CMP Associates Regulation Blog: World Financial Turbulence, Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates, United States Industrial Production, United States Producer Prices, World Cyclical Slow Growth and Global Recession Risk: Part I

World Financial Turbulence, Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates, United States Industrial Production, United States Producer Prices, World Cyclical Slow Growth and Global Recession Risk

Carlos M. Pelaez

I Recovery without Hiring

IA1 Hiring Collapse

IA2 Labor Underutilization

ICA3 Ten Million Fewer Full-time Jobs

IA4 Theory and Reality of Cyclical Slow Growth Not Secular Stagnation: Youth and

Middle-Age Unemployment

IIB Import and Export Prices

III World Financial Turbulence

IIIA Financial Risks

IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk

IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation

IV Global Inflation

V World Economic Slowdown

VA United States

VB Japan

VC China

VD Euro Area

VE Germany

VF France

VG Italy

VH United Kingdom

VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets

VII Economic Indicators

VIII Interest Rates

IX Conclusion

References

Appendixes

Appendix I The Great Inflation

IIIB Appendix on Safe Haven Currencies

IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact

IIID Appendix on European Central Bank Large Scale Lender of Last Resort

IIIG Appendix on Deficit Financing of Growth and the Debt Crisis

IIIGA Monetary Policy with Deficit Financing of Economic Growth

IIIGB Adjustment during the Debt Crisis of the 1980s

Executive Summary

Contents of Executive Summary

ESI Financial “Irrational Exuberance,” Increasing Interest Rate Risk, Tapering Quantitative Easing, Duration Dumping, Competitive Devaluations, Steepening Yield Curve and Global Financial and Economic Risk

ESII Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates

ESIII United States Industrial Production

ESIV United States Producer Prices

ESI “Financial “Irrational Exuberance,” Increasing Interest Rate Risk, Tapering Quantitative Easing, Duration Dumping, Steepening Yield Curve and Global Financial and Economic Risk. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) provides an international safety net for prevention and resolution of international financial crises. The IMF’s Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) provides analysis of the economic and financial sectors of countries (see Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 101-62, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2008), 114-23). Relating economic and financial sectors is a challenging task for both theory and measurement. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) provides an international safety net for prevention and resolution of international financial crises. The IMF’s Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) provides analysis of the economic and financial sectors of countries (see Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 101-62, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2008), 114-23). Relating economic and financial sectors is a challenging task for both theory and measurement. The IMF provides surveillance of the world economy with its Global Economic Outlook (WEO) (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=29), of the world financial system with its Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR) (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/gfsr/index.htm) and of fiscal affairs with the Fiscal Monitor (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=262). There appears to be a moment of transition in global economic and financial variables that may prove of difficult analysis and measurement. It is useful to consider a summary of global economic and financial risks, which are analyzed in detail in the comments of this blog in Section VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets, Table VI-4.

Economic risks include the following:

