous about continued low inflation and would prefer to "wait a little longer" than this month's meeting before raising interest rates for the first time in 2018. "My own preference would be to wait a little bit longer, let the March anomalous inflation rate from a year ago fall out," said Evans, who is not a policy voting member this year but takes part in the meetings.

    "Let's make sure these sort of Amazon, disruptive kind of pricing models aren't continuing to find their way into keeping inflation lower than that," he added in a "Squawk Box" interview.

    By midyear, if inflation does show signs of increasing to the Fed's 2 percent target, Evans said, he would be "much more confident" to continue "a gradual upward adjustment of the funds rate."  The trajectory of rates is much more important than whether there are "three, two, four rate increases" this year, Evans said.

  • Raphael Bostic Some of the developments with the trade policy has introduced some uncertainty as to how the economy is going to perform, so I am really taking a wait-and-see attitude... Everything is on the table.

    [ March 7, 2018 ]

    “Some of the developments with the trade policy has introduced some uncertainty as to how the economy is going to perform, so I am really taking a wait-and-see attitude,’’ Bostic told reporters Wednesday in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Asked whether he was deciding between two or three increases, or three or four, he said, “Everything is on the table.’’

  • Robert S. Kaplan It's three for this year - I think we should get started sooner rather than later though.

    [ March 6, 2018 ]

    My base case, as you've heard me say, hasn't changed. It's three for this year - I think we should get started sooner rather than later though. And we’ll see as the year unfolds whether the base case should stay at 3 or it should be something more, something less but for now I’d say three and I think we should get started soon.

  • Lael Brainard We do not have extensive experience with an economy at very low unemployment rates and cannot be sure how it might evolve. In particular, we will want to remain attentive to the risk of financial imbalances... Continued gradual increases in the federal funds rate are likely to remain appropriate to ensure inflation rises sustainably to our target and to sustain full employment...

    [ March 6, 2018 ]

    Many of the forces that acted as headwinds to U.S. growth and weighed on policy in previous years are generating tailwinds currently. Today many economies around the world are experiencing synchronized growth, in contrast to the 2015­-16 period when important foreign economies experienced adverse shocks and anemic demand...

    The upward revisions to the foreign economic outlook are also pulling forward expectations of monetary policy tightening abroad and contributing to an appreciation of foreign currencies and increases in U.S. import prices.  

    In recent quarters, the combination of higher oil prices and robust global demand has been providing strong support to business investment--in contrast to the sharp pullback from 2015 to 2016...

    Financial conditions are currently supportive of economic growth despite the recent choppiness in financial markets and some tightening since the beginning of the year. Various measures of equity valuations remain elevated relative to historical norms even after recent movements, and corporate bond spreads remain quite compressed...

    The most notable tailwind is the shift in America's fiscal policy stance from restraint to substantial stimulus in an economy close to full employment... Estimates suggest that December's tax legislation could boost the growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) as much as 1/2 percentage point this year and next. On top of that, the recently agreed-to budget deal is likely to raise federal spending by around 0.4 percent of GDP in each of the next two years.

    ...

    [W]e do not have extensive experience with an economy at very low unemployment rates and cannot be sure how it might evolve. In particular, we will want to remain attentive to the risk of financial imbalances...We will need to be vigilant...

    Continued gradual increases in the federal funds rate are likely to remain appropriate to ensure inflation rises sustainably to our target and to sustain full employment, keeping in mind that interest rate normalization is well under way and balance sheet runoff is set to reach its steady-state pace later this year.

  • Randall Quarles  If none of the regulatory measures implemented up to now were capable of improvement, this would be the first project of this scale and complexity conducted that had been done exactly right the first pass through. If there was still work to be done after Hammurabi, there is probably still some work to be done now after Dodd and Frank.

    [ March 5, 2018 ]

    If none of the regulatory measures implemented up to now were capable of improvement, this would be the first project of this scale and complexity conducted that had been done exactly right the first pass through. If there was still work to be done after Hammurabi, there is probably still some work to be done now after Dodd and Frank.

    ...

    The [Volcker] rule contains a gaggle of complex regulatory requirements, but the statute contains merely one--that the market making-related activities are designed not to exceed the reasonably expected near-term demands of clients, customers, or counterparties, otherwise known as RENT'D.  We are considering different ways to use a clearer test for RENT'D. We want banks to be able to engage in market making and provide liquidity to financial markets with less fasting and prayer about their compliance with the Volcker rule.

    More From:

    See Also:

    Source:

    https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/quarles20180305a.htm

    Venue:

    Institute of International Bankers
  • William C. Dudley If you were to go to four rate hikes I think it would still be gradual.

    [ March 1, 2018 ]

    “If you were to go to four ... rate hikes I think it would still be gradual,” Dudley said at a Sao Paulo conference. He noted that would be half as aggressive as the eight-per-year hikes the Fed executed last decade, which he called the “alternative to gradual.”

  • Randall Quarles My assessment of the current state of the economy is optimistic. I also think there is a real possibility that some of the factors that have been holding back growth in recent years could shift, moving the economy onto a higher growth trajectory. That said, I currently see this shift more as a clear possibility than an unarguable reality.

    [ February 26, 2018 ]

    My assessment of the current state of the economy is optimistic. I also think there is a real possibility that some of the factors that have been holding back growth in recent years could shift, moving the economy onto a higher growth trajectory. That said, I currently see this shift more as a clear possibility than an unarguable reality.

  • John Williams From Bloomberg: “Right now it’s conjecture,” Williams said, but “my view is that other fundamentals haven’t changed in any way,” so while the neutral rate may have moved higher in response to tax cuts, it would be by a relatively small amount.

    [ February 23, 2018 ]

    “Right now it’s conjecture,” Williams said, but “my view is that other fundamentals haven’t changed in any way,” so while the neutral rate may have moved higher in response to tax cuts, it would be by a relatively small amount.

  • William C. Dudley The terminal balance sheet may actually turn out to be even higher than $2.9 trillion.

    [ February 23, 2018 ]

    During the discussion at the Chicago Booth monetary policy forum, Dudley said he is a “strong advocate” for the floor system for setting interest rates, which requires large amount of excess reserves in the system.

    “So the terminal balance sheet may actually turn out to be even higher” than the $2.9 trillion level estimated by Wall Street economists in a paper presented at the forum, Dudley said.

  • William C. Dudley Concluding that LSAPs are less powerful than suggested by some of the estimates from the event study literature does not imply that there is no role for LSAPs at the zero lower bound... [D]iscarding such a tool or ruling out its use seems counterproductive for two reasons. First, to the extent that such a tool can provide accommodation, ruling out its use would raise the risks of insufficient monetary policy accommodation when interest rates are pinned at the zero lower bound. Second, expectations matter. If households and businesses believe that the Fed has run out of tools to provide monetary policy accommodation or is unwilling to use certain tools for that purpose, the risk of inflation expectations becoming unanchored to the downside would increase, which would make it even more difficult for the central bank to achieve its goals. For these reasons, LSAPs should be viewed as a viable tool in our arsenal to be used when the zero lower bound is a relevant policy concern

    [ February 23, 2018 ]
  • William C. Dudley There is a bit of a, I would say, speculative mania around cryptocurrencies in terms of their valuations.

    [ February 22, 2018 ]

    “There is a bit of a, I would say, speculative mania around cryptocurrencies in terms of their valuations, which I view as pretty dangerous because I don’t really see what the actual true underlying value of some of these cryptocurrencies actually is in practice,” Mr. Dudley said.

