+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bernanke Was Clear, Fed's Crystal Ball Is Cloudy: Caroline Baum
2013-06-26 22:00:42.0 GMT
By Caroline Baum
June 27 (Bloomberg) -- Shoulda, woulda, coulda. It's been a
week since Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke "surprised"
financial markets by telling them exactly what they expected,
yet the whining is still going strong.
If only Bernanke had been clearer at his June 19 news
conference. He said too much. He said too little. He should have
said nothing at all. He was too blunt. Too indecisive. He should
have reassured the markets. (Saying the Fed sees signs of an
improving economy isn't reassuring?)
Poor Ben. This is one tough audience -- especially when
it's on the wrong side of a trade.
Grow up, people. It's time to stop blaming Bernanke for
your losses. Either you weren't listening or you heard only what
you wanted to hear.
In early May, the Wall Street Journal's Jon Hilsenrath,
widely viewed as Bernanke's unofficial spokesman, told us the
Fed had begun to map out an exit from its $85 billion-a-month
asset purchase program. Then, on May 22, when Bernanke testified
to Congress, he provided a time frame: at one of the Fed's "next
few meetings." The stock market had a brief hiccup. Treasury
yields continued their climb: a cumulative increase of about 100
basis points for the 10-year note since May 2.
When Bloomberg News surveyed economists on June 4-5, more
than three-quarters said they expected the Fed to start tapering
quantitative easing in the fourth quarter of this year. Bernanke
ratified those expectations last week, even as he stressed that
any such action was data-dependent and "in no way
predetermined."
Unexpected Outcomes
He reiterated the idea of variable QE, introduced at his
March 20 news conference: buying fewer bonds if the economy
improves, more if it sags. He even introduced a new guidepost:
an expected unemployment rate of 7 percent by the time QE winds
down a year from now. And once again, Bernanke emphasized that
the proposed actions were contingent on progress in meeting
employment and inflation objectives. His comments were replete
with such qualifiers.
Did he make himself clear? Crystal clear. I can only guess
that the whiners are misconstruing the conditional nature of the
forecast as a lack of clarity.
You can take issue with the Fed's choice of thresholds. You
can disagree with the Fed's economic projections. You can even
accuse the Fed of being too cavalier about falling inflation,
something St. Louis Fed President James Bullard did in a
statement last week. But the one thing you cannot do, in good
conscience, is accuse Bernanke of being unclear.
Fed officials were genuinely surprised by the market
reaction, with prices of stocks, bonds and commodities
plummeting across the globe. In their world, outcomes are
supposed to mimic expectations. By clearly communicating the
Fed's objectives, policy makers should be able to mold
expectations and influence outcomes. The future is now, in other
words.
That theory works better in textbooks and econometric
models than in the real world. What if the Fed's forecast is
wrong? Some traders, with a different set of expectations, are
willing to bet that it is. Others want to unwind trades before
everyone heads for the exit. Even if they heard Bernanke say
that any increase in the funds rate is "far in the future," they
decided the beginning of the end was as good a time as any to
call it quits.
For the equity market, interest rates are just one
consideration in pricing shares. The rise in rates can be easily
overwhelmed by better earnings as a result of stronger growth.
If the Fed's optimistic outlook is correct, stocks should make a
complete recovery.
Not so the bond market, where expectations about the
overnight rate are the key determinant in setting long-term
rates. Whether that rate starts to rise in 2015, as most Fed
officials expect, or sooner, the markets are sensing the turn in
the cycle.
Missing Link
I do have one issue that I'd like Bernanke to clarify, and
it concerns the Fed's long-term forecasts. The Fed thinks an
unemployment rate of 5 to 6 percent represents full employment.
At the same time, it envisions a neutral funds rate -- the rate
that keeps the economy growing at its non-inflationary potential
in perpetuity -- of about 4 percent. Bernanke has told us the
Fed plans to keep the funds rate near zero at least until the
unemployment rate dips to 6.5 percent (from 7.6 percent
currently). Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota,
part of the EMT squad dispatched to administer CPR to the
markets this week, has proposed a 5.5 percent unemployment
threshold.
That means the funds rate will be 400 basis points below
the desired level at a time when the U.S. economy is at full
employment. From that point on, increases in the funds rate are
likely to be "gradual," Bernanke said.
Something is very wrong with this picture. Maybe policy
makers just filled in the neutral funds rate based on historical
experience without re-evaluating it. Or perhaps the staff is
tweaking its model before attaching a number.
If not -- if the Fed really plans to wait for full
employment before it starts to lift the funds rate -- then
Bernanke will need a lot more than clarity to prevent the
outcome from being an unmitigated disaster.
(Caroline Baum, author of "Just What I Said," is a
Bloomberg View columnist.)
For Related News and Information:
More Baum columns: NI BAUM <GO>
More Bloomberg View: VIEW <GO>
For news on the Federal Reserve: NI FED <GO>
--Editors: Mary Duenwald, Brooke Sample.
Click on "Send Comment" in sidebar display to send a letter to
the editor.
To contact the writer of this article:
Caroline Baum in New York at +1-212-617-3369 or
[email protected].
To contact the editor responsible for this article:
Mary Duenwald at +1-212-205-0366 or
[email protected].