Tag Archives: Federal Reserve

Crises and Coordination

Leave a reply

Policy coordination often receives the same type of response as St. Augustine gave chastity: “Lord, grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.” A new volume from the IMF, edited by Atish R. Ghosh and Mahvash S. Qureshi, includes the papers from a 2015 symposium devoted to this subject. Policymakers in an open economy who take each other’s actions into account should be able to reach higher levels of welfare than they would working in isolation.  But actually engaging in coordination turns out to be harder–and less common– than many may think.

Jeffrey Frankel of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government uses game theory to illustrate the circumstances that hamper coordination. One factor may be a fundamental divergence in how different policymakers view a situation. Many analysts on this side of the Atlantic, for example, use the “locomotive game” to show that Germany should engage in expansionary fiscal policies that would raise output for all nations. But (most) German policymakers have different views of the external impact of deficit spending. In the case of the Eurozone, a deficit in one country increases the probability that it will need a bailout by the other members of the monetary union. Only rules such as those of the Stability and Growth Pact that limit deficit expenditures can eliminate the moral hazard that would otherwise lead to widespread defaults.

Charles Engel of the University of Wisconsin (working paper here) also examines the recent literature on central bank coordination. He points out that the identifying the source of shocks is necessary to assess the benefits of cooperation to address them, and suggests that financial sector shocks may be most relevant for modeling open-economy coordination. But widespread cooperation could undercut the ability of a central bank to credibly commit to a single target, such as an inflation target.

Policymakers in emerging markets who must deal with the consequences of policies in advanced economies have been particularly mindful of their spillover effects. Raghuram Rajan, for example, who is back at the University of Chicago after serving as head of India’s central bank, has urged the Federal Reserve and other central banks to take into account the impact that their policies have on other nations, particularly when unwinding their Quantitative Easing asset purchases. He pointed out: “Recipient countries are not being irrational when they protest both the initiation of unconventional policy as well as an exit whose pace is driven solely by conditions in the source country.”

If international cooperation is viewed as a bargaining game, what incentives do the advanced economies have for cooperative behavior in light of the asymmetries among nations? Engel points out that in such circumstances, “…the emerging markets may believe that they have too little say in this implicit agreement, which is to say that they may perceives themselves as having too little weight in the bargaining game.” Conversely, central banks in the upper-income countries may in ordinary circumstances see little need to extend the scope of their decision-making outside their borders.

This attitude changes, however, when a crisis occurs, as Frederic Mishkin of Columbia shows in his examination of the response of central bankers to the global financial crisis. The Federal Reserve established swap lines to provide dollars to foreign central banks in countries where domestic banks faced a withdrawal of the funding they had used to acquire dollar-denominated assets. In addition, six central banks—the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Sveriges Riksbank and the Swiss National Bank—announced a coordinated reduction of their policy rates. Coordination becomes quite relevant in a world of sudden stops and capital flight.

The need for such activities could increase if there is a global financial cycle, as Hélène Rey of the London Business School has stated. She presents evidence of the impact of global volatility, as measured by VIX, on international asset prices and capital flows. An important determinant of such volatility is monetary policy in the center countries. Rey agrees with Rajan that: “Central bankers of systemically important countries should pay more attention to their collective policy stance and its implications for the rest of the world.”

Perhaps a better motivation for the need for joint action comes from Charles Kindleberger’s list of the responsibilities that a hegemonic power such as Great Britain played in the period before World War I. These included acting as a lender of last resort during a financial crisis; indeed, it was the lack of such an international lender in the 1930s that Kindleberger believed was an important contributory factor to the Great Depression. Since the end of World War II the U.S. has vacillated in this role while the international monetary system has moved from crisis to crisis. Meanwhile, offshore credits denominated in dollars have grown in size, and could conceivably constrain the Federal Reserve’s ability to undertake purely domestic measures.

A policy of “America First” that means “America Only First and Last” ignores the fragility of the international financial system. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, no one doubts the merits of coordination when there is a disruption of global markets. But suffering another crisis would be an expensive reminder that the best time to minimize systemic risk is before a crisis erupts.

The Emerging Market Economies and the Appreciating Dollar

Leave a reply

U.S. policymakers are changing gears. First, the Federal Reserve has signaled its intent to raise its policy rate several times this year. Second, some Congressional policymakers are working on a border tax plan that would adversely impact imports. Third, the White House has announced that it intends to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure projects. How all these measures affect the U.S. economy will depends in large part on the timing of the interest rate rises and the final details of the fiscal policy measures. But they will have consequences outside our borders, particularly for the emerging market economies.

Forecasts for growth in the emerging markets and developing economies have generally improved. In January the IMF revised its global outlook for the emerging markets and developing economies (EMDE):

EMDE growth is currently estimated at 4.1 percent in 2016, and is projected to reach 4.5 percent for 2017, around 0.1 percentage point weaker than the October forecast. A further pickup in growth to 4.8 percent is projected for 2018.

The improvement is based in part on the stabilization of commodity prices, as well as the spillover of steady growth in the U.S. and the European Union. But the U.S. policy initiatives could upend these predications. A tax on imports or any trade restrictions would deter trade flows. Moreover, those policies combined with higher interest rates are almost guaranteed to appreciate the dollar. How would a more expensive dollar affect the emerging markets?

On the one hand, an appreciation of the dollar would help countries that export to the U.S. But the cost of servicing dollar-denominated debt would increase while U.S. interest rates were rising. The Bank for International Settlements has estimated that emerging market non-bank borrowers have accumulated about $3.6 trillion in such debt, so the amounts are considerable.

