Seeking Alpha
Registered investment advisor, bonds, ETF investing, forex
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

Now, now, children -- stop fighting, this is unbecoming! It is apparent now that the disagreements in the FOMC -- while nothing new -- are becoming more significant and the hurly-burly is spilling out into the public eye. It is somewhat amazing to me that the Fed is allowing this argument to be conducted in public (traditionally, all remarks by Fed officials are first vetted by the Chairman's office). Today, Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher actually questioned the Fed's credibility. This article is worth reading, and not just for the part where Fisher says that Yellen is "dead wrong on policy." It's also fascinating that Fisher attributed the decision to delay the taper to "a perceived 'tenderness'" in the housing recovery.

Below is a chart of the ratio of median existing-home sale prices to median household income. If this is "tenderness" in a recovery, it only shows a lack of knowledge of history: This is the second highest ratio of home prices to income we have since this particular data begins -- and the first highest ratio sunk the global economy for a half-decade and counting.

Source: Enduring Investments.

On the other side of the fence were the New York Fed's Bill Dudley and the Atlanta Fed's Dennis Lockhart, who lamented that (Dudley) there has been no pickup in the economy's "forward momentum" and asked (Lockhart) "Is America losing its economic mojo?" These questions, and the result of these questions during the recent FOMC meeting, illustrate two points. First, that the bar for removing never-before-seen levels of monetary accommodation has been raised so high that doves believe it is appropriate to keep the foot on the accelerator until growth is drastically above-average. As I illustrated at the beginning of August, it is unreasonable to expect more than about 200,000 new jobs per month to be created by the economy. Repairing all of the damage is simply going to take time. We would all love to see 5% growth, but is the Fed's job really to make sure that happens, or to try and manage the downside (or, as I personally believe, to merely manage the price level)?

The second point that the Fisher/Dudley/Lockhart comments illustrate is that the doves at the Fed are clearly in control. The hawks were completely unable even to get a marginal tapering, although the Fed had clearly indicated previously that such a taper was likely to happen.

It is a Dudley/Bernanke/Yellen Fed (and they have allies too), and anyone who thinks that the Fed is abruptly going to find religion once CPI peeks above 2% is fighting against all historical indications. One need only consider the fact that the post-FOMC meeting statement pointed out a "tightening of financial conditions observed in recent months," a clear reference to the rapid rise in interest rates that accompanied the initial talk about tapering. But if the Fed begged off on the taper partly because of the tightening of financial conditions, that is the rise in interest rates that was caused by an expectation that the taper would stop, then the argument circular, isn't it? It's impossible for them to stop, since any indication that they were going to stop is obviously going to cause interest rates to rise, which would be a tightening of financial conditions, which would keep them from stopping... Does anyone seriously think that a core inflation print of 2.1% would change that?

To the extent that going from 20 cups of coffee per day to 19 cups of coffee per day could be called a "bold step," wouldn't the best time to take such a "bold step" with monetary policy be when the equity markets are at their highs and real estate markets back above their long-term value anchors? And yet, the initial enthusiasm for the stock market for the continuation of QE seems to have faded rapidly. The entire post-FOMC rally that caused such joy around the offices of CNBC last Wednesday has been erased.

Interestingly, the initial spike in commodities prices has also been erased, which is more curious since commodities prices don't depend on growth as much as they do on inflation. And 10-year inflation expectations are back around 2.25%, basically the highest level they have seen since the Q2 swoon (see chart below). So, as usual, I am flummoxed by the behavior of commodities.

(click to enlarge)

Source: Bloomberg.

I know that there is a great deal of confidence in some quarters that the Federal Reserve can keep its foot on the gas until such time as inflation actually rises to a level that concerns them. I cannot imagine the reason for such confidence when the drivers of the car are such committed doves. There are multiple problems undermining my confidence in such a possibility. There is the "Wesbury hypothesis" that the Fed will adjust its definition of what worries them about inflation -- a hypothesis which, after this month's FOMC meeting, should be even more compelling.

There is the fact that there is no evidence I am aware of that the Fed was able to easily restrain inflation after it came unglued in any prior episode (and no one knows where and when and how it will come unglued). And finally, it isn't clear to me how the Fed would go about restraining inflation anyway, given the overabundance of excess reserves and the fact that those reserves insulate any inflation process against the tender ministrations of the central bank.

One thing seems sure: The food fight at the Fed is not likely to end soon, and together with the dysfunction on Capitol Hill is raises the very real question of whether anything economically helpful is going to be accomplished in Washington, D.C., this year.

Source: Food Fight At The Fed!