    When it comes to the privately issued digital money, “it’s essentially what people think it’s worth, which seems to me somewhat dangerous,” Mr. Dudley said. “I’m a little bit skeptical we actually have this tremendous need for a cryptocurrency in the United States,” he added.

  • James Bullard The idea that we need to go 100 basis points in 2018, that seems like a lot to me… Everything would have to go just right.

    [ February 22, 2018 ]

    The idea that we need to go 100 basis points in 2018, that seems like a lot to me… Everything would have to go just right. The economy would have to surprise on the upside a bunch of times during the year. I'm not sure that's a good way to think about 2018.

    One thing I'm concerned about is if [there's] a bunch of hikes this year Fed policy will turn restrictive.  The neutral fed funds rates is pretty low.

  • Randall Quarles Suffice to say, a deviation from our target of a few tenths of 1 percentage point, especially one I expect to fade, does not cause me great concern.

    [ February 22, 2018 ]

    Suffice to say, a deviation from our target of a few tenths of 1 percentage point, especially one I expect to fade, does not cause me great concern.

  • Robert S. Kaplan The debt-financed tax cuts included in the legislation are likely to temporarily stimulate demand, with effects that will peak in 2018, and gradually fade in 2019 and 2020. Ultimately, we believe that growth will return back to trend.

    [ February 21, 2018 ]

    The debt-financed tax cuts included in the legislation are likely to temporarily stimulate demand, with effects that will peak in 2018, and gradually fade in 2019 and 2020. Ultimately, we believe that growth will return back to trend.

  • Patrick Harker I’ve penciled in two hikes for 2018. I use pencil because the data can change, and sometimes they don’t accurately point to future events. Like when they predict a Patriots' Super Bowl win. 

    [ February 21, 2018 ]

    I’ve penciled in two hikes for 2018. I use pencil because the data can change, and sometimes they don’t accurately point to future events. Like when they predict a Patriots' Super Bowl win. The Fed’s mantra is data dependent, and for now, the data continue to tell me two is the likely appropriate path.

  • Jerome H. Powell We will remain alert to any developing risks to financial stability.

    [ February 13, 2018 ]

    We will remain alert to any developing risks to financial stability.

  • Loretta J. Mester If the economy evolves as I anticipate, I believe further increases in interest rates will be appropriate this year and next year, at a pace similar to last year’s.

    [ February 13, 2018 ]

    If the economy evolves as I anticipate, I believe further increases in interest rates will be appropriate this year and next year, at a pace similar to last year’s.

  • Neel Kashkari I don’t delete tweets.

    [ February 8, 2018 ]

    @FreefallCapital @StockBoardAsset I don’t delete tweets.

  • William C. Dudley So far, I’d say this is small potatoes... The little decline that we’ve had in the equity market today has virtually no implications for the economic outlook.

    [ February 8, 2018 ]

    “So far, I’d say this is small potatoes,” Dudley said of recent market moves. “The little decline that we’ve had in the equity market today has virtually no implications for the economic outlook.”

  • Patrick Harker I‘m open to a March rate increase.

    [ February 8, 2018 ]

    “I‘m open to a March rate increase,” he told reporters after a speech delivered at a meeting of the National Association of College and University Business Officers. He added he has “lightly pencilled” in two rate hikes for 2018 and could see a third one depending whether inflation rises further and financial conditions remain loose.

  • Robert S. Kaplan We're facing wage pressures right now in the United States because of a tight labor market… I am less convinced that this will necessarily translate into higher prices because businesses have much less pricing power.

    [ February 7, 2018 ]

    "We're facing wage pressures right now in the United States because of a tight labor market," Kaplan, a dove and a non-voting member of the Fed's policy committee, told an audience in Frankfurt.

    "I am less convinced that this will necessarily translate into higher prices because businesses have much less pricing power," he added.

  • James Bullard This is the most predicted selloff of all time.

    [ February 6, 2018 ]

    “This is the most predicted selloff of all time because the markets have been up so much and they have had so many days in a row without meaningful down days,’’ Bullard told reporters after a speech Tuesday in Lexington, Kentucky. “So it is probably not surprising that something that has gone up 40 percent like the S&P tech sector would at some point have a selloff. Before there was a selloff, people said repeatedly some day this will sell off.”

    Bullard said he agreed with former Chair Janet Yellen’s analysis that stock prices were elevated.

    “They look high compared to historical norms, things like prices to trailing earnings,’’ he said.

    While the central bank is sometimes seen as stepping in to protect investors from steep market declines with a “Greenspan put’’ or a “Bernanke put’’ named after former chairs, Bullard said the Fed isn’t focused on helping markets so much as it reacts to the same data.

    “The stock market and the Fed are looking at the same thing, which is the future of the U.S. economy and the future of the global economy,’’ he said. “To the extent the markets see something that is different from what the Fed sees, it is important information. It is not so clear to me here that there is a story like that -- that the U.S. economy is not as robust as we thought it was.’’

  • Neel Kashkari Certainly valuation does seem on the high end, in terms of the stock market. We’ll see. Maybe this tax cut will lead to stronger earnings growth.

    [ February 5, 2018 ]

    “It seems like people are pricing in that the tax cut is going to have more of a near-term stimulative effect than maybe we appreciated a few months ago,” Kashkari said. “Certainly valuation does seem on the high end, in terms of the stock market. We’ll see. Maybe this tax cut will lead to stronger earnings growth.”

  • Janet L. Yellen Well, I don't want to say [asset prices are] too high.  But I do want to say high.

    [ February 4, 2018 ]

    As for whether Yellen's view that the stock market (which plummeted on Friday) has been too high in recent months: 

    "Well, I don't want to say too high.  But I do want to say high. Price-earnings ratios are near the high end of their historical ranges.  If you look at commercial real estate prices, they are quite high relative to rents.  Now, is that a bubble or is too high?  And there it's very hard to tell.  But it is a source of some concern that asset valuations are so high.

    More From:

    See Also:

    Source:

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/janet-yellen-the-exit-interview/

    Venue:

    CBS 60 Minutes Interview
  • John Williams For the moment, I don’t see signs of an economy going into overdrive or a bubble about to burst,

    [ February 2, 2018 ]

    While the outlook is positive, it’s not so strong that it’s driving a sea change in my position. For the moment, I don’t see signs of an economy going into overdrive or a bubble about to burst, so I have not adjusted my views of appropriate monetary policy.

  • Robert S. Kaplan I’ve said that I think the base case for 2018 should be three removals of accommodation… it could be more than that, we’ll have to see.

    [ February 2, 2018 ]

    I’ve said that I think the base case for 2018 should be three removals of accommodation… it could be more than that, we’ll have to see.

  • Neel Kashkari The most important thing that I saw in a quick review of the jobs data is wage growth.

    [ February 2, 2018 ]

    "The most important thing that I saw in a quick review of the jobs data is wage growth," Kashkari said. "We've been waiting for wage growth. Everyone's been declaring we're at maximum employment. More Americans have been coming in, which is a really good thing. But there hasn't been much wage growth. This is one of the first signs that we're seeing wage growth finally starting to pick up."

  • John Williams I am not really worried about throwing us off the gradual rate (increases)… It could be a little bit quicker pace of increases, somewhat quicker, but I don’t see any kind of game-changing shift in strategy.

