St. Louis Fed: “0% probability that inflation will average more than 2.5% over the next 12 months”

Laura E. Jackson, Kevin L. Kliesen, and Michael T. Owyang of the St. Louis Federal Reserve have constructed a new measure they call the price pressures measure (PPM).

According the authors the “PPM measures the probability that the expected inflation rate (12-month percent changes) over the next 12 months will exceed 2.5 percent”…the PPM is constructed “for both the consumer price index (CPI) and personal consumption expenditures price index (PCEPI).”

This is how the PPM is constructed:

In technical terms, the PPM index is constructed from an ordered probit model that is augmented with nine “factors.” A factor-augmented model is a common method of incorporating a large amount of data in a parsimonious fashion. The nine factors, comprising 104 separate data series, are grouped in the following categories: (1) consumer price indexes, (2) producer price indexes, (3) commodity prices, (4) housing and commercial property prices, (5) labor market indicators, (6) financial variables, (7) inflation expectations, (8) business and consumer survey data, and (9) foreign price variables.

The ordered probit model provides probabilities that inflation will exceed 2.5 percent, on average, over the next 12 months. But the model also allows us to assess the probability that inflation will average something different. In our original article we structured the model to assess the probability that inflation will fall within one of four bins: less than zero (deflation); 0 percent to 1.5 percent; 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent; and more than 2.5 percent. We could also assess probabilities for other outcomes. For example, we could condense the second and third bins into one, leaving three sets of probabilities: Inflation will be less than zero (deflation) over the next 12 months, inflation will average between 0 percent and 2.5 percent, and inflation will be greater than 2.5 percent.

So what is the measure saying now?

Well, the message is very clear – this is what the authors say: “As of October 2015, the PPM predicts a zero percent probability that PCEPI inflation will average more than 2.5 percent over the next 12 months.”

This is obviously wrong – we can never say that there is a zero percent probability of anything, but ok this is the kind of result you sometimes get from probit models. That however, is not the important thing, but rather the key message here is that there is very little likelihood that Fed will overshoot it’s inflation target in the coming next 12 months. In fact it is very clear that the likelihood of deflation is higher than inflation being above 2.5% in 12 months.

Therefore you gotta ask yourself why does St. Louis Fed president James Bullard continue to argue for the Fed to hike rates? After all the research done by his own research department tells him that he rather should worry about deflationary risks.

PS See the original paper on the Price Pressure Measure here.

PPS Scott Sumner should be delighted that Laura E. Jackson recently became an assistant professor at Bentley University.

Jim, it is not complicated – NGDP tells you NOT to hike

This is what St. Louis Fed president James Bullard today told CNBC:

“there’s a powerful case to be made that it’s time to raise interest rates. And the case is not complicated. … Policy settings are [in] an emergency. The economy itself, the goals of the committee, have essentially been met.”

Bullard goes on to talk about the labour market and talk about low oil prices is helpful for the US economy. It all very much sounds like Bullard has made up his decision BEFORE he has looked at any data.

In fact it is hard to see what monetary policy rule Bullard is advocating and he seems to be cherry picking data to make an argument for rate hike. It is frankly speaking not very impressive.

But why doesn’t Bullard just look at nominal GDP? After all back in May he co-authored a Working Paper in which he essentially argued that the Federal Reserve should to target nominal GDP!

So lets have a look at how nominal GDP has been developing:

NGDP has since mid-2009 essentially been on a straight line growing on average slightly less than 4% a year and in Q2 2015 was slightly below this trend.

Why doesn’t Bullard just acknowledge that? He should be happy – the Fed is doing what he said it should be doing. But of course that would mean that there would not be any arguments for hiking interest rates. After all prediction markets (such as Hypermind) presently are forecasting around 3.5% NGDP growth for all of 2015 and in that sense the Fed is slightly undershooting it’s post-2009 de fact NGDP rule.

Jim, I was very happy to see you advocated NGDP targeting back in May – why have you already changed your mind??

PS Bullard talks about interest rates being at “emergency” setting. I guess Bullard has forgot what Milton Friedman told us about why low interest rates. Jim, interest rates are low because monetary policy has been tight.

If you want to hear me speak about these topics or other related topics don’t hesitate to contact my speaker agency Specialist Speakers – e-mail: roz@specialistspeakers.com. For US readers note that I will be “touring” the US in the end of October.

St. Louis Fed’s Bullard comes out in support of NGDP targeting

St. Louis Federal Reserve president James Bullard just came out in support of nominal GDP targeting – or rather he has co-authored a rather interesting new Working Paper, which concludes that NGDP targeting under some circumstances would be the best policy to pursue.

The paper with the ambitious title Optimal Monetary Policy at the Zero Lower Bound Bullard has co-authored with Costas Azariadis, Aarti Singh and Jacek Suda.