In addition, Valentina Bruno and Hyun Song Shin of the BIS have examined (working paper here) a “risk-taking” channel of U.S. monetary policy that links exchange rate movements to cross-border banking flows. In the case of an appreciation of a foreign currency, domestic banks in the affected countries channel funds from global banks to firms with local currency assets that have risen in value. A domestic currency depreciation in response to U.S. monetary policy will lead to a contraction in such lending.

Jonathan Kearns and Nikhil Patel of the BIS have sought to determine whether the “financial channel” of exchange rates offsets the “trade channel.” The sample of countries they use in their empirical analysis includes 22 advanced economies and 22 emerging market economies, and the data for most of these countries begins in the mid-1990s and extends through the third quarter of 2016. They use two exchange rate indexes, where the indexes measures the foreign exchange values of the domestic currency, in one case weighted by trade flows and the second by foreign currency-denominated debt.

Their results provide evidence for both channels that is consistent with expectations: the trade-weighted index has a negative elasticity, while the debt-weighted index has a positive linkage. For 13 of the 22 emerging market economies, the sum of the two elasticities is positive, indicating than an equal appreciation of the domestic currency would be expansionary. The financial channel is stronger for those emerging market economies with more foreign currency debt.

Does this indicate that further appreciation of the dollar will lead to the long-anticipated debt crisis in the emerging markets? When Kearns and Patel replaced the debt-weighted exchange rate index with the bilateral dollar rate, they found that the debt-weighted index does a better job in capturing the financial channel than the dollar exchange rate alone. The other foreign currencies in the debt-weighted index included the euro, the yen, the pound and the Swiss franc, so a rise in the dollar is not as important when the debt is denominated in the other currencies.

Domestic policymakers in the emerging market countries seem to have done a good job in restraining domestic credit growth, which is often the precursor of financial crises. There is one significant exception: China. One recent estimate of its debt/GDP ratio placed that figure at 277% at the end of 2016. The government is attempting to slow this expansion down without destabilizing the economy, which now has a growth target of 6.5%. What happens if the dollar appreciates against the renminbi as it did last year, when China used up a trillion dollars in foreign exchange reserves in an attempt to slow the loss in value of its currency? About half of China’s external debt is denominated in its own currency, so it has less to fear on this score than do other borrowers.

A team of IMF economists that included Julian Chow, Florence Jaumotte, Seok Gil Park, and Yuanyan Sophia Zhang examined in 2015 the spillovers from a dollar appreciation. They noted that many emerging market economies are currently less vulnerable to a dollar appreciation than they were during previous periods. However, they also reported that some countries in eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States have short positions in dollar-denominated debt instruments. They investigated corporate borrowing, including debt denominated in foreign currencies, and performed a stress test analysis based on higher borrowing costs, a decline in earnings and an exchange rate depreciation to see which countries had the most vulnerable firms. They reported that increases in foreign exchange exposure would be largest in Brazil, Chile, India, Indonesia and Malaysia. They concluded their report: “Should a combination of severe macroeconomic shocks affect the nonfinancial sector, debt at risk would further rise, putting pressure on banking systems’ buffers, especially in countries where corporate and banking sectors are already weak. “

Another team of Fund economists, led by Selim Elekdag, also investigated rising corporate borrowing in the emerging market economies in the October 2015 Global Financial Stability Report. They attributed the rise in corporate debt in these countries to accommodative global monetary conditions. Consequently, these firms are quite vulnerable to changes in U.S. interest rates.

Some analysts see signs of a “virtuous cycle” in many emerging market economies. The motivating factors range from pro-growth policies in India to China’s ability (to date) to avoid a severe slowdown. But these economies are quite vulnerable to external developments. The Federal Reserve recognize this, and takes the foreign impact of its policies into account. But no such assurance comes from the rest of the U.S. government. President Trump’s fulfillment of his promise to disrupt the normal policy process in Washington will have a broad impact outside the U.S. as well.

The Search for an Effective Macro Policy

1 Reply

Economic growth in the advanced economies seems stalled. This summer the IMF projected increases in GDP in these economies of 1.8% for both 2016 and 2017. This included growth of 2.2% this year in the U.S. and 2.5% in 2017, 1.6% and 1.4% in the Eurozone in 2016 and 2017 respectively, and 0.3% and 0.1% in Japan. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has called on the Group of 20 countries to use all available tools to raise growth, as has the IMF’s Managing Director Christine Lagarde. So why aren’t the G20 governments doing more?

The use of discretionary fiscal policy as a stimulus seems to be jammed, despite renewed interest in its effectiveness by macroeconomists such as Christopher Sims of Princeton University. While the U.S. presidential candidates talk about spending on much-needed infrastructure, there is little chance that a Republican-controlled House of Representatives would go along. In Europe, Germany’s fiscal surplus gives it the ability to increase spending that would benefit its neighbors, but it shows no interest in doing so (see Brad Setser and Paul Krugman). And the IMF does not seem to be following its own policy guidelines in its advice to individual governments.

One of the traditional concerns raised by fiscal deficits rests on their impact on the private spending that will be crowded out by the subsequent rise in interest rates. But this is not a relevant problem in a world of negative interest rates in many advanced economies and very low rates in the U.S. The increase in sovereign debt payments should be more than offset by the increase in economic activity that will be reinforced by the effect of spending on infrastructure on future growth.

On the other hand, there has been no hesitation by monetary policymakers in responding to economic conditions. They initially reacted to the global financial crisis by cutting policy rates and providing liquidity to banks. When the ensuing recovery proved to be weak, they undertook large-scale purchases of assets, known in the U.S. as “quantitative easing,” to bring down long-term rates that are relevant for business loans and mortgages.The asset purchases of the central banks led to massive expansions of their balance sheets on a scale never seen before. The Federal Reserve’s assets, for example, rose from about $900 billion in 2007 to $4.4 trillion this summer. Similarly, the Bank of Japan holds assets worth about $4.5 trillion, while the European Central Bank owns $3.5 trillion of assets.