    [ January 19, 2018 ]

    “Right now my base case is that three rate increases for 2018 seems like a good starting point.” Williams told reporters after a talk at the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, adding, “That’s not something that’s locked in.”

    “I am not really worried about throwing us off the gradual rate (increases),” he said. “It could be a little bit quicker pace of increases, somewhat quicker, but I don’t see any kind of game-changing shift in strategy.”

  • William C. Dudley Historically the ability of the Fed to generate a soft landing when the unemployment rate has gone too low . . . the track record is poor.

    [ January 18, 2018 ]

    Historically the ability of the Fed to generate a soft landing when the unemployment rate has gone too low . . . the track record is poor. Pretty much in all the cases where the unemployment rate has been pushed up a little, it has actually ended up rising a lot. There are no examples historically of the unemployment rate moving up a half a per cent, or 1 per cent, or even 1.5 per cent. Once you have pushed up beyond a couple of tenths of a per cent, the next stop historically is there has been a full-blown recession. Now that does not mean that historical regularity necessarily has to be repeated, but I do think it is hard for the Fed to bring the economy back to a sustainable growth pace, sustainable labor market, if the economy really is too strong and the unemployment rate gets too low.  That is a risk to the longer-term outlook but it needs to be recognised. 

  • William C. Dudley The fact is that we have been tightening monetary policy over the last couple of years, yet financial conditions are actually easier today than when we began to start to tighten monetary policy.

    [ January 18, 2018 ]

    We will have to see how the economy evolves. There are arguments on both sides of the ledger. Inflation is still below our 2 per cent objective, so that argues for patience, on the other side the economy is growing at an above-trend pace, we are getting more fiscal stimulus so that should actually reinforce that trajectory, the labour market continues to tighten, financial conditions are very accommodative — that is something I put a fair amount of weight on. The fact is that we have been tightening monetary policy over the last couple of years, yet financial conditions are actually easier today than when we began to start to tighten monetary policy.

    It all suggests that the forecast that the FOMC wrote down in December, in the December summary of economic projections — where the median was three rate hikes in 2018 seems a very reasonable type of forecast . . . It could be more. We could do a little bit more, or could do a little bit less. Remember all these are forecasts, they are not pre-commitments. Sometimes people take the SEPs I think a bit too literally. They are just what we think is likely at that particularly point of time. If the economy changes of course we will change our forecasts.

    In response to a question about whether the Fed would raise rates three times in 2018.

  • William C. Dudley I don’t think there is any signal at all to take today [from the flat yield curve] in terms of the probability of a near-term recession.

    [ January 18, 2018 ]

    The yield curve is flatter than normal but there are good reasons why it is flatter than normal. The most obvious one is that we have QE still ongoing in Japan and Europe and the Fed still has a very elevated balance sheet relative to where we are actually headed in the medium to longer term. So bond term premia are unusually depressed. So think about the path you expect of short term rates in the future and ask yourself how much additional compensation for the risk of holding a bond you want to take. Right now by the measures we have bond term premia are about zero. That means the yield curve, everything else equal, is going to be flatter today than it would typically in prior environments when the term premium was much much larger. Historically the term premium, the spread between say three month treasury bills and 10-year treasury notes, has been about 100 basis points in terms of that term premium. Today the term premium is about zero. That accounts for pretty much all of the fact that the yield curve is flatter than normal can be explained just by the bond term premium.

    I would be much more concerned about the yield curve if I thought that the yield curve was flat because people thought short-term rates were high and monetary policy was tight. The reason why . . . an inverted yield curve has historically been a pretty good predictor of recession is typically the yield curve becomes inverted and people think short-term rates are high relative to what they are going to be in the future because monetary policy is tight. That turns out to be correct, and the tightness of monetary policy generates an economic downturn and so the yield curve essentially forecasts that outcome. In the current environment the yield curve is not inverted, it is flatter than normal mainly because term premia are unusually depressed. Market participants think short-term rates are low relative to what they are going to be in the future. I don’t think there is any signal at all to take today in terms of the probability of a near-term recession.

  • William C. Dudley Another thing to look at is should we have a range for the inflation rate rather than just a 2 per cent target? I think the 2 per cent objective is a little bit overly precise.

    [ January 18, 2018 ]

    A:  I would not start with the notion of what should we be looking at in terms of our inflation target. I would back up one step and say we should be thinking about the issue of the zero lower bound and what is the risk that in the next recession we could be pushed back to the zero lower bound, and then how do we feel about that and how do we feel about whether we have sufficient instruments to sort of manage that process... You really want to evaluate what are the tools we have to generate an economic recovery after the next recession if we are actually pinned at the zero lower bound. I think we are in some ways in better shape today than we were 10 years ago, because we actually have policies that we have pursued that I think have proven to be effective — namely forward guidance and quantitative easing. In some ways the risk of inflation expectations becoming un-anchored to the downside, which is one of the big risks of being pinned at the zero lower bound, that seems diminished relative to where we were 10 years ago in my opinion. But don’t get me wrong. This is definitely worth evaluating. This is a key issue for monetary policy. At the same time I don’t want to overstate the degree of concern I have. Because remember we have only been pinned at the zero lower bound once, in the post world war two period. That is a period of 70 years and we have only had one experience. I don’t want to totally upend monetary policy because of concerns we might go back to the zero lower bound, because I would worry a little bit that I was fighting the last war.

    Q: The reason people say you would not be fighting the last war is this debate we have just been discussing, which is that r* is going to stay low . . . 

    A: But we don’t know that yet. We don’t know what the terminal federal funds point is going to be in this particular business cycle . . . There is a presumption it will be low and there is a presumption we will not have that much room to lower it, but we don’t really know that yet. I don’t want to get ahead of ourselves. I think it is completely reasonable to evaluate all this and I think we have to really study it very carefully but I don’t think we want to jump to conclusions just because we got pinned at the zero lower bound in the last crisis and I don’t think we want to conclude that r* is necessarily depressed permanently and that has some long term consequences for monetary policy. In terms of my own thought process on this I guess thinking about a price level targeting regime is something worthy of evaluating. Ben Bernanke has proposed an asymmetric price level targeting regime where you basically make up shortfalls when you are running below your inflation target but don’t make up shortfalls when you are running above. 

    Q: Kind of complicated . . . 

    A: . . . on the downside it is complicated but I understand why he is proposing it that way. Price level targeting does have some attractive features ... that will help keep inflation expectations better anchored and that makes it more easy to actually recover from an economic downturn. So that is one thing to look at.

    Another thing to look at is should we have a range for the inflation rate rather than just a 2 per cent target? I think the 2 per cent objective is a little bit overly precise. I think almost never will actually be right spot on the 2 per cent objective. It would be worth at least evaluating whether a range might be a more appropriate way to communicate how well we want to do, or how well we think it is feasible to do in terms of our inflation target. 

    Q: A range from 1 to 3 [per cent]? 

    A: Let’s say from 1.5 to 2.5 [per cent]. The idea would be when you are at 1.5 to 2.5 [per cent] you are not very concerned. It is pretty close to your definition of price stability. But if you get outside of that range on either side you become more concerned. That would be something worthy of evaluating.