China’s Economic Growth. Cumulative growth of China’s GDP in IVQ2014 relative to the same period in 2013 was 7.4 percent, as shown in Table VC-A. Secondary industry accounts for 42.6 percent of cumulative GDP in IVQ2014. In cumulative IVQ2014, industry accounts for 35.8 percent of GDP and construction for 7.0 percent. Tertiary industry accounts for 48.2 percent of cumulative GDP in IVQ2014 and primary industry for 9.2 percent. China’s growth strategy consisted of rapid increases in productivity in industry to absorb population from agriculture where incomes are lower (Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 56-80). The strategy is shifting to lower growth rates with improvement in living standards. GDP growth decelerated from 12.1 percent in IQ2010 and 11.2 percent in IIQ2010 to 7.8 percent in IQ2013, 7.5 percent in IIQ2013 and 7.9 percent in IIIQ2013. GDP grew 7.6 percent in IVQ2013 relative to a year earlier and 1.8 percent relative to IIIQ2013, which is equivalent to 7.4 percent per year. GDP grew 7.4 percent in IQ2014 relative to a year earlier and 1.6 percent in IQ2014 that is equivalent to 6.6 percent per year. GP grew 7.5 percent in IIQ2014 relative to a year earlier and 1.9 percent relative to the prior quarter, which is equivalent 7.8 percent. In IIIQ2014, GDP grew 7.3 percent relative to a year earlier and 1.9 percent relative to the prior quarter, which is 7.8 percent in annual equivalent. GDP grew 1.5 percent in IVQ2014, which is 6.1 percent in annual equivalent and 7.3 percent relative to a year earlier (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/competitive-currency-conflicts-world.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/financial-oscillations-world-inflation.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/financial-irrational-exuberance.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/imf-view-world-inflation-waves-squeeze.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/capital-flows-exchange-rates-and.html).There is also concern about indebtedness, move to devaluation and deep policy reforms.
United States Economic Growth, Labor Markets and Budget/Debt Quagmire. The US is growing slowly with 28.3 million in job stress, fewer 10 million full-time jobs, high youth unemployment, historically low hiring and declining/stagnating real wages. Actual GDP is about two trillion dollars lower than trend GDP.
Economic Growth and Labor Markets in Advanced Economies. Advanced economies are growing slowly. There is still high unemployment in advanced economies.
World Inflation Waves. Inflation continues in repetitive waves globally (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/competitive-currency-conflicts-world.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/patience-on-interest-rate-increases.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/squeeze-of-economic-activity-by-carry.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/monetary-policy-world-inflation-waves.html). There is growing concern on capital outflows and currency depreciation of emerging markets.

A list of financial uncertainties includes:

Euro Area Survival Risk. The resilience of the euro to fiscal and financial doubts on larger member countries is still an unknown risk.
Foreign Exchange Wars. Exchange rate struggles continue as zero interest rates in advanced economies induce devaluation of their currencies with alternating episodes of revaluation.
Valuation of Risk Financial Assets. Valuations of risk financial assets have reached extremely high levels in markets with oscillating volumes.
Duration Trap of the Zero Bound. The yield of the US 10-year Treasury rose from 2.031 percent on Mar 9, 2012, to 2.294 percent on Mar 16, 2012. Considering a 10-year Treasury with coupon of 2.625 percent and maturity in exactly 10 years, the price would fall from 105.3512 corresponding to yield of 2.031 percent to 102.9428 corresponding to yield of 2.294 percent, for loss in a week of 2.3 percent but far more in a position with leverage of 10:1. Min Zeng, writing on “Treasurys fall, ending brutal quarter,” published on Mar 30, 2012, in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577313400029412564.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_markets), informs that Treasury bonds maturing in more than 20 years lost 5.52 percent in the first quarter of 2012.
Credibility and Commitment of Central Bank Policy. There is a credibility issue of the commitment of monetary policy (Sargent and Silber 2012Mar20).
Carry Trades. Commodity prices driven by zero interest rates have resumed their increasing path with fluctuations caused by intermittent risk aversion mixed with reallocations of portfolios of risk financial assets.