The interventions of the central banks were successful in bringing down interest rates. They also elevated the prices of financial assets, including stock prices. But their impact on real economic activity seems to be stunted. While the expansion in the U.S. has lowered the unemployment rate to 4.9%, the inflation rate utilized by the Federal Reserve continues to fall below the target 2%. Investment spending is weaker than desired, despite the low interest rates. Indeed, many firms have sufficient cash to finance capital expenditures, but prefer to hold it back. The situations in Europe and Japan are bleaker. Investment in the Eurozone, where the unemployment rate is 10.1%., remains below its pre-crisis peak. Japan also sees weak investment that contributes to its stagnant position.

If lower interest rates do not stimulate domestic demand, there is an alternative channel of transmission: the exchange rate, which can improve the trade balance through expenditure switching. But there are several disturbing aspects of a dependence on a currency depreciation to increase output (see also here). First, there is an adverse impact on domestic firms with liabilities denominated in a foreign currency, as the cost of servicing and repaying that debt rises. Second, expansionary monetary policy does not always have the expected impact on the exchange rate. The Japanese yen appreciated last spring despite the central bank’s acceptance of negative interest rates to spur spending. Third, a successful depreciation requires the willingness of some other nation to accept an appreciation of its currency. The U.S. seems to have accepted that role, but Mohammed A. El-Erian has pointed out, U.S. firms are concerned “…about the impact of a stronger dollar on their earnings…” He also points to “…declining inward tourism and a deteriorating trade balance…” Under these circumstances, the willingness of the U.S. government to continue to accept an appreciating dollar is not guaranteed.

There is one other consequence of advanced economies pushing down their interest rates: increased capital flows to emerging market economies. Foreign investors, who had pulled out of bond markets in these countries for much of the last three years, have now reversed course. The inflows may help out those countries that face adverse economic conditions. But if/when the Federal Reserve resumes raising its policy rate, the attraction of these markets may pall.

The search for an effective macro policy tool, therefore, is constrained by political considerations as much as the paucity of options. But there is another factor: is it possible to return to pre-2008 economic growth rates? Harvard’s Larry Summers points out that those rates were based on an unsustainable housing bubble. He believes that private spending will not return us to full-employment, and urges the Fed to keep interest rates low and the government to engage in debt-financed investments in infrastructure projects. Ken Rogoff (also of Harvard), on the other hand, believes that we are suffering the downside of a debt supercycle. Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University blames deficient aggregate demand in part on income inequality.

The one common theme that emerges from these different analyses is that there is no “quick fix” that will restore the advanced economies to some economic Eden. Structural and other forces are acting as headwinds to slow growth. But voters are not interested in long-run analyses, and many will turn to those who claim that they have solutions, no matter how potentially disastrous those are.

 

The Role of the U.S. in the Global Financial System

Leave a reply

The mandate of the Federal Reserve is clear: “…promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates.” How to achieve those goals, of course, has been the subject of great debate: should the central bank use interest rates or monetary aggregates? should it rely on rules or discretion? The ongoing controversy within the U.S. over the benefits and costs of globalization opens up the issue of the geographic scope of the Fed’s responsibilities: does the Fed (and for that matter the U.S. Treasury) need to worry about the rest of the world?

Stanley Fischer, Federal Reserve Vice Chair (and former first deputy managing director of the IMF) sees a role for limited intervention. Fischer acknowledges the feedback effects between the U.S. and the rest of the world. The U.S. economy represents nearly one quarter of the global economy, and this preponderance means that U.S. developments have global spillovers. Changes in U.S. interest rates, for example, are transmitted to the rest of the world, and the “taper tantrum” showed how severe the responses could be. Therefore, Fischer argues, our first responsibility is “to keep our own house in order.” It also entails acknowledging that efforts to restore financial stability can not be limited by national borders. During the global financial crisis, the Fed established swap lines with foreign central banks so that they could provide liquidity to their own banks that had borrowed in dollars to hold U.S. mortgage-backed securities. Fischer cautions, however, that the Fed’s global responsibilities are not unbounded. He acknowledges Charles Kindleberger’s assertion that international stability can only be ensured by a financial hegemon or global central bank, but Fischer states, “…the U.S. Federal Reserve System is not that bank.”

The U.S. did hold that hegemonic position, however, during the Bretton Woods era when we ensured the convertibility of dollars held by central banks to gold. We abandoned the role when President Richard Nixon ended gold convertibility in 1971 and the Bretton Woods system subsequently ended. Governments have subsequently experimented with all sorts of exchange rate regimes, from fixed to floating and virtually everything in between.

While many countries do not intervene in the currency markets, others do, so there is a case for a reserve currency. But perhaps more importantly, we live in an era of global finance, and much of these financial flows are denominated in dollars. The offshore dollar banking system, which began in the 1960s with the Eurodollar market, now encompasses emerging markets as well as upper-income countries. This financial structure is vulnerable to systemic risk. Patrick Foulis of The Economist believes that “The lesson of 2007-08 was that a run in the offshore dollar archipelago can bring down the entire financial system, including Wall Street, and that the system needs a lender of last resort.”

Are there alternatives to the U.S. as a linchpin? The IMF is the international agency assigned the task of ensuring the provision of the international public good of international economic and financial stability. Its track record during the 2008-09 crisis showed that it could respond quickly and with enough financial firepower to deal with global volatility (see Chapter 10). But it can only move when its principals, the 189 member nations, allow it to do so. The Fund’s subsequent dealings with the European nations in the Greek financial crisis demonstrate that it can be tripped up by politics.