    Moving from a 2 per cent inflation target to a 4 per cent inflation target: I personally think that is a bridge too far for two reasons. Number one the mandate for us is not set by the Fed it is set by Congress, and Congress has said price stability. I think it is very hard to pretend that 4 per cent inflation is consistent with price stability. And two if you actually had a 4 per cent inflation target it would start to distort economic decision-making.  Think about it: at 2 per cent inflation the price level doubles every 35 years. At 4 per cent inflation it doubles twice as fast. That then really has consequences for retirees and businesses and investors. So I think I would be at this point at least pretty sceptical of the wisdom of moving to a higher inflation target.

    ... 

    Q: The Fed is supposed to be targeting 2 per cent currently, at any given time; is there any argument that you could target 2 per cent over the course of a cycle? That would get you towards this idea of a price level target without formally moving to a price level target, because you are looking at an average over time? 

    A: You could potentially have something that was sort of a soft version of price level targeting. The problem with price level targeting if you actually move to that formally is it raises a lot of questions. If you overshoot inflation how quickly do you have to bring inflation back to your 2 per cent average. If you had a more general thing that our goal is to achieve 2 per cent inflation over the medium to longer run that could be maybe a softer version of price level targeting, without having to describe all the nuances. One of the challenges of price level targeting is how do you communicate it? And the second challenge of price level targeting is if you do the symmetric version it is attractive when you undershoot inflation that you want to overshoot inflation. It is not so attractive that when you overshoot inflation you want to undershoot inflation. You want to undershoot inflation then the zero lower bound problem reasserts itself. That is really the problem of symmetric price level targeting. You are comfortable overshooting after you undershoot, you are not very comfortable if you have overshot to undershoot.

  • Loretta J. Mester If the economy evolves as I anticipate, I believe further increases in interest rates will be appropriate this year and next year, at a pace similar to last year’s.

    [ January 18, 2018 ]

    If the economy evolves as I anticipate, I believe further increases in interest rates will be appropriate this year and next year, at a pace similar to last year’s.

  • John Williams It would be a great honor to serve as vice-chairman of the Fed.

    [ January 18, 2018 ]

    John Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, is gunning for one of the top positions in central banking, saying it would be a “great honour” to serve as number two under Jay Powell, the incoming chair.

    The regional Fed president said he would “welcome such an opportunity to contribute to the important mission of the Fed”, when asked by the Financial Times if he would be up for a move to Washington to serve as vice-chairman of the Fed’s Board of Governors.

    ...

    Mr Williams suggested the US outlook is as good as it has been for a number of years. The global economy had hit a turning point where expansion is on firmer foundations not only in the US but in Europe and elsewhere around the world, he said. That combined with some fiscal stimulus is “giving you a tailwind”, and could reduce the disinflationary pressures worldwide. 

    “All those forces provide me with greater confidence that the US economy is going to continue to grow actually somewhat above trend this year and is on a very good footing in terms of growth,” Mr Williams said. “That supports again my confidence that we will see inflation move gradually back to 2 per cent.”

    With equity markets continuing to surge, Mr Williams said one of the desirable side-effects of continuing to gradually lift rates is that higher borrowing costs could reduce some of the incentive for investors to pay excessively high prices for assets.

    “The worry you have is not about where they are today,” he said of asset prices. “Obviously we don’t want to in any way contribute to animal spirits or another kind of psychology that leads people to kind of lose track of those fundamentals and go crazy and pay whatever — speculate.”

  • Robert S. Kaplan I feel strongly and have a lot of conviction that the base case should be three moves for this year. And if I’m wrong, it could even potentially be more than that.

    [ January 17, 2018 ]

    I feel strongly and have a lot of conviction that the base case should be three moves for this year. And if I’m wrong, it could even potentially be more than that. But I certainly think it makes sense to have three removals of accommodation, and we’ll see how the economy unfolds during the year.

    I’d say I have a lot more conviction starting this year that three should be the number.

  • Eric Rosengren I would also suggest that the optimal inflation rate is not likely to remain constant over time...  In my view, adopting an inflation range that allows for movement in the effective medium-run inflation goal might be a helpful addition to the Fed’s monetary policy framework...  If we set the range to – for example – 1.5 to 3.0 percent ...this would represent a set of inflation outcomes that are similar to those the U.S. has experienced over the past 20 years.

    [ January 12, 2018 ]

    I would also suggest that the optimal inflation rate is not likely to remain constant over time. An alternative, which would recognize that the inflation target should not necessarily be constant, is an inflation range with an adjustable inflation target. Within this framework, one could think of our inflation goal as defined by two components: A range of inflation rates that policymakers would find acceptable across many economic circumstances, and a medium-term goal within that range that policymakers would set, perhaps year by year, depending on specific economic circumstances.

    In my view, adopting an inflation range that allows for movement in the effective medium-run inflation goal might be a helpful addition to the Fed’s monetary policy framework.  An inflation range that allows some movement in the inflation target, depending on economic fundamentals, would be treating the Fed’s inflation goal more like the natural rate of unemployment, where we recognize that the natural rate will shift over time with demographic and other workforce characteristics.

    Of course, the advantages of greater inflation target flexibility would likely be partly offset by some costs. For instance, it is likely that such flexibility would generate more uncertainty about inflation in the medium to long run, since we cannot know for sure how long productivity and demographic trends would persist.7 However, if we set the range to – for example – 1.5 to 3.0 percent, and were successful in keeping inflation mostly in that range, this would represent a set of inflation outcomes that are similar to those the U.S. has experienced over the past 20 years.

    ...

    One way to avoid periods of prolonged low interest rates would be to alter the inflation target in response to changes in our estimates of real interest rates – estimates that have been changing of late. This would make inflation, like the natural unemployment rate, a target that could vary over time. If, for example, the monetary policy framework set an inflation range of, say 1.5 to 3.0 percent, the FOMC could vary its medium-term inflation target to be high, low, or in the middle of the range depending on economic factors that the Committee could determine at the beginning of each year. For example, in the current environment, with low population growth and low productivity growth, policy could move even more gradually to remove accommodation, and allow inflation to be somewhat higher in its range. Should the labor force or productivity grow more quickly, the Committee could seek to gradually reduce the inflation target within its range.

    ...

    An inflation range with an adjustable medium-run inflation goal is one way to address such concerns, but there are a variety of alternative frameworks also worth considering.18 In my view, we are approaching a time when a comprehensive reconsideration of the monetary policy framework is likely warranted, given the experience of the past 10 years. Any change we make should be designed to provide policymakers with the flexibility to set monetary policy appropriately as key features of the economy change, as they have repeatedly over U.S. economic history.

  • Patrick Harker [An] issue I’m watching is the yield curve, and I’m sure I’m not alone in this room. My assessment is that the worries so far have been inflated.

    [ January 12, 2018 ]

    [An] issue I’m watching is the yield curve, and I’m sure I’m not alone in this room. My assessment is that the worries so far have been inflated.

  • William C. Dudley Over the longer term, however, I am considerably more cautious about the economic outlook.  Keeping the economy on a sustainable path may become more challenging.  While the recently passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 likely will provide additional support to growth over the near term, it will come at a cost...  While this does not seem to be a great concern to market participants today, the current fiscal path is unsustainable.

    [ January 11, 2018 ]

    Broadly speaking, the prospects for continued economic expansion in 2018 look reasonably bright.  The economy is likely to continue to grow at an above-trend pace, which should lead to a tighter labor market and faster wage growth.  Under such conditions, I would expect the inflation rate to drift higher toward the FOMC’s 2 percent long-run objective.