Chart VIII-1 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the rate on the overnight fed funds rate and the yields of the 10-year constant maturity Treasury and the Baa seasoned corporate bond. Table VIII-3 provides the data for selected points in Chart VIII-1. There are two important economic and financial events, illustrating the ease of inducing carry trade with extremely low interest rates and the resulting financial crash and recession of abandoning extremely low interest rates.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) lowered the target of the fed funds rate from 7.03 percent on Jul 3, 2000, to 1.00 percent on Jun 22, 2004, in pursuit of non-existing deflation (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 18-28, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 83-85). Central bank commitment to maintain the fed funds rate at 1.00 percent induced adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMS) linked to the fed funds rate. Lowering the interest rate near the zero bound in 2003-2004 caused the illusion of permanent increases in wealth or net worth in the balance sheets of borrowers and also of lending institutions, securitized banking and every financial institution and investor in the world. The discipline of calculating risks and returns was seriously impaired. The objective of monetary policy was to encourage borrowing, consumption and investment. The exaggerated stimulus resulted in a financial crisis of major proportions as the securitization that had worked for a long period was shocked with policy-induced excessive risk, imprudent credit, high leverage and low liquidity by the incentive to finance everything overnight at interest rates close to zero, from adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) to asset-backed commercial paper of structured investment vehicles (SIV). The consequences of inflating liquidity and net worth of borrowers were a global hunt for yields to protect own investments and money under management from the zero interest rates and unattractive long-term yields of Treasuries and other securities. Monetary policy distorted the calculations of risks and returns by households, business and government by providing central bank cheap money. Short-term zero interest rates encourage financing of everything with short-dated funds, explaining the SIVs created off-balance sheet to issue short-term commercial paper with the objective of purchasing default-prone mortgages that were financed in overnight or short-dated sale and repurchase agreements (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 50-1, Regulation of Banks and Finance, 59-60, Globalization and the State Vol. I, 89-92, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 198-9, Government Intervention in Globalization, 62-3, International Financial Architecture, 144-9). ARMS were created to lower monthly mortgage payments by benefitting from lower short-dated reference rates. Financial institutions economized in liquidity that was penalized with near zero interest rates. There was no perception of risk because the monetary authority guaranteed a minimum or floor price of all assets by maintaining low interest rates forever or equivalent to writing an illusory put option on wealth. Subprime mortgages were part of the put on wealth by an illusory put on house prices. The housing subsidy of $221 billion per year created the impression of ever-increasing house prices. The suspension of auctions of 30-year Treasuries was designed to increase demand for mortgage-backed securities, lowering their yield, which was equivalent to lowering the costs of housing finance and refinancing. Fannie and Freddie purchased or guaranteed $1.6 trillion of nonprime mortgages and worked with leverage of 75:1 under Congress-provided charters and lax oversight. The combination of these policies resulted in high risks because of the put option on wealth by near zero interest rates, excessive leverage because of cheap rates, low liquidity by the penalty in the form of low interest rates and unsound credit decisions. The put option on wealth by monetary policy created the illusion that nothing could ever go wrong, causing the credit/dollar crisis and global recession (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 157-66, Regulation of Banks, and Finance, 217-27, International Financial Architecture, 15-18, The Global Recession Risk, 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization, 182-4). The FOMC implemented increments of 25 basis points of the fed funds target from Jun 2004 to Jun 2006, raising the fed funds rate to 5.25 percent on Jul 3, 2006, as shown in Chart VIII-1. The gradual exit from the first round of unconventional monetary policy from 1.00 percent in Jun 2004 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/monetary/2004/20040630/default.htm) to 5.25 percent in Jun 2006 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20060629a.htm) caused the financial crisis and global recession.
On Dec 16, 2008, the policy determining committee of the Fed decided (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081216b.htm): “The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to establish a target range for the federal funds rate of 0 to 1/4 percent.” Policymakers emphasize frequently that there are tools to exit unconventional monetary policy at the right time. At the confirmation hearing on nomination for Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Vice Chair Yellen (2013Nov14 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20131114a.htm), states that: “The Federal Reserve is using its monetary policy tools to promote a more robust recovery. A strong recovery will ultimately enable the Fed to reduce its monetary accommodation and reliance on unconventional policy tools such as asset purchases. I believe that supporting the recovery today is the surest path to returning to a more normal approach to monetary policy.” Perception of withdrawal of $2671 billion, or $2.7 trillion, of bank reserves (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab1), would cause Himalayan increase in interest rates that would provoke another recession. There is no painless gradual or sudden exit from zero interest rates because reversal of exposures created on the commitment of zero interest rates forever.

In his classic restatement of the Keynesian demand function in terms of “liquidity preference as behavior toward risk,” James Tobin (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1981/tobin-bio.html) identifies the risks of low interest rates in terms of portfolio allocation (Tobin 1958, 86):