Is China ready to take on the responsibilities of an international financial hegemon? Its economy rivals, if not surpasses, that of the U.S. in size, and it is a dominant international global trader. China’s financial footprint is growing as well, and the central bank has established its own series of swap lines. This past year the renminbi was included in the basket of currencies that are used to value the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights. But the government has moved cautiously in removing capital account regulations in order to avoid massive flows in either direction, so there is limited liquidity. Chinese debt problems do not encourage confidence in its ability to deal with financial stress.

The Federal Reserve is well aware that international linkages work both ways. Fed Chair Janet Yellen cited concerns about the Chinese economy last fall when the Fed held back its first increase in the Federal Funds rate. And Fed Governor Lael Brainard believes that the global role of the dollar and the proximity to a zero lower bound may amplify spillovers from foreign conditions onto the U.S.

Whether or not the U.S. has a special responsibility to promote international financial stability may depend in part on one’s views of the stability of global capital markets. If they are basically stable and only occasionally pushed into episodes of excess volatility, then coordinated national policies may be sufficient to return them to normalcy. But if the structure of the global financial system is inherently shaky, then the U.S. needs to be ready to step in when the next crisis occurs. Andrés Velasco of Columbia University believes that “Recent financial history suggests that the next liquidity crisis is just around the corner, and that such crises can impose enormous economic and social costs. And in a largely dollarized world economy, the only certain tool for avoiding such crises is a lender of last resort in dollars.”

Unfortunately, if a crisis does occur it will take place during a period when the U.S. is reassessing its international ties. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican candidate, achieved that position in part because of his argument that past U.S. trade and finance deals were against our national interests. He shows little interest in maintaining multilateral arrangements such as the United Nations. Trump has announced that he would most likely replace Janet Yellen because of her political affiliation. It is doubtful that the criteria for a new Chair would include a sensitivity to the international ramifications of U.S. policies.

The interest of the U.S. public in international dealings has always waxed and waned, and Trump’s nomination is a sign that we are in a period when many believe we should minimize our engagement with the rest of the world. But this will be difficult to do as long as the dollar remains the predominant world currency for private as well as official use. Regardless of domestic politics, we will not escape the fallout of another crisis, regardless of where it starts. It would be better to accept our international role and seeks ways to minimize risk than to undertake a futile attempt to make the world go away.

Monetary Policy in an Open Economy

Leave a reply

The recent research related to the trilemma (see here) confirms that policymakers who are willing to sacrifice control of the exchange rate or capital flows can implement monetary policy. For most central banks, this means using a short-term interest rate, such as the Federal Funds rate in the case of the Federal Reserve in the U.S. or the Bank of England’s Bank Rate. But the record raises doubts about whether this is sufficient to achieve the policymakers’ ultimate economic goals.

The short-term interest rate does not directly affect investment and other expenditures. But it can lead to a rise in long-term rates, which will have an effect on spending by firms and households. The relationship of short-term and long-term rates appears in the yield curve. This usually has a positive slope to reflect expectations of future short-term real rates, future inflation and a term premium. Changes in short-term rates can lead to movements in long-term rates, but in recent years the long-term rates have not always responded as central bankers have wished. Former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan referred to the decline in U.S. long-term rates in 2005 as a “conundrum.” This problem is exacerbated in other countries’ financial markets, where long-term interest rates are affected by U.S. rates (see, for example, here and here) and global factors.

Central banks that sought to increase spending during the global financial crisis by lowering interest rates faced a new obstacle: the zero lower bound on interest rates. Policymakers who could not lower their nominal policy rates any further have sought to increase inflation in order to bring down real rates. To accomplish this, they devised a new policy tool, quantitative easing. Under these programs, central bankers purchased large amounts of bonds with longer maturities than they use for open market transactions and from a variety of issuers in order to bring down long-term rates. The U.S. engaged in such purchases between 2008 and 2014, while the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are still engaged in similar transactions. As a consequence of these purchases, the balance sheets of central banks swelled enormously.

In an open economy, there is another channel of transmission to the economy for monetary policy: the exchange rate. If a central bank can engineer a currency depreciation, an expansion in net exports could supplement or take the place of the desired change in domestic spending. A series of currency depreciations last summer led to concerns that some central banks were moving in that direction.

But there are many reasons why using exchange rate movements are not a solution to less effective domestic monetary policies. First, if a central bank wanted to use the exchange rate as a tool, it would have to fix it. But it then would have to surrender control of domestic money or block capital flows to satisfy the constraint of the trilemma. Second, there is no simple relationship between a central bank’s policy interest rate and the foreign exchange value of its currency. Exchange rates, like any asset price, exhibit a great deal of volatility. Third, the impact on an economy of a currency depreciation does not always work the way we might expect. Former Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke has pointed out that the impact of a cheaper currency on relative prices is balanced by the stimulative effect of the easing of monetary policy on domestic income and imports.

Of course, this does not imply that central banks need not take notice of exchange rate movements. There are other channels of transmission besides trade flows. The Asian crisis showed that a depreciation raises the value of debt liabilities denominated in foreign currencies, which can lead to bankruptcies and banking crises. We may see this phenomenon again in emerging markets as those firms that borrowed in dollars when U.S. rates were cheap have difficulty in meeting their obligations as both interest rates and the value of the dollar rise (see here).

Georgios Georgiadis and Arnaud Mehl of the European Central Bank have investigated the impact of financial globalization on monetary policy effectiveness. They find that economies that are more susceptible to global financial cycles show a weaker response of output to monetary policy. But they also find that economies with larger net foreign currency exposures exhibit a stronger response of output to monetary policy shocks. They conclude: “Overall, we find that the net effect of financial globalization since the 1990s has been to amplify monetary policy effectiveness in the typical advanced and emerging markets economy.”

