The Federal Reserve: No exit

I disagree with this article's rosey outcome but it's opinion on the Fed is interesting.

Despite internal dissent, the Fed plans to maintain ultra-easy monetary policy
Apr 22nd 2010 | WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist

AMERICA’S GDP is growing, the stockmarket is buoyant. Yet one thing has not changed: the Federal Reserve’s monetary pedal remains firmly pressed to the floor. For more than a year it has kept its short-term interest-rate target near zero while pledging to keep it there for an “extended period”. It has also bought $1.7 trillion of long-term bonds, primarily mortgage-backed securities (MBS), to keep long-term interest rates down.

That is unsettling some inside the Fed, fuelling speculation it will soon signal an exit from that ultra-easy monetary policy, perhaps even by altering its “extended period” commitment when its next two-day policy meeting wraps up on April 28th.

The most vocal dissident is Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and the Fed’s longest-serving policymaker, who has twice formally objected to the Fed’s “extended period” language. That commitment plus zero rates, he explained on April 7th, lead “banks and investors to search for yield… take on additional risk [and] increase leverage”. He argued the Fed should soon raise rates to 1% to “end the borrowing subsidy”.

The next day Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Minneapolis Fed, voiced a different concern: that the excess bank reserves created by the Fed’s MBS purchases create the potential for high inflation. He advocated selling $15 billion-25 billion of MBS a month, which would clear the Fed’s inventory in five years instead of the 30 it would take for the bonds to mature.

The rest of the Fed and its chairman, Ben Bernanke, have listened politely but are not ready to drop or even water down the “extended period” language, much less raise rates. Dropping the commitment would be tantamount to a tightening of monetary policy as bond yields rise in anticipation of short-term rate hikes. Mr Bernanke has already said the Fed would eventually sell some MBS, but not now. By pushing up long-term rates that too would be a tightening of monetary policy.

Bank credit is contracting and getting more expensive. Excess bank reserves will not lead to inflation so long as the Fed can still raise interest rates, which it can. Indeed, the Fed has an embarrassment of ways to tamp down inflationary pressure when the time comes, from raising interest rates on excess reserves to selling bonds to telling banks to tighten lending standards. It has far fewer tools at its disposal for battling deflation, not a remote risk.

Still, as long as the recovery proceeds, the debate cannot be put off forever. The Fed will spend a lot of its policy meeting talking about how to talk about its exit. The Bank of Canada has helpfully provided a tutorial. On April 20th it dropped its own commitment to keeping its short-term rate at 0.25% until the second half of this year, citing stronger growth and firmer inflation than expected. “The need for such extraordinary policy is now passing, and it is appropriate to begin to lessen the degree of monetary stimulus,” it said. Bond yields and the Canadian dollar rose in response.

The Fed also sees its “extended period” commitment as conditional. It does not mean six months, as many seem to think, but only as long as unemployment remains high and inflation (both actual and expected) stays low. If those things change, so will interest rates.