“The assumption that investors expect on balance no change in the rate of interest has been adopted for the theoretical reasons explained in section 2.6 rather than for reasons of realism. Clearly investors do form expectations of changes in interest rates and differ from each other in their expectations. For the purposes of dynamic theory and of analysis of specific market situations, the theories of sections 2 and 3 are complementary rather than competitive. The formal apparatus of section 3 will serve just as well for a non-zero expected capital gain or loss as for a zero expected value of g. Stickiness of interest rate expectations would mean that the expected value of g is a function of the rate of interest r, going down when r goes down and rising when r goes up. In addition to the rotation of the opportunity locus due to a change in r itself, there would be a further rotation in the same direction due to the accompanying change in the expected capital gain or loss. At low interest rates expectation of capital loss may push the opportunity locus into the negative quadrant, so that the optimal position is clearly no consols, all cash. At the other extreme, expectation of capital gain at high interest rates would increase sharply the slope of the opportunity locus and the frequency of no cash, all consols positions, like that of Figure 3.3. The stickier the investor's expectations, the more sensitive his demand for cash will be to changes in the rate of interest (emphasis added).”

Tobin (1969) provides more elegant, complete analysis of portfolio allocation in a general equilibrium model. The major point is equally clear in a portfolio consisting of only cash balances and a perpetuity or consol. Let g be the capital gain, r the rate of interest on the consol and r^e the expected rate of interest. The rates are expressed as proportions. The price of the consol is the inverse of the interest rate, (1+r^e). Thus, g = [(r/r^e) – 1]. The critical analysis of Tobin is that at extremely low interest rates there is only expectation of interest rate increases, that is, dr^e>0, such that there is expectation of capital losses on the consol, dg<0. Investors move into positions combining only cash and no consols. Valuations of risk financial assets would collapse in reversal of long positions in carry trades with short exposures in a flight to cash. There is no exit from a central bank created liquidity trap without risks of financial crash and another global recession. The net worth of the economy depends on interest rates. In theory, “income is generally defined as the amount a consumer unit could consume (or believe that it could) while maintaining its wealth intact” (Friedman 1957, 10). Income, Y, is a flow that is obtained by applying a rate of return, r, to a stock of wealth, W, or Y = rW (Friedman 1957). According to a subsequent statement: “The basic idea is simply that individuals live for many years and that therefore the appropriate constraint for consumption is the long-run expected yield from wealth r*W. This yield was named permanent income: Y* = r*W” (Darby 1974, 229), where * denotes permanent. The simplified relation of income and wealth can be restated as:

W = Y/r (1)

Equation (1) shows that as r goes to zero, r→0, W grows without bound, W→∞. Unconventional monetary policy lowers interest rates to increase the present value of cash flows derived from projects of firms, creating the impression of long-term increase in net worth. An attempt to reverse unconventional monetary policy necessarily causes increases in interest rates, creating the opposite perception of declining net worth. As r→∞, W = Y/r →0. There is no exit from unconventional monetary policy without increasing interest rates with resulting pain of financial crisis and adverse effects on production, investment and employment

Chart VIII-1, Fed Funds Rate and Yields of Ten-year Treasury Constant Maturity and Baa Seasoned Corporate Bond, Jan 2, 2001 to Feb 19, 2015