While their results demonstrate the importance of exchange rate in economic fluctuations, that need not mean that monetary policy is “effective” as a policy tool. As explained above, flexible (or loosely managed) exchange rates are unpredictable. They can change in response to capital flows that react to foreign variables as well as domestic factors. The trilemma may hold in the narrow sense that central banks maintain control of their own policy rates if exchange rates are flexible. But what the policymakers can achieve with this power is circumscribed in an open economy.

The Challenges of the Greek Crisis

Leave a reply

The Greek crisis has abated, but not ended. Representatives of the “troika” of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund returned to Athens for talks with the Greek government about a new bailout. This pause allows an accounting of the many challenges that the events in Greece pose to the international community.

The main challenge, of course, is to the Greek government itself, which must implement the fiscal and other measures contained in the agreement with the European governments. These include steps to liberalize labor markets as well as open up protected sectors of the economy. While these structural reforms should promote growth over time, in the short-run they will lead to layoffs and reorganizations. At the same time, Prime Minister Alex Tsipras must oversee tax rises and cuts in spending. The combined impact of all these measures, which follow the virtual shutdown of the financial sector during the protracted negotiations with the European governments, will postpone any resumption in growth that past efforts may have generated.

It is not clear how long the Greek public will endure further misery. Any form of debt restructuring may give policymakers some justification to continue with the agreement. New elections will clarify the degree of political support for the pact. But the possibility of an exit from the Eurozone has not been removed, either in the eyes of Greek politicians or those of officials of other governments.

The Greek crisis, however, is not the only hazard that the Eurozone faces. The Eurozone’s governments have yet to come to terms with the effects of the global financial crisis on its members’ finances. A split prevails between those countries that ally themselves with the German position that debt must be repaid and those that seek with France to find some sort of middle ground. Other European countries with debt/GDP ratios of over 100% include Belgium, Portugal, and Italy. Weak economic growth could push any of them into a situation where the costs of refinancing become daunting. How would the Eurozone governments respond? Would they bail out another member? If so, would the terms differ from those imposed on Greece? Would European banks be able to pass the distressed debt on to their own governments?

In the long-term, the governments of the Eurozone face the dilemma of how to reconcile centralized rule-making with national sovereignty. The ECB, for example, has been granted supervisory oversight of the banks in the Eurozone. It will exercise direct oversight of over 100 banks deemed to be “significant,” while sharing responsibility with national supervisors for the remaining approximately 3,500 banks. The ECB has a Supervisory Board, supported by a Steering Committee, to plan and executes its supervisory tasks, which supposedly allows it to separate its bank supervisory function from its role in setting monetary policy. All these agencies and committees must work out their respective jurisdictions and responsibilities. Meanwhile, the European Commission, which oversees fiscal policies, faces requests for exemptions from its budget guidelines by governments with faltering growth. But if it shows flexibility in enforcing its own rules, it will be derided as weak and ineffective.

The IMF has its own set of challenges. The IMF was sharply criticized for its response to the wave of crises that struck emerging markets in the last 1990s and early 2000s, beginning with Mexico in 1994 and extending to Turkey and Argentina in 2001. Critics charged that the IMF was slow to respond to the rapid “sudden stops” of capital outflows that set off and exacerbated the crises. When the Fund did act, it attached too many conditions to its programs; moreover, these conditions were harsh and inappropriate for crises based on capital outflows.

The global financial crisis gave the IMF a second chance to demonstrate its crisis-management abilities (for a full account, see here). The Managing Director at the time, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, seized the opportunity to redeem the IMF ‘s reputation, as well as reestablish his own political career in France. The IMF lent quickly to its members, attached relatively few conditions to the loans, and allowed the use of fiscal measures to stabilize domestic economies. The result was less severe adjustment, the avoidance of excessive exchange rate movements and a resumption of economic growth. By the time the global economy recovered, the IMF had proven that it could respond in a flexible manner to a financial emergency.

The IMF’s response in 2010 to the Greek debt crisis was very different. The IMF’s loan to Greece was the first to a Eurozone member; moreover, the loan was much larger than any the IMF had extended before, whether measured by the total amount of credit or as a percentage of the borrowing country’s quota at the Fund. To make the loan, the IMF had to overlook one of it own guidelines for granting “exceptional access” by a member to Fund credit. Such loans were to be made only if the borrowing government’s debt would be sustainable in the medium-term. Greece’s debt burden did not pass this criterion, so the Fund justified its actions on the grounds that there was a risk of “international systemic spillovers.”

The IMF’s involvement in the Greek program was also unusual in another sense: the IMF’s contribution, as large as it was, was still smaller than that of the European governments. The IMF was, in effect, a “junior partner.” While it had worked with other governments before (such as the U.S. when it lent to Mexico in 1994-95), this was the first time that the IMF was not in a lead position. This may have initially made it reluctant to disagree with the other members of the troika.

The subsequent contraction in the Greek economy far exceeded the IMF’s forecasts. The IMF later admitted that it underestimated the size of the multipliers for the fiscal policies contained in the program in a paper co-authored by the head of the IMF’s Research Department, Olivier Blanchard (see also here). The failure to properly estimate the impact of these conditions calls into doubt the basic premises of the 2010 and 2012 programs.

More recently, the IMF has challenged its European partners over their projections for the Greek debt, as well as the budget and fiscal targets contained in the latest agreement. The Fund claims that the debt projections are much too optimistic. Greece’s debt will only be sustainable if there is debt relief on a much larger scale than the European governments have been willing to undertake. Moreover, the IMF states that it will not be part of any new programs for Greece if debt relief is not a component.

