Matt Nolan

A step too far: The case against pursuing direct capital/trade/currency controls

/12 Comments/in , , , , , , , , /by

To start off with I have to admit I like Bernard Hickey.  I like the fact he has got out there, written about New Zealand economic issues, and pushed to add an open debate type platform to the discussion regarding the New Zealand economy.  As a result, I may have not been critical enough when I read his posts in the past – as I did not see this coming.  In truth, the calls for exchange rate, trade, and capital controls is a massive step too far in what could well be the wrong direction.  Let me talk about the points Hickey has raised:

Read more

Matt Nolan

A fishy conclusion from a Fisher relation

/in , , /by

Interesting.  Both a Fed economist and Stephen Williamson (the author of one of my undergrad macro books) have been saying that persistently low interest rates “cause” deflation in the long run (ht Economist’s view) [Lots of others, WCI *, Money blog, Angry Bear, Paul Krugman, Money Illusion].  This seems a little counter-intuitive, but this doesn’t mean anything is wrong – I’m going to write down a few of my thoughts to see if I can figure out what is going on.

I mean, I agree that the Fisher equation must hold, and I agree that the long-run real interest rate will be exogenous.  But this ain’t enough to tell me that having the Fed keep rates at 0.25% forever “causes” deflation.

Why?  The average Fed rate and inflation expectations are both endogenously determined – they seem to be treating the Fed’s choice as exogenous, when they follow a decision rule. Yes it is true that the cash rate at a point in time is a choice variable – but the average cash rate in the long-run should effectively be determined by the real interest rate and long-run inflation target. [Update Think of it this way, I’m really assuming the central bank follows a Taylor rule and that determines the nominal rate given the inflation target.  The big kicker for any argument like this will be the way inflation expectations are formed].

As a result, we could just as easily interpret rates staying at 0.25% forever as an indicator that inflation expectations are -1.75% -> in other words we observe a low nominal interest rate BECAUSE there is deflation.  Fundamentally, this tells us nothing – as the Fisher relationship is an equilibrium statement, not a casual relationship.

In fact, if there is indeed a forecast of rates staying at 0.25% forever there is a STRONG argument for making policy more stimulatory now – is that what the guy is trying to say?

If we want to discuss a causal relationship we need a causal model of our endogenous variables right – the Fisher equation is not this.

Update: I see where they are coming from now.  However, I believe the key issue is with regards to current policy – fundamentally the mentioning of deflation was taken in context of the CURRENT disinflation going on in the USA, and it seemed like a statement that was pushing for an increase in rates to avoid deflation.

I’m also nervous about the use of the word “cause” when any observed relationship in the data will not necessarily be clear – but I’m always nervous about causation so oww well.  Namely, if I see an average cash rate of 0.25% and average -1.75% inflation I wouldn’t say “aha, having the cash rate at that level caused that” – I would want more information on how inflation expectations got there in the first place …

Matt Nolan

Links for today

/in , , /by

In praise of clear targets for monetary policy:  Money Illusion.

Trade-off between gaining knowledge and creating knowledge, at the margin:  Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.

These are both excellent posts that I agree with.

Matt Nolan

Marginal rates, interest rates, and NZ monetary policy

/1 Comment/in , /by

One of the things that I find fascinating at the current time is the enormous gap (see page 9 of link) that has developed between marginal bank funding costs and the official cash rate.

By setting the OCR the RBNZ commits to borrowing an infinite amount off banks for 25bps less, or loaning an infinite amount too banks for 25bp more than the OCR.  Of course, this is now constrained by prudential regulation – but at the margin, the RBNZ sets the opportunity cost of bank borrowing and lending, and so can move around interest rates (which also depend on borrowers risk profile etc).

The increase in the “margin” on top of this has been assumed by many people to be permanent.  The main calls are:

  1. It is the result of higher risk, which is not going to abate soon
  2. It is the result of new prudential regulation

In part these are true.  However, is the assumption that this increased margin will remain forever really the best assumption when looking at how the OCR translates into interest rates?  Furthermore, as the OCR rises, is it fair to expect that the margin will remain unchanged, and marginal costs will keep rising by 25bps?

I’m not so sure – as I’m not convinced the Bank completely controls the marginal cost of funding right now.  Here are a few reasons off the top of my head:

  1. The Bank also focuses on financial regulation – as a result, borrowing from and lending too the Reserve Bank provides a signal of an individual banks quality.  Even though the RBNZ is willing to borrow and lend an infinite amount does not mean that individual banks will work on this basis – and marginal funding may infact come from other sources for new loans.
  2. Individual banks are constrained in setting lending rates on what they have set for deposit rates.  As deposit rates have been pushed up due to prudential regulation this has set a “floor” on lending rates – even when the marginal rate is lower, implying that the reaction to a rising OCR will be muted.
  3. International interest rates, even for moderately long maturities, are low.  This will, in turn, have an impact both on demand for funds from banks and the cost of funding from banks.  Note that, even with the new prudential regulation longer-term foreign lending can still often be used – and so could help to determine the marginal price for longer term lending.
  4. The new prudential regulations (will) mean that a bank has to fund 75% of a loan (currently 65%) from outside the RBNZ right.  So if they loan a new $1, the marginal cost of that dollar will be 3/4 set by the underlying market and 1/4 set by the OCR – at least this is my impression of how banks have to respond.

Ultimately, any factor that ensures that the “marginal $ borrowed or lent” is not coming from the RBNZ could also provide an explanation for why this “margin” has grown.  If this factor is the result of the OCR being historically low, then we can expect the OCR to have LESS punch as it rises.

This is fascinating – and I’m surprised that we haven’t seen more work come out about it.  By the end of next year, it will be very interesting to see how rates have responded to a rising OCR.  I am currently not convinced that the working assumption a perfect feed through is Bayesian rational 😉

Matt Nolan

RBNZ lifts rates for first time in three years

/1 Comment/in , /by

So the OCR went up 25 basis points.  Cool, that is nice.

It was almost entirely in line with expectations so there isn’t much to say, except:

  1. They more explicitly discussed Eric’s concerns regarding the impact of ETS increases into inflation expectations.
  2. They put table 5.2 in which talked about “who got what” from tax cuts.  OMG, seriously – this table was unnecessary.
  3. The continued to state that there is no real reason for our TOT to hold up – so a lot of the issues I’ve viewed as “structural” (rising commodity demand from China’s middle classes, Biofuels, falling subsidies on agriculture around the world) are being viewed as temporary by the Bank methinks.  This is why I will always disagree with their medium term forecasts …
Matt Nolan

A note on the ETS and inflation

/9 Comments/in , , /by

I was about to post a comment on Eric’s blog – but then the comment got long, and I realised I needed a blog post.  So here it is.

Eric Crampton raises some important points regarding the Reserve Bank’s view on the ETS in New Zealand.  Essentially, they are ignoring it – a policy decision that a lot of analysts have disagreed with.  However, this is one of those cases where I would tend to side with the Reserve Bank, lets work through the discussion to figure out what value judgments I’ve made to get there 😉

Update:  Eric discusses further here.

Read more