More Bah! Humbug! from Goldman’s chief economist Jan Hatzius.
Although last week’s economic data makes a big “QE2″ announcement from the Fed unlikely at the September 21st FOMC meeting, Hatzuis still believes more unconventional monetary easing is on its way, via a $1,ooobn purchase of Treasuries – because we are still in a soft patch.
Hatzius writes in his latest ‘US Views’ note:
(Emphasis ours).
Later this year or early next, however, we do expect a return to unconventional monetary easing. This is because we strongly disagree with the notion that the recent slowdown in activity is a temporary “soft patch” in an otherwise fairly decent recovery, which seems to underlie the Fed’s forecast of a reacceleration in 2011 after a modestly slower period in 2010H2. On the contrary, we believe that the stronger growth of late 2009/early 2010 was a temporary “firm patch” in an otherwise extremely anemic recovery, and there is a sizable (25%-30%) risk of a renewed recession. As this becomes clear, Fed officials are likely to act.
The most likely policy shift involves purchases of US Treasuries, although changes in the forward-looking language are also a possibility. Ultimately, any new purchases are likely to total at least $1 trillion, but today’s NYT interview with outgoing Vice Chairman Kohn suggests that Fed officials may only announce a smaller amount upfront and then adjust their plans in response to new information (see Retiring Fed Official Considers More Bank Action). The advantage of such a policy is that it may be an easier “sell” to skeptical officials, although the risk is that the markets will view it as half-hearted.
And if you’re wondering how effective that might be, here’s the answer.
The uncertainties are enormous, but Jari Stehn’s analysis of the first round of QE in late 2008/early 2009 concluded that it pushed down 10-year Treasury yields by 25bp and eased the GSFCI by 80bp per $1 trillion in purchases. We suspect the next round would be less effective in terms of easing financial conditions, not because of a smaller impact on riskless long rates but because there is much less room for spread compression in the credit markets. So a 50-60bp easing in the GSFCI (relative to what would happen without QE) may be a more realistic expectation. Based on historical linkages, this is worth about ½ percentage point on growth, or a bit less given that the mortgage refinancing channel of transmission is clogged by the large number of households in negative equity. If this is the right order of magnitude, a $1 trillion purchase would not have a dramatic effect on growth, but would not be insignificant either. Of course, Fed officials could buy more and/or supplement the purchases with changes in the Fed statement to reinforce the effect.
But Hatzius warns the run up to the launch of QE2 could be volatile.
In the runup to QE2, communications will remain a challenge for the Fed. The problem is twofold. First, the FOMC is far from united, and participants (especially regional bank presidents) who are skeptical of the need for further action will continue to make their views known. This causes confusion in the markets, even if it ultimately has little bearing on the outcome. Second, the leadership wants to signal that more easing is on the table without talking too pessimistically, for fear of “scaring” those market participants who believe that the Fed has a privileged perspective on the fundamental outlook for the economy. The results are sometimes a bit odd—for example, the statement in the August 10 minutes that “…no member saw an appreciable risk of deflation…” which came just a few weeks after one member (President Bullard) had presented an analysis that strongly implied just such a risk. Given the range of different opinions and the conflicting objectives, the risk of further communication hiccups and resulting bouts of bond market volatility is high.
No kidding.
Related link:
Chorus of QE calls is deafening – FT Alphaville