The public admission of error and the rebukes of the European governments will only partially restore the IMF’s reputation. The generous treatment of Greece as well as Ireland and Portugal reinforces the belief that the European countries and the U.S. control the IMF. The members of the European Union have a total quota share of almost one-third, much larger than their share of world GDP. This voting share combined with the U.S. quota gives these countries almost half of all the voting shares at the IMF. The need for a realignment of the quotas to give the emerging market nations a larger share has long been acknowledged, but approval of the reform measures is mired in the U.S. Congress.

Another aspect of European and U.S. control of the “Bretton Woods twins”—the IMF and the World Bank—has been their selection of the heads of these organizations. All the Managing Directors of the IMF have been Europeans, and until the appointment of Ms. Lagarde, European males. All the heads of the World Bank have been U.S. citizens. Ms. Lagarde’s term expires next July, and the pressure to name a non-European will be tremendous. How the Europeans and U.S. respond to this challenge will go a long way in determining whether these institutions will be shunted aside by the emerging market nations in favor of institutions that they can control.

The last challenge of the Greek crisis comes for the Federal Reserve. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has been explaining that a rise in the Fed’s policy rate, the Federal Funds rate, is likely to occur later this year. This forecast, however, is contingent on continued economic growth and favorable labor market conditions. These plans could be threatened by any financial volatility that followed a disruption in the latest Greece bailout.

The Federal Reserve is also aware that a rise in interest rates would affect the dollar/euro exchange rate. The euro, which has been depreciating, could fall lower when the Fed raises rates while the ECB keeps its refinancing rate at 0.05%. A further appreciation of the dollar would threaten U.S. exports, thus endangering a recovery.

The Fed also faces concerns about the broader impact of its policy initiatives on the world economy. The IMF is worried about how a rate rise would affect the global economy, and has urged the Fed to hold off on interest rate increases until 20016. Companies that borrowed in dollars through bonds and bank loans will be adversely affected by the combined effects of an interest rate rise and a dollar appreciation.

Greece’s GDP accounts for only 0.4% of world GDP and about 1.3% of the European Union’s total output. But the global financial crisis demonstrated how financial linkages across sectors and countries can disrupt economic activity no matter what their source. The response to these incidents by national and international authorities can risk global stability if they are based on self-interest and organizational agendas. Commitments to cooperation disappear quickly when national concerns are threatened.

(A Powerpoint version of this post is available here.)

The U.S.: Inept Diplomacy, Indispensable Currency

Leave a reply

The announcements by several European governments that they would join the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) have been widely seen as indicators of the declining position of the U.S.  The AIIB had been proposed by China for the purpose of funding much-needed infrastructure projects in Asian countries. The U.S. had discouraged other governments from joining, ostensibly on the grounds that the new institution would overlap with the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. But the real reason seemed to be a concern that the Chinese would have a regional forum to wield power.

The New York Times held both the Congress and President Obama responsible for mishandling the issue. The U.S. claimed it sought to ensure better governance in the new institution, but gave no signal of being willing to work with the Chinese and others to make the AIIB an effective agency. The continuing refusal of Congress to approve reforms in the IMF’s governance structure gives the Chinese and other emerging markets ample cause to look elsewhere. The Economist put it starkly: “China has won, gaining the support of American allies not just in Asia but in Europe, and leaving America looking churlish and ineffectual.”

And yet: the same issue of The Economist stated that “In the world of economics, one policy maker towers above all others…,”, and named Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen as holder of that position due to the sheer size of the U.S. economy. The influence of the U.S. in financial flows extends far outside national borders. A study by Robert N.McCauley, Patrick McGuire and Vladyslav Sushko of the Bank for International Settlements estimated that the amount of dollar-denominated credit received by non-financial borrowers outside the U.S. totaled $9 trillion by mid-2014. Over two-thirds of the credit originated outside the U.S., with about $3.7 trillion coming from banks and $2.7 from bond investors. The report’s authors found that dollar credit extended to non-U.S. borrowers grew much more rapidly than did credit within the U.S. during the post-global financial crisis period.

Almost half of this amount went to borrowers in emerging markets, particularly China ($1.1 trillion), Brazil ($300 billion), and India ($125 billion). In the case of Brazil, most of the funds were raised through the issuance of bonds, while bank lending accounted for the largest proportion of credit received by borrowers in China. Much of this credit was routed through the subsidiaries of firms outside their home countries, and balance of payments data would not capture these flows.

The study’s authors attributed the rise in borrowing in emerging markets to their higher interest rates. Consequently, any rise in U.S. interest rates will have global repercussions. The growth in dollar-denominated credit outside the U.S. should slow. But there may be other, less constructive consequences. Borrowers will face higher funding costs, and loans or bonds that looked safe at one interest rate may be less so at another. This situation is worsened by an appreciating dollar if the earnings of the borrowers are not also denominated in dollars. The rise in the value of the dollar has already prompted reassessments of financial fragility outside the U.S.

All this puts U.S. monetary policymakers in a delicate position. Ms. Yellen has made it clear that the Fed is in no hurry to raise interest rates. The Federal Reserve wants to see what happens to prices and wages as well as unemployment before it moves. The appreciation of the dollar pushes that date further into the future by keeping inflation rates depressed while cutting into the profitability of U.S. firms. While the impact of higher rates on credit markets outside the U.S. most likely has a relatively low place on the Fed’s list of concerns, Fed policymakers certainly are aware of the potential for collateral damage.