As the abstract reveals it is a rather technical paper:

We study optimal monetary policy at the zero lower bound. The macroeconomy we study has considerable income inequality which gives rise to a large private sector credit market. Households participating in this market use non-state contingent nominal contracts (NSCNC). A second, small group of households only uses cash and cannot participate in the credit market. The monetary authority supplies currency to cash-using households in a way that changes the price level to provide for optimal risk-sharing in the private credit market and thus to overcome the NSCNC friction. For succinctly large and persistent negative shocks the zero lower bound on nominal interest rates may threaten to bind. The monetary authority may credibly promise to increase the price level in this situation to maintain a smoothly functioning (complete) credit market. The optimal monetary policy in this model can be broadly viewed as a version of nominal GDP targeting.

I think the interesting thing about the paper is the focus on non-state contingent nominal contracts (NSCNC) as the key rigidity in economy rather wage and price rigidities. Simply stated, essentially NSCNC means that debt is nominal rather than real – and when a major negative shock to nominal incomes (NGDP) occurs then that causes debt/NGDP to rise and that is really at the cure of the financial distress that follows from a major negative NGDP shock (this by the way is why Greece now has a problem).

We can solve this problems in two ways – either by introducing (quasi) real contracts rather than nominal contract or by having the central bank targeting NGDP.

As such the paper is part of a growing, but small literature that focuses on NSCNC and the importance of this for the optimal monetary policy rule.

I was, however, a bit disappoint to see that the authors of the paper did not have a reference to any of the paper on this topic by the extremely overlooked David Eagle. I have written numerous blog posts on David’s work since 2011 and David has even written a number of guest posts for my blog. I list these posts below and I suggest everybody interested in this topic read not only the posts but also David’s papers.

The authors on the other hand do have a reference to the work of Evan Koenig who has done academic work very much in same spirit as David Eagle. I have also written about Evan’s work on this blog over the last couple of years and also list these blog posts below.

Will this change anything?

For those of us deeply interested in monetary policy matters the new paper obviously is interesting. First of all, it is helping deepening the theoretical understanding of monetary policy and second the paper could help further push the Federal Reserve (and other central banks!) toward in fact officially implementing some version of NGDP targeting – or at least I hope so.

That said there is a huge difference between in principle supporting NGDP targeting in a theoretical paper and then actually advocating NGDP targeting the real world and so far as I can see Jim Bullard has not yet done that. But obviously this is a huge step in the direction of Jim Bullard actually becoming an NGDP advocate and that obviously should be welcomed.

I have numerous times argued that the Fed actually from mid-2009 de facto started a policy to NGDP level targeting around a 4% path and this policy effectively has continued to this day (see here and here). However, this has never been articulated by any Fed official, which makes the “policy” much less effective and less credible.

Therefore, it would be great if we not only would get a theoretical endorsement of NGDP targeting from the likes of Jim Bullard, but rather a concrete proposal on how to actually implement NGDP targeting. I hope that will be the next paper Jim Bullard authors.

PS My friend Marcus Nunes also comments on the paper here.

PPS One of the authors of the paper discussed above is Jacek Suda from the Polish central bank (NBP). I would love to see a discussion of introducing NGDP targeting in my beloved Poland!

—-

Blog posts on and by David Eagle:

Guest post: Central Banks Should Quit “Kicking Them While They Are Down!” (by David Eagle)

Guest post: GDP-Linked Bonds (by David Eagle)

Guest blog: NGDP Targeting is NOT just for Central Banks! (David Eagle)

Guest blog: Why Price-Level Targeting Pareto Dominates Inflation Targeting (By David Eagle)

Guest Blog: The Two Fundamental Welfare Principles of Monetary Economics (By David Eagle)

Guest blog: Growth or level targeting? (by David Eagle)

Guest post: Why I Support NGDP Targeting (by David Eagle)

Dubai, Iceland, Baltics – can David Eagle explain the bubbles?

David Eagle’s framework and the micro-foundation of Market Monetarism

David Eagle on “Nominal Income Targeting for a Speedier Economic Recovery”

Selgin and Eagle should be best friends

Quasi-Real indexing – indexing for Market Monetarists

David Davidson and the productivity norm

Two Equations on the Pareto-Efficient Sharing of Real GDP Risk (a paper David and I co-authored in 2012)

Blog posts on Evan Koeing:

The Integral Reviews: Paper 1 – Koenig (2011)

“Monetary Policy, Financial Stability, and the Distribution of Risk”

UPDATE: Scott Sumner also comments on the Bullard el al paper.

—–

If you want to hear me speak about these topics or other related topics don’t hesitate to contact my speaker agency Specialist Speakers – e-mail: daniel@specialistspeakers.com or roz@specialistspeakers.com.