    Over the longer term, however, I am considerably more cautious about the economic outlook.  Keeping the economy on a sustainable path may become more challenging.  While the recently passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 likely will provide additional support to growth over the near term, it will come at a cost.  After all, there is no such thing as a free lunch.  The legislation will increase the nation’s longer-term fiscal burden, which is already facing other pressures, such as higher debt service costs and entitlement spending as the baby-boom generation retires.  While this does not seem to be a great concern to market participants today, the current fiscal path is unsustainable.  In the long run, ignoring the budget math risks driving up longer-term interest rates, crowding out private sector investment and diminishing the country’s creditworthiness.  These dynamics could counteract any favorable direct effects the tax package might have on capital spending and potential output.

  • Robert S. Kaplan We want to avoid a situation where we have such an overheating that we’re playing catch up.

    [ January 10, 2018 ]

    “We want to avoid a situation where we have such an overheating that we’re playing catch up,” Kaplan said at a business event. The cuts are in part a concern, he said, “because I think debt levels of the country are unsustainable.”

  • Charles L. Evans “I think we have to be mindful of the fact that as we have all repriced real interest rates downwards that’s going to find its way into lower long term interest rates,” he told reporters. “We’ve been increasing short-term rates; it’s natural then almost mechanically for there to be a flattening of it.”

    [ January 10, 2018 ]

    “I don’t see any evidence of inflation moving up really fast, or even moving up enough,” Evans told reporters Wednesday after speaking in Lake Forest, Illinois, where he disclosed that at the Dec. 12-13 policy meeting he thought “it would be good to sort of put off the increases until about the middle of this year just to make sure the inflationary concerns resolve themselves.”

  • Raphael Bostic From Bloomberg: Bostic said his base case for 2018 was for two or three rate increases.

    [ January 8, 2018 ]

    Bostic said his base case for 2018 was for two or three rate increases, slightly below the median of three rate increases expected by his colleagues.

  • Loretta J. Mester I probably have one more (hike than the consensus) or a bit steeper path just because I think growth is picking up a little bit.

    [ January 5, 2018 ]

    Asked in an interview whether she agreed with the central bank’s median forecast for three rate rises this year, she said she was “about” in line. “I probably have one more (hike than the consensus) or a bit steeper path just because I think growth is picking up a little bit,” she said, adding she expects unemployment, now 4.1 percent, to settle around 4.75 percent.

  • Patrick Harker My own view is that two rate increases are likely to be appropriate for 2018.

    [ January 5, 2018 ]

    Inflation continues to run below target, not just in the U.S. but in countries across the globe. Domestically, I expect inflation will run a bit above target in 2019 and come down to target the following year, but I am more hesitant in this view than I am on economic activity. If soft inflation persists, it may pose a significant problem, which I’ll get to shortly.

    For that reason, my own view is that two rate increases are likely to be appropriate for 2018.

    Of course, I’ll continue to monitor the data as they roll in, but that’s the view as we start out the new year.

  • James Bullard We’ve really made no progress in the last two years toward our inflation target.

    [ January 5, 2018 ]

    We’ve really made no progress in the last two years toward our inflation target.

  • James Bullard A lot of good things were done in this tax bill… I do hold out the possibility that the tax bill will unleash a lot of investment in the U.S. and you will then get an outsized effect.

    [ January 4, 2018 ]

    “A lot of good things were done in this tax bill,” said Bullard, who endorsed the alignment of U.S. corporate taxes closer to developed world norms and said he felt that raising the standard deduction would weaken the constituencies behind itemized tax breaks that can distort economic decisions. “I do hold out the possibility that the tax bill will unleash a lot of investment in the U.S. and you will then get an outsized effect.”

    Bullard said his “base case” was for only a modest increase in capital spending, and a possible shift in the economy’s long-term potential growth by a few tenths of a percentage point -- not a dramatic change for the near term but important over the long run.

    A lot of good things were done in this tax bill… I do hold out the possibility that the tax bill will unleash a lot of investment in the U.S. and you will then get an outsized effect.

  • Eric Rosengren I do worry that we may start to see “reach for yield” kinds of behaviors on financial investments that could potentially have broader implications at a time when monetary or fiscal policy can’t react if we get a big negative shock.

    [ December 27, 2017 ]

    On the financial stability front, it’s not just the United States that has had low interest rates—it’s a global phenomenon. I do worry that we may start to see “reach for yield” kinds of behaviors on financial investments that could potentially have broader implications at a time when monetary or fiscal policy can’t react if we get a big negative shock.

  • Robert S. Kaplan So, let me answer it this way. I've been in the markets my entire adult life. I've been watching them since before I was an adult. And what I have learned is I don't always know what the market is saying, but I know it always pays to try to decipher what it's saying. And I think the bond market is saying expectations for future growth are sluggish and I think it's worth paying attention to that.

    [ December 19, 2017 ]

    KAPLAN:  I said to you when we've talked before, gradual and patient is my key comment. My own [2018] dot was three.  The 10-year Treasury is something I'll be watching. And what the 10-year does will also influence how many rate increases next year...  The yield curve is something I'll be watching carefully. So that could go (ph) the other way.

    FERRO: The yield curve is flattening and I wonder whether what the signal really is there. Because most people would say there's a massive balance sheet over the ECB, there's a massive balance sheet over the BOJ and that's why we've got this flattening, that's why the ten year yield is not rising. Do you see anything can that does to argue and resonate with you?

    KAPLAN: So it's a part of it and, by the way, I wish that was all of it. But my own view is a part of what's going on is global liquidity. But I think the bigger part of why the ten year is muted is sluggish expectations for out year GDP growth.

    And what I mean by that if you look at where potential GDP growth is five years from now, I think it is actually declining from where we are today. Why is that happening?  Aging demographics, slowing workforce growth and sluggish productivity, unless the United States improves early childhood literacy, college readiness and little skills training.

    So I think the 10-year Treasury tells you more about expectations for future growth which are sluggish. And so if you told me where we're going to have solid GDP growth the next two or three years trailing off to maybe below two percent five years from now, I would have expected a flattish yield curve and that's what you're seeing.

     ...

    MCKEE: You're talking about the 10-year as an indicator of the market's view of long term potential growth. That is completely different than the man down in Washington who seems to think the tax cut is going to change the whole fundamental picture for the United States. Is the market wrong or is the president wrong?

    KAPLAN: So, let me answer it this way. I've been in the markets my entire adult life. I've been watching them since before I was an adult. And what I learned is I don't always know what the market is saying, but I know it always pays to try to decipher what it's saying. And I think the market is saying expectations for future growth are sluggish and I think it's worth paying attention to that.

  • Neel Kashkari An inverted yield curve ...  is one of the best signals we have of elevated recession risk and has preceded every single recession in the past 50 years.

    [ December 18, 2017 ]

    An inverted yield curve, where short rates are above long rates, is one of the best signals we have of elevated recession risk and has preceded every single recession in the past 50 years. While the yield curve has not yet inverted, the bond market is telling us that the odds of a recession are increasing and that inflation and interest rates will likely be low in the future. These signals should caution the FOMC against further rate increases until it becomes clear that inflation is actually picking up.

  • John Williams Something like three rate increases next year, or two to three more increases in 2019, that seems like a reasonable view of this gradual removal of accommodation in a very benign environment.

    [ December 18, 2017 ]

    Something like three rate increases next year, or two to three more increases in 2019, that seems like a reasonable view of this gradual removal of accommodation in a very benign environment. Low unemployment, relatively low inflation - moving back to 2 percent [or] a little bit maybe above that. But it’s not an environment that I, at least right now, view as having really any big risks of either needing to tighten dramatically faster, or any real arguments not to continue on the path we’re on.

    Now, that could change. I’m sure you were going to ask - but one of the big question marks is how will the tax policies change -  what that package ends up looking like, and then obviously how that effects the economy in terms of consumer spending, business spending, and over the longer term how it affects the supply side of the economy.

    From Wall Street Journal interview published on December 5 but conducted before the blackout period.

  • Charles L. Evans I believe that leaving the target range at 1 to 1-1/4 percent at the current time would have better supported a general pickup in inflation expectations and increased the likelihood that inflation will rise to 2 percent.

    [ December 15, 2017 ]

    I am concerned that persistent factors are holding down inflation, rather than idiosyncratic transitory ones. Namely, the public’s inflation expectations appear to me to have drifted down below the FOMC’s 2 percent symmetric inflation target. And I am concerned that too many observers have the impression that our 2 percent objective is a ceiling that we do not wish inflation to breach, as opposed to the symmetric objective that it really is; that is, we would like to see the odds of inflation running modestly below 2 percent equal the odds of it running modestly above over the long run.

    I believe that leaving the target range at 1 to 1-1/4 percent at the current time would have better supported a general pickup in inflation expectations and increased the likelihood that inflation will rise to 2 percent along a path that is consistent with a symmetric inflation objective.

  • Janet L. Yellen Economists are not great at knowing what appropriate valuations are; we don't have a terrific record. And the fact that those valuations are high doesn't mean that they're necessarily overvalued...  I think when we look at other indicators of financial stability risks, there's nothing flashing red there or possibly even orange... If you ask me is this significant factor shaping monetary policy now; well, it's on the list of risks, but it's not a major factor

    [ December 13, 2017 ]

    Of course, the stock market has gone up a great deal this year. And we have in recent months characterized the general level of asset valuations as elevated. What that reflects is simply the assessment that looking at price-earnings ratios and comparable metrics for other assets other than equities, we see ratios that are in the high end of historical ranges. And so that's worth pointing out.

    But economists are not great at knowing what appropriate valuations are; we don't have a terrific record. And the fact that those valuations are high doesn't mean that they're necessarily overvalued.

    ...

    I think what we need to and are trying to think through is if there were an adjustment in asset valuations, the stock market, what impact would that have on the economy? And would it provoke financial stability concerns?

    And I think when we look at other indicators of financial stability risks, there's nothing flashing red there or possibly even orange. We have a much more resilient, stronger banking system.  We're not seeing ... some buildup in leverage or credit growth at excessive levels. So you know, this is something that the FOMC pays attention to. But if you ask me is this significant factor shaping monetary policy now; well, it's on the list of risks, but it's not a major factor

  • Janet L. Yellen My colleagues and I mainly see the likely tax package as boosting aggregate demand, but also having some potential to boost aggregate supply.

    [ December 13, 2017 ]

    I think my colleagues and I mainly see the likely tax package as boosting aggregate demand, but also having some potential to boost aggregate supply.

    ...

    We continue to think, as you can see from the projections that a gradual path of rate increases remains appropriate, even with almost all participants now factoring in their assessment of the impact of the tax policy.

    You know, it is projected that the tax cut package will lead to additions to the national debt and boost, by the end of the horizon, the debt to GDP ratio.  And I will say, and this is nothing new, it's something I've been saying for a long time. I am personally concerned about the U.S. debt situation. It's not that the debt to GDP ratio at the moment is extraordinarily or worrisomely high. But it's also not very low. And it's projected as the population continues to age and the baby boomers retire that that ratio will continue to rise in an unsustainable fashion. So the addition to the debt taking what is already a significant problem and making it worse is -- it is of concern to me.

    And I think it does suggest that in some future downturn, which could occur, just for whatever reason, the amount of fiscal space that would exist for fiscal policy to play an active role may well be limited.

  • Janet L. Yellen There is a strong correlation historically between yield curve inversions and recessions. But let me emphasize that correlation is not causation.  And I think there are good reasons to think that the relationship between the slope of the yield curve and the business cycle may have changed.

    [ December 13, 2017 ]

    I would say that the current slope is well within its historical range. Now there is a strong correlation historically between yield curve inversions and recessions. But let me emphasize that correlation is not causation.  And I think there are good reasons to think that the relationship between the slope of the yield curve and the business cycle may have changed.
    ...

    I think that the fact the term premium is so low and the yield curve is generally flatter, is an important factor to consider. Now, I think it is also important to realize that market participants are not expressing heightened concern about the decline of the term premium and when asked directly about the odd of recession, they see it as low, and I would concur with that judgment.

  • Charles L. Evans If the judgment was that we’re still likely to be underrunning our 2 percent objective, maybe we would stop briefly and assess for more information, maybe wait until mid-2018.

    [ December 5, 2017 ]

    I think our policy moves to date have been thoughtful and reasonable. We’ve increased our funds rate objective by 100 basis points. Maybe it’s time to stop and see whether inflation expectations are going to move in line with our 2 percent objective. And if the judgment was that we’re still likely to be underrunning our 2 percent objective, maybe we would stop briefly and assess for more information, maybe wait until mid-2018.

    From NY Times interview published on December 5 but conducted before the blackout period.

  • James Bullard There is a material risk of yield curve inversion over the forecast horizon if the FOMC continues on its present course of increases in the policy rate.

    [ December 1, 2017 ]

    “There is a material risk of yield curve inversion over the forecast horizon if the FOMC continues on its present course of increases in the policy rate,” Bullard said. “Yield curve inversion is a naturally bearish signal for the economy. This deserves market and policymaker attention.”

    He also discussed two possible ways to avoid an inverted yield curve—rising longer-term rates and policymaker caution. “It is possible that yield curve inversion will be avoided because longer-term nominal yields will begin to rise in tandem with the policy rate, but this seems unlikely as of today,” he said. “Given below-target U.S. inflation, it is unnecessary to push normalization to such an extent that the yield curve inverts.”

  • John Williams I expect the unemployment rate to continue to drift downward, bottoming out at around 3¾ percent next year.

    [ November 29, 2017 ]

    I expect the unemployment rate to continue to drift downward, bottoming out at around 3¾ percent next year.

  • Janet L. Yellen I would simply say that I am very worried about the sustainability of the U.S. debt trajectory… It's the type of thing that should keep people awake at night

    [ November 29, 2017 ]

    "I would simply say that I am very worried about the sustainability of the U.S. debt trajectory," Yellen said. "Our current debt-to-GDP ratio of about 75 percent is not frightening but it's also not low."

    "It's the type of thing that should keep people awake at night," she added.

    More From:

    Source:

    https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20171129a.htm

    Venue:

    Testimony to the Joint Economic Committee
  • William C. Dudley From WSJ: “Most central bankers would say ‘sign me up’ ” for the current situation facing the Fed, Mr. Dudley said.

    [ November 27, 2017 ]

    Mr. Dudley repeated his view that low inflation with low unemployment is “not actually a bad thing,” because it would enable policy makers to “probe” how much lower the jobless rate can go before inflation heats up.

    “Most central bankers would say ‘sign me up’ ” for the current situation facing the Fed, Mr. Dudley said.

  • Neel Kashkari I don't see any reason why we have to tap the brakes, when inflation is continuing to run low.

    [ November 27, 2017 ]

    My perspective is, let's allow the job market to continue to strengthen, allow more Americans to go back to work, allow wages to strengthen, and then, if we start to see inflation creep back up to our 2-percent target, we can tap the brakes then.  I don't see any reason why we have to tap the brakes, when inflation is continuing to run low.

  • Robert S. Kaplan I believe it will likely be appropriate, in the near future, to take the next step in the process of removing monetary accommodation.

    [ November 27, 2017 ]

    I believe that the neutral nominal rate of interest is likely in the neighborhood of 2.5 percent—materially lower than we are historically accustomed. As such, I think it is important that, to the extent possible, monetary policy accommodation be removed in a gradual and patient manner. I would like to avoid a situation where the FOMC is playing “catch-up” in raising interest rates.

    Taking all these factors into account, and from a risk management point of view, I believe it will likely be appropriate, in the near future, to take the next step in the process of removing monetary accommodation. This should be done in the context of an overall strategy of removing accommodation in a gradual and patient manner. I believe this strategy will increase the likelihood of sustaining and extending the economic expansion in the U.S.

  • Janet L. Yellen From Reuters: The Fed is “not certain” the “surprising” inflation weakness will prove transitory, [Yellen] said at NYU Stern School of Business in New York. 

    [ November 21, 2017 ]

    Temporary factors likely explain the low U.S. inflation readings and prices should rebound next year, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said on Tuesday, though she added that she and her colleagues at the central bank are not necessarily convinced and the trend could prove more long-lasting.

    The Fed is “not certain” the “surprising” inflation weakness will prove transitory, she said at NYU Stern School of Business in New York. Yellen added she is “open minded” on what is behind the low-inflation conundrum.

  • Robert S. Kaplan For me, prudent risk management means some action to remove accommodation gradually and patiently… It’s not that you have see you are meeting both, then you move.

    [ November 16, 2017 ]

    Inflation is expected to rise toward the Fed’s goal, he said, and though structural pressures keeping it down are intensifying, “cyclical forces are building.”

    “For me, prudent risk management means some action to remove accommodation gradually and patiently,” he said, even if that means raising rates when the Fed has met only one of its two goals of full employment and 2-percent inflation. “It’s not that you have see you are meeting both, then you move.”

  • Loretta J. Mester I do think [the effectiveness of the Fed’s inflation target is] a very important thing that we should all be starting to think about… The Bank of Canada rethinks its framework every five years. It seems to me that’s not a bad thing.

    [ November 16, 2017 ]

    “I do think [the effectiveness of the Fed’s inflation target is] a very important thing that we should all be starting to think about,” Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester told a monetary policy conference at the Cato Institute Thursday in Washington. “The Bank of Canada rethinks its framework every five years. It seems to me that’s not a bad thing.”

  • Eric Rosengren My own view is that it is quite likely that unemployment will fall below 4 percent, which is likely to increase pressures on inflation and asset prices. In my view, that suggests the need to continue to gradually remove monetary policy accommodation, which is quite consistent with market expectations of another increase in December.

    [ November 15, 2017 ]

    My own view is that it is quite likely that unemployment will fall below 4 percent, which is likely to increase pressures on inflation and asset prices. In my view, that suggests the need to continue to gradually remove monetary policy accommodation, which is quite consistent with market expectations of another increase in December.

  • Charles L. Evans In order to dispel the view that 2 percent is a ceiling, I feel our communications should be much clearer about our willingness to deliver on a symmetric inflation outcome. 

    [ November 15, 2017 ]

    By and large, central bankers are conservative types who view their most important task as preventing an outbreak of 1970s-style inflation. So perhaps then it’s not surprising that we as a group have not convincingly demonstrated to the public our commitment to a symmetric inflation target.

    Indeed, actual inflation outcomes in the U.S. have been far from symmetric.

    In order to dispel the view that 2 percent is a ceiling, I feel our communications should be much clearer about our willingness to deliver on a symmetric inflation outcome. This means our public commentary needs to acknowledge a much greater chance of inflation running at 2-1/2 percent in the coming years than I believe we have communicated in the past.

    I also worry that giving too much prominence to financial stability considerations in discussions of monetary policy could erode the public’s confidence in our commitment to our 2 percent inflation objective. Financial stability is obviously very important. But there are better tools than monetary policy for promoting it. In contrast, when it comes to meeting our inflation objective, monetary policy is the only game in town.

  • Raphael Bostic I’m going to stay open, but right now I’m pretty comfortable with the notion of us continuing to go on our pace toward a more balanced monetary policy [with a hike in December].

    [ November 14, 2017 ]

    When it comes to his support for boosting the Fed’s interest rate target in December, Mr. Bostic said after his speech that “I’m still in that place.” Asked if a rate rise is on the table, he responded “yes.” Mr. Bostic explained, “I’m going to stay open, but right now I’m pretty comfortable with the notion of us continuing to go on our pace toward a more balanced monetary policy.”

  • Charles L. Evans My aim today is not to argue for state-contingent price-level targeting… That may be a good way to go, but at this point, I just don't know. My point is that we should be planning for these inevitable future situations today.

    [ November 14, 2017 ]

    Evans championed [price-level targeting] policy in 2010 to deal with sagging inflation, but ultimately the Fed rejected such an "extreme" idea as too difficult to undertake during an economic crisis, Evans said on Tuesday.

    Now that economic times are calmer, Evans said, the Fed can study and analyze this and other approaches, and prepare the public for their possible use in the next severe downturn if the Fed cuts rates to zero and still needs more firepower to get the economy growing again. Bouts of zero interest rates are likely to become more common in the future as potential economic growth slows, Evans and other Fed policymakers believe.

    "My aim today is not to argue for state-contingent price-level targeting," Evans said on Tuesday. "That may be a good way to go, but at this point, I just don't know. My point is that we should be planning for these inevitable future situations today."

  • Janet L. Yellen Individual [Fed officials] should be explaining in their speeches, elaborating what's on the statement and explaining what we have agreed upon. We agreed that having done that, individuals can go out and explain their individual perspectives. I would say that guidance hasn't been totally faithfully followed.

    [ November 14, 2017 ]

    "Individual [Fed officials] should be explaining in their speeches, elaborating what's on the [Fed's decision] statement and explaining what we have agreed upon. We agreed that having done that, individuals can go out and explain their individual perspectives," she said.

    However, she added: "I would say that guidance hasn't been totally faithfully followed, although many of my colleagues do try to do that, and the press tends to pick up on differences, (which is) particularly difficult when we have an upcoming policy decision."

    Yellen admitted that it is hard to find a solution to this problem.

    "Probably we will never, given our structure and size, be able to deal with this totally effectively," Yellen told the audience.

  • Robert S. Kaplan From FT: Asked if he was willing to consider a rate rise at the Fed’s upcoming meeting, Mr Kaplan said: “Yes, I am actively considering appropriate next steps. As I should be.”

    [ November 14, 2017 ]

    From FT: Asked if he was willing to consider a rate rise at the Fed’s upcoming meeting, Mr Kaplan said: “Yes, I am actively considering appropriate next steps. As I should be.”

  • Patrick Harker I would like to avoid any inversion of the curve, so my goal is to remove accommodation in a way that we do not run the risk of inverting the yield curve.

    [ November 13, 2017 ]

    I think there are a lot of likely suspects [for the flattening of the yield curve]. One is just simply that other banks the European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, others continue to be highly accommodative, and that is one of the reasons we're seeing the long end flatten out. I am concerned about that, and that's why the pace of removal of accommodation, to me, has to be gradual… I would like to avoid any inversion of the curve, so my goal is to remove accommodation in a way that we do not run the risk of inverting the yield curve.

    We're heading toward, in the forecast horizon, a Fed funds rate around 3 percent or so. That's our forecast. But again, we'll take our time to get there, and we'll do it in a very prudent fashion so that we don't disrupt that markets and we run their risk of inverting the yield curve.

  • Patrick Harker I have penciled in right now, in my SEP, three increases for 2018, but... some of the underlying numbers, like wage growth, job openings and hires, if we saw that that wasn’t translating to higher prices -- our dual mandate is very clear, it’s stable prices.

    [ November 8, 2017 ]

    I have penciled in right now, in my SEP, three increases for 2018, but I will reassess that as the data comes in, referring to the Fed’s Summary of Economic Projections. Some of the underlying numbers, like wage growth, job openings and hires, if we saw that that wasn’t translating to higher prices -- our dual mandate is very clear, it’s stable prices.

  • Randall Quarles “I have come into this position thinking that ... changing the tenor of supervision will be the biggest part of what it is that I do,” Quarles said. “I think that a significant part of the Fed’s engagement of the firms is through supervision rather than regulation. I think that the regulatory part is probably the easier part.”

    [ November 6, 2017 ]

    “I have come into this position thinking that ... changing the tenor of supervision will be the biggest part of what it is that I do,” Quarles said. “I think that a significant part of the Fed’s engagement of the firms is through supervision rather than regulation. I think that the regulatory part is probably the easier part.”

  • Janet L. Yellen The bottom line is that we must recognize that our unconventional tools might have to be used again. If we are indeed living in a low-neutral-rate world, a significantly less severe economic downturn than the Great Recession might be sufficient to drive short-term interest rates back to their effective lower bound.

    [ October 20, 2017 ]

    Does this mean that it will take another Great Recession for our unconventional tools to be used again? Not necessarily. Recent studies suggest that the neutral level of the federal funds rate appears to be much lower than it was in previous decades. Indeed, most FOMC participants now assess the longer-run value of the neutral federal funds rate as only 2-3/4 percent or so, compared with around 4-1/4 percent just a few years ago. With a low neutral federal funds rate, there will typically be less scope for the FOMC to reduce short-term interest rates in response to an economic downturn, raising the possibility that we may need to resort again to enhanced forward rate guidance and asset purchases to provide needed accommodation.

    ...

    The bottom line is that we must recognize that our unconventional tools might have to be used again. If we are indeed living in a low-neutral-rate world, a significantly less severe economic downturn than the Great Recession might be sufficient to drive short-term interest rates back to their effective lower bound.

  • John Williams My own view is we want to continue this gradual pace of increase. One more rate increase in December and three more next year is a pretty good starting point.

    [ October 18, 2017 ]

    My own view is we want to continue this gradual pace of increase. One more rate increase in December and three more next year is a pretty good starting point. I am still data dependent, but that is my baseline view.

    My view is that the normal fed funds rate in the future is 2.5 percent, which is pretty low. That’s not a lot of rate increases to get to that normal level, but I do think we want to be moving gradually toward that over the next two years.

  • Patrick Harker From WSJ: Like most of his colleagues, Mr. Harker said he had penciled in one more rate increase this year in his economic forecast released following the September meeting. “I emphasize the word ‘pencil.”

    [ October 17, 2017 ]

    Like most of his colleagues, Mr. Harker said he had penciled in one more rate increase this year in his economic forecast released following the September meeting.

    “I emphasize the word ‘pencil,’” he said. “We have to see how inflation dynamics roll out over the next couple of months and we have to make sure that the process of ceasing reinvestment is, as we anticipate, not very disruptive to the market.”

    Mr. Harker said he has also penciled in three rate increases in 2018.

    “There’s no need to firmly commit” to raising rates again this year, Mr. Harker said. “We just have to see how it evolves.”

  • Patrick Harker On a national level, there’s very little slack left in the labor market.

    [ October 17, 2017 ]

    On a national level, there’s very little slack left in the labor market.

  • Janet L. Yellen My best guess is that these soft readings will not persist, and with the ongoing strengthening of labor markets, I expect inflation to move higher next year. Most of my colleagues on the FOMC agree.

    [ October 17, 2017 ]

    Inflation readings over the past several months have been surprisingly soft, however, and the 12-month change in core PCE prices has fallen to 1.3 percent. The recent softness seems to have been exaggerated by what look like one-off reductions in some categories of prices, especially a large decline in quality-adjusted prices for wireless telephone services. More generally, it is common to see movements in inflation of a few tenths of a percentage point that are hard to explain, and such "surprises" should not really be surprising. My best guess is that these soft readings will not persist, and with the ongoing strengthening of labor markets, I expect inflation to move higher next year. Most of my colleagues on the FOMC agree. In the latest Summary of Economic Projections, my colleagues and I project inflation to move higher next year and to reach 2 percent by 2019.

    More From:

    See Also:

    Source:

    https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20171015a.htm

    Venue:

    Group of 30 International Banking Seminar
  • James Bullard If the committee continues to raise rates that could turn into a policy mistake...I think inflation could drift lower instead of higher.

    [ October 13, 2017 ]

    “If you are going to have an inflation target you should defend it. If you say you are going to hit the inflation target then you should try to hit it and maintain credibility,” Bullard said.

    Persistent weakness this year in the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation means “we more or less lost all the progress that we made the last two years” toward the 2 percent goal, Bullard said. Continuing to raise interest rates in that environment “can send a signal to markets that the inflation target is not that important.”

    “This idea of throwing out the unpleasant number and finely chopping the price index, you get down to a set of prices that barely can be considered representative and I think that is inappropriate,” Bullard said. “Maybe this is temporary, maybe this will bounce back. What I say to that is you want to see evidence...This is going in the wrong direction. And it is not consistent with the stories that the committee has been telling,” of inflation reaching the Fed’s target in the “medium term.”

    “If the committee continues to raise rates that could turn into a policy mistake...I think inflation could drift lower instead of higher. I think a misperception about where rates need to be in this environment could possibly trigger recession if it was carried to an extreme.”

  • John Williams From Reuters:  San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President John Williams on Wednesday said he expects the U.S. central bank to raise interest rates later this year, three times next year, and a little bit further in 2019.

    [ October 12, 2017 ]

    San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President John Williams on Wednesday said he expects the U.S. central bank to raise interest rates later this year, three times next year, and a little bit further in 2019.

  • Eric Rosengren My guess is, if the data comes in as expected, it would be appropriate to raise rates in December.

    [ October 12, 2017 ]

    My guess is, if the data comes in as expected, it would be appropriate to raise rates in December.

    [Also,] three 2018 rate hikes sound “approximately right”.

  • Stanley Fischer We don't think we're in a situation where we have an inflationary bubble or an unsustainable set of prices in the asset markets, but we don't comment on that very much and I shouldn't go on.

    [ October 11, 2017 ]

    We don't think we're in a situation where we have an inflationary bubble or an unsustainable set of prices in the asset markets, but we don't comment on that very much and I shouldn't go on.