All this demonstrates the discrepancy between the diplomatic and financial power of the U.S. On the one hand, the U.S. must deal with countries that are eager to claim their places in global governance. The dominance of the U.S. and other G7 nations in international institutions is a relic of a world that came to an end with the global financial crisis. On the other hand, the dollar is still the predominant international currency, and will hold that place for many years to come. The use of the renminbi is slowly growing but it will be a long time before it can serve as an alternative to the dollar. Consequently, the actions of the Federal Reserve may have more international repercussions than those of U.S. policymakers unable to cope with the shifting landscape of financial diplomacy.

 

Dealing with the Fallout from U.S. Policies

Leave a reply

The divergence of monetary policies in the advanced economies continues to roil financial markets. The Federal Reserve has reacted to better labor market conditions by ending its quantitative easing policy. The Bank of Japan, on the other hand, will expand its purchases of securities, and the European Central Bank has indicated its willingness to undertake unconventional policies if inflation expectations do not rise. The differences in the prospects between the U.S. and Great Britain on the one hand and the Eurozone and Japan on the other has caused Nouriel Roubini to liken the global economy to a jetliner with only one engine still functioning.

The effect of U.S. interest rates on international capital flows is well-documented. Many countries are vulnerable to changes in U.S. policies that can reverse financial flows. Countries that have relied on capital flows searching for a higher yield to finance their current account deficits are particularly susceptible. Declining commodity prices reinforce the exposure of commodity exporters such as Brazil and Russia.

U.S. markets affect capital flows in other ways. Erlend Nier, Tahsin Saadi Sedik and Tomas Molino of the IMF have investigated the key drivers of private capital flows in a sample of emerging market economies during the last decade. They found that changes in economic volatility, as measured by the VIX (the Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index, which measures the implied volatility of S&P 500 index options), are the “dominant driver of capital flows to emerging markets” during periods of global financial stress. During such periods, the influence of fundamental factors, such as growth differentials, diminishes. Countries can defend themselves with higher interest rates, but at the cost of slowing their domestic economies.

When the IMF’s economists included data from advanced economies in their empirical analysis, they found that the impact of the VIX was higher in those economies. They inferred that as countries develop financially, “capital flows could therefore be increasingly influenced by external factors.” Financial integration, therefore, will lead to more vulnerability to the VIX.

Volatility in U.S. equity markets drives up the VIX. Moreover, empirical analyses, such as one by Corradi, Distaso and Mele, find that U.S. variables, such as the Industrial Production Index and the Consumer Price Index, explain part of the changes in the VIX. U.S. economic conditions, therefore, affect global capital flows through more linkages than interest rates alone.

What are the implications for U.S. policymakers? The Federal Open Market Committee does not usually consider the impact of its policy directives on foreign economies. On the other hand, the Fed is well aware of the feedback from foreign economies to the U.S. Moreover, there are measures the U.S. could undertake to lessen the impact of its policy shifts on foreign markets.

During the global financial crisis, for example, the Federal Reserve established swap arrangements for 14 foreign central banks, including those of Brazil, Mexico, Singapore and South Korea. These gave the foreign financial regulators the ability to lend dollars to their banks that had financed holdings of U.S. assets by borrowing in the U.S. However, not all emerging markets’ central banks were deemed eligible for this financial relationship, leaving some of them disappointed (see Prasad, Chapter 11).

Federal Reserve officials have signaled that they are not interested in serving again as a source of liquidity. One alternative would be to allow the IMF to take over this capacity. But the U.S. Congress has not passed the legislation needed to implement long-overdue governance reforms at the Fund, and it is doubtful that the results of the recent elections will lead to a different stance. Not many foreign countries will be in favor of enabling the IMF to undertake new obligations until the restructuring of that institution’s governance is resolved.

Volatile capital flows have the potential of sabotaging already-anemic recoveries in many emerging market countries. The global financial architecture continues to lack reliable backstops in the event of more instability. The U.S. should cooperate with other nations and international financial institutions in addressing the fallout from its economic policies, either by directly providing liquidity or allowing the international institutions to do so.

Tapering and the Emerging Markets

6 Replies

The response of the exchange rates of emerging markets and their equity markets to the Federal Reserve’s “taper,” i.e., reduction in asset purchases, continues to draw comment (see, for example, here). Most analysts agree that these economies are in better shape to deal with capital outflows than they were in the past, and that the risk of another Asian-type crisis is relatively low. But that does not mean that their economies will react the way we expect.

Gavyn Davies of Fulcrum Asset Management, who has a blog at the Financial Times, has posted the transcript of a “debate” he organized with Maurice Obstfeld of UC-Berkeley, Alan M. Taylor of UC-Davis and Dominic Wilson, chief economist and co-head of Global Economics Research at Goldman Sachs, on the financial turbulence in the emerging markets. “Debate” is not the best word to describe the discussion, as there are many areas of agreement among the participants. Obstfeld points out that there are far fewer fixed exchange rate regimes in today’s emerging markets, and many of their monetary policymakers have adopted policy regimes of inflation targeting. Moreover, the accumulation of foreign exchange by the central banks leaves them in a much stronger position than they were in the 1990s. Taylor adds fiscal prudence and less public debt to the factors that make emerging markets much less risky.

But all the participants are concerned about the winding down of the credit booms that capital inflows fueled. Wilson worries about economies with current account deterioration, easy monetary policy, above-target inflation, weak linkages to the recovery in the developed markets and institutions of questionablestrength. He cites Turkey, India and Brazil as countries that meet these criteria. Similarly, Taylor lists countries with relatively rapid expansion in domestic credit over the 2002-2012 period, and Brazil and India appear vulnerable on these dimensions as well.

Another analysis of the determinants of international capital flows comes from Marcel Förster, Markus Jorra and Peter Tillmann of the University of Giessen. They estimate a dynamic hierarchical factor model of capital flows that distinguishes among a common global factor, a factor dependent on the type of capital inflow, a regional factor and a country-specific component. They report that the country component explains from 60 – 80% of the volatility in capital flows, and conclude that domestic policymakers have a large degree of influence over their economy’s response to capita flows.

But are “virtuous” policies always rewarded? Joshua Aizenman of the University of Southern California, Michael Hutchison of UC-Santa Cruz and Mahir Binici of the Central Bank of Turkey have a NBER paper that investigates the response in exchange rates, stock markets and credit default swap (CDS) spreads to announcements from Federal Reserve officials on tapering. They utilize daily data for 26 emerging markets during the period of November 27, 2012 to October 3, 2013. They looked at the response to statements from Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke regarding tapering, as well as his comments about the continuation of quantitative easing. They also looked at the impact of statements from Federal Reserve Governors and Federal Reserve Bank Presidents on these topics, as well as official Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) statements.

Their results show that Bernanke’s comments on winding down asset purchases led to significant drops in stock markets and exchange rate depreciations, but had no significant impact on CDS spreads. There were no significant responses to statements from the other Fed officials. On the other hand, there were significant responses in exchange rates when Bernanke spoke about continuing quantitative easing, as well as to FOMC statements and announcements by the other policymakers.

The countries in the sample were then divided between those viewed as possessing “robust” fundamentals, with current account surpluses, large holdings of foreign exchange reserves and low debt, and those judged to be “fragile” due to their current account deficits, small reserve holdings and high debt. Bernanke’s tapering comments resulted in larger immediate depreciations in the countries with current account surpluses as oppose to those with deficits, more reserves and less debt.  Similarly, Bernanke’s statements led to increased CDS spreads in the countries with current account surpluses and large reserve holdings, while lowering equity prices in countries with low debt positions. The immediate impact of the news regarding tapering, therefore, seemed to be tilted against those with strong fundamentals.

The authors provide an explanation for their results: the robust countries had received larger financial flows previous to the perceived turnaround in Fed policy, and therefore were more vulnerable to the impact of tapering. Moreover, as the change in the Federal Reserve’s policy stance was assimilated over time, the exchange rates of the fragile nations responded, and by the end of the year had depreciated more than those of the more robust economies. Similarly, their CDS spreads rose more. By the end of 2013, Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa and Turkey had been identified as the “Fragile Five.”

What do these results tell us about the impact on emerging markets from future developments in the U.S. or other advanced economies? There may be a graduated response, as the relative standings of those nations that have attracted the most capital are reassessed. However, if capital outflows continue and are seen as including more than “hot money,” then the economic fundamentals of the emerging markets come to the fore. But financial markets follow their own logic and timing, and can defy attempts to foretell their next twists and turns.

Group Therapy

5 Replies

Pop quiz:  which U.S. policymaker said last week: “We can’t solve everyone else’s problems anymore” in response to foreign criticism of U.S. handling of what issue?

a—Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, responding to criticism by foreign central bankers of the Fed’s tapering of its asset purchases;

b—Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, following denunciations of the refusal of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that would enable IMF quota reform;

c—an anonymous White House aide, defending the Obama  administration’s  response to the turmoil in the Ukraine.

The correct response is c. But Ms. Yellen and Mr. Lew, who are attending the conference of G20 finance ministers and central bank heads in Sydney, might be forgiven if they held similar (but unspoken) sentiments.

The Federal Reserve has been criticized for not coordinating its policies with its peer institutions, particularly in those emerging markets that have had capital outflows and declines in equity market prices. But the critics have not spelled out precisely what they believe the Federal Reserve should do (or not do), given its assessment of the state of the U.S. economy. Domestic central banks respond to domestic conditions. In some cases, those conditions are linked to the global economy, and a central banker who ignored those linkages would only be postponing the implementation of stronger measures. But is that the case here?

The IMF came the closest to offering a specific criticism:

Advanced economies should avoid premature withdrawal of monetary accommodation as fiscal balances continue consolidating. Given still large output gaps, very low inflation, and ongoing fiscal consolidation, monetary policy should remain accommodative in advanced economies. There is scope for better cooperation on unwinding UMP, including through wider central bank discussions of exit plans.

Does anyone think that the Federal Reserve no longer intends to “remain accommodative”? Are more discussions the only missing element of the Federal Reserve’s plans? That would be surprising, since central bankers have many opportunities to speak to each other, and usually do.

The IMF did not let the emerging market countries off the hook:

In emerging market economies, credible macroeconomic policies and frameworks, alongside exchange rate flexibility, are critical to weather turbulence. Further monetary policy tightening in the context of strengthened policy frameworks is necessary where inflation is still relatively high or where policy credibility has come into question. Priority should also be given to shoring up fiscal policy credibility where it is lacking; subsequently buffers should be built to provide space for counter-cyclical policy action. Exchange rate flexibility should continue to facilitate external adjustment, particularly where currencies are overvalued, while FX intervention— where reserves are adequate—can be used to smooth excessive volatility or prevent financial disruption.

Critics are on firmer grounds when they criticize the U.S. for not passing the necessary legislation to change the IMF’s quota allocations. But perhaps they should not take their annoyance out on Mr. Lew. The U.S. Congress did not approve the needed measures for a number of reasons, none of them particularly compelling. Mr. Lew would be delighted to see the situation change, but that is unlikely to happen.

What, then, can be done at the G20 meeting? If allowing everyone to voice her or his frustrations with the U.S. serves some useful purpose, then all the air miles on the flights to Sydney will have been earned. Perhaps IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde can serve as mediator/therapist. But before everyone piles on, it may be worth reflecting that the Federal Reserve is not the only central bank with policy initiatives that may ripple across national borders.