We've been talking a lot about the Fed lately so I thought I'd share my version of the Taylor Rule calculation. I've built this myself so it might not exactly track other versions that are out there, but I did follow Taylor's basic methodology. Bear in mind that this isn't meant to predict Fed Funds. I use it more as a reality check. If my Taylor Rule calculation is falling I'm not likely to make a call that Fed Funds is going to be rising.
Anyway, here is a recent chart of the output. Taylor Rule in green, actual Fed Funds target in blue. I took it out to 4Q 2009 assuming that 4Q GDP and CPI comes in equal to Bloomberg's economist survey (3%).
Holy liquidity trap Batman! Its sharply negative, suggesting that monetary policy can't get easy enough. Thus it justifies the Fed's current stance.
Now consider what it looks like if I carry out the Bloomberg median survey result for both GDP and CPI through 2010.
Suddenly the "correct" Fed Funds level according to my model is 2%, by the first quarter! Will the Fed actually hike by 200bps between now and 1Q 2010? Even assuming that GDP comes in as expected in 1Q, I highly doubt the Fed gets this aggressive. But could they start hiking? I think its possible.
I think readers should consider the following:
- Potential GDP is probably falling due to a less levered economy. That means a lower level of GDP would be considered above potential and thus potentially inflationary. It probably also means a higher level of NAIRU.
- There is room to remain accommodative in policy but be above zero on Fed Funds target.
- The fact that we're far below trend GDP levels doesn't matter. In a Keynesian world, its a question of whether Aggregate Demand is outpacing Aggregate Supply. What Aggregate Demand would have been in 2006 isn't relevant.
- As a trade, if GDP does improve but the Fed doesn't hike at all, then it will be time to put on a bear steepener!
14 comments:
i think it is time for you to do some more of the bond trading basics course, please.
how do you "put on" a bear steepener?
bull steepener? flatener?
90% of economic forecasting past the current quarter is reversion to mean. It guarantees that you are wrong 99% of the time but it reduces your average error. The forecast for Q4 has some information in the but for all quarters past that it is all noise and mean reversion.
Remember, economic forecasting was invented so weather forecasting could look respectable.
I think it is clear that these models are cool in a book but have zero relevance in the real world.
FED rate at 2% before 2012, or really 2013? Myth, like a unicorn.
Avant: I grant you every thing you say, with the exception that 4Q GDP isn't terribly hard to predict when you are in the middle of 4Q already. It won't be exactly 3% but I'd be willing to bet on a range of 2.5-3.5.
Connected: IF growth is in the 2.5% area in 2010, then the Fed will be hiking at some point. I'm not calling for 2% FF, I'm just saying its a possibility.
I don't think that 2% FF is possible. It is useless to even keep it in probability.
Dear Site Owner,
I would like to say that your blog is well-written and it contains lots of useful and up-to-date information. We really got interested in your web resource and we would like to cooperate with you. My websites are devoted on various financial themes and the have got amazing traffic and Google Values.
My sites contains loads of useful financial information presented in news and articles that highlight the most much-talked-of issues such as credit cards, debt solutions, financial crisis, ways out of it, and many more. We believe this information can awake interest in your readers and can help you gain more and more traffics well. We would like to do some link exchange with your sites. If you agree then please let me know as per your convenience: dorothy786@gmail.com
We thank in you in advance for your cooperation.
Best regards,
Dorothy Parker
You have to ask yourself if it really makes sense that economics is called the "dismal science".
It just means that your listening to the wrong prognosticators and their theories.
IORs @.25% induce disintermediation among the non-banks, or shadow banks, or financial intermediaries.
Member banks do not loan out savings. They create new money in the lending process.
Money flowing to the intermediaries (intermediary between saver & borrower), never leaves the monetary system (commercial banks). Money flowing to the intermediaries increases the supply of loan-funds, decreases long-term interest rates, matches savers with investment, minimizes inflation, etc., etc.
Keynes had it wrong & so do all of his diciples.
This study came to a different conclusion.
http://econompicdata.blogspot.com/2009/11/where-are-long-bond-yields-going.html
AI -
Wow interesting push back on economic forecasting and the Taylor rule - almost seems as readers are saying "Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you..."
Do you think that the mid-term elections would play any role in the Fed's decisions ( I know, I know the Fed is totally independent..., but what if as Uncle Owen said "the wizard (Bernanke)is just a crazy old man?).
Also, given 0 rates and banks making monopoly money profits when does the political calculus kick in, I mean there are (at least in my mind) so many political ramifications of the interest rate decision (or maybe it just seems that are more than in the past...)
I really enjoy your blog and appreciate your taking the time to write - Hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving!
Anon @ 1.01pm: re: "steepeners"
Gaze at yield curve.
Think.
Consider buying and selling at the ends.
Receive enlightenment.
AI: If the Fed hikes in 2010, it will be the first major departure from the Japanese playbook.... and the thing is, we all know that the GDP is fake, and consists purely of government intervention.
So we are stuck in a moment. Liquidity trap indeed.
I apologize in advance for this comment being off-topic, but I e-mailed you last week and haven't heard back. In the event my e-mail went to your junk file, I have reproduced it below.
My company has launched a new site, ShortScreen.com, which offers tools and ideas for short sellers, including a tool that screens for companies whose Altman Z-scores predict bankruptcy. It might be of interest to those of your readers who short stocks or buy puts on them as part of their overall portfolio strategy.
If you become an affiliate, your readers will get a discount on the regular membership fee, and you will get recurring referral commissions on every premium member you refer to the site. The whole process would be seamless for you. For more details on the affiliate program, you can click here: http://shortscreen.com/become-an-affiliate.
Feel free to e-mail me if you have any questions or would like more info.
Thanks.
are all the bond bloggers being taken out by the treasury?
Thanks for sharing . great article . all our products are top quality and low prices .
would you like something to buy ? for example clothes and shoes . ok ! follow me !
chaussures puma
Tn Requin
Cheap Polo Shirts
Thanks for your post , it is very nice and helpful
Thanks for your post , it is very nice and helpful . all our products are top quality and low prices . would you like something ? ok follow me ! better choice better life !
NFL Jerseys
tn chaussures
Thanks for sharing . great article . all our products are top quality and low prices .
would you like something to buy ? for example clothes and shoes . ok ! follow me !
Post a Comment