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/

Table VIII-3, Selected Data Points in Chart VIII-1, % per Year

	Fed Funds Overnight Rate	10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity	Seasoned Baa Corporate Bond
1/2/2001	6.67	4.92	7.91
10/1/2002	1.85	3.72	7.46
7/3/2003	0.96	3.67	6.39
6/22/2004	1.00	4.72	6.77
6/28/2006	5.06	5.25	6.94
9/17/2008	2.80	3.41	7.25
10/26/2008	0.09	2.16	8.00
10/31/2008	0.22	4.01	9.54
4/6/2009	0.14	2.95	8.63
4/5/2010	0.20	4.01	6.44
2/4/2011	0.17	3.68	6.25
7/25/2012	0.15	1.43	4.73
5/1/13	0.14	1.66	4.48
9/5/13	0.089	2.98	5.53
11/21/2013	0.09	2.79	5.44
11/26/13	0.09	2.74	5.34 (11/26/13)
12/5/13	0.09	2.88	5.47
12/11/13	0.09	2.89	5.42
12/18/13	0.09	2.94	5.36
12/26/13	0.08	3.00	5.37
1/1/2014	0.08	3.00	5.34
1/8/2014	0.07	2.97	5.28
1/15/2014	0.07	2.86	5.18
1/22/2014	0.07	2.79	5.11
1/30/2014	0.07	2.72	5.08
2/6/2014	0.07	2.73	5.13
2/13/2014	0.06	2.73	5.12
2/20/14	0.07	2.76	5.15
2/27/14	0.07	2.65	5.01
3/6/14	0.08	2.74	5.11
3/13/14	0.08	2.66	5.05
3/20/14	0.08	2.79	5.13
3/27/14	0.08	2.69	4.95
4/3/14	0.08	2.80	5.04
4/10/14	0.08	2.65	4.89
4/17/14	0.09	2.73	4.89
4/24/14	0.10	2.70	4.84
5/1/14	0.09	2.63	4.77
5/8/14	0.08	2.61	4.79
5/15/14	0.09	2.50	4.72
5/22/14	0.09	2.56	4.81
5/29/14	0.09	2.45	4.69
6/05/14	0.09	2.59	4.83
6/12/14	0.09	2.58	4.79
6/19/14	0.10	2.64	4.83
6/26/14	0.10	2.53	4.71
7/2/14	0.10	2.64	4.84
7/10/14	0.09	2.55	4.75
7/17/14	0.09	2.47	4.69
7/24/14	0.09	2.52	4.72
7/31/14	0.08	2.58	4.75
8/7/14	0.09	2.43	4.71
8/14/14	0.09	2.40	4.69
8/21/14	0.09	2.41	4.69
8/28/14	0.09	2.34	4.57
9/04/14	0.09	2.45	4.70
9/11/14	0.09	2.54	4.79
9/18/14	0.09	2.63	4.91
9/25/14	0.09	2.52	4.79
10/02/14	0.09	2.44	4.76
10/09/14	0.08	2.34	4.68
10/16/14	0.09	2.17	4.64
10/23/14	0.09	2.29	4.71
11/13/14	0.09	2.35	4.82
11/20/14	0.10	2.34	4.86
11/26/14	0.10	2.24	4.73
12/04/14	0.12	2.25	4.78
12/11/14	0.12	2.19	4.72
12/18/14	0.13	2.22	4.78
12/23/14	0.13	2.26	4.79
12/30/14	0.06	2.20	4.69
1/8/15	0.12	2.03	4.57
1/15/15	0.12	1.77	4.42
1/22/15	0.12	1.90	4.49
1/29/15	0.11	1.77	4.35
2/05/15	0.12	1.83	4.43
2/12/15	0.12	1.99	4.53
2/19/15	0.12	2.11	4.64

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/

The Communiqué of the Istanbul meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on February 10, 2015, sanctions the need of unconventional monetary policy with warning on collateral effects (http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2015/150210-finance.html):

“We agree that consistent with central banks' mandates, current economic conditions require accommodative monetary policies in some economies. In this regard, we welcome that central banks take appropriate monetary policy action. The recent policy decision by the ECB aims at fulfilling its price stability mandate, and will further support the recovery in the euro area. We also note that some advanced economies with stronger growth prospects are moving closer to conditions that would allow for policy normalization. In an environment of diverging monetary policy settings and rising financial market volatility, policy settings should be carefully calibrated and clearly communicated to minimize negative spillovers.”

What is truly important is the fixing of the overnight fed funds at 0 to ¼ percent for which there is no end in sight as evident in the FOMC statement for Jan 28, 2015 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20150128a.htm):

“To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain this target range, the Committee will assess progress--both realized and expected--toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. Based on its current assessment, the Committee judges that it can be patient in beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy. However, if incoming information indicates faster progress toward the Committee’s employment and inflation objectives than the Committee now expects, then increases in the target range for the federal funds rate are likely to occur sooner than currently anticipated. Conversely, if progress proves slower than expected, then increases in the target range are likely to occur later than currently anticipated.” (emphasis added). The FOMC added “readings” of “international developments.”

How long is “considerable time”? At the press conference following the meeting on Mar 19, 2014, Chair Yellen answered a question of Jon Hilsenrath of the Wall Street Journal explaining “In particular, the Committee has endorsed the view that it anticipates that will be a considerable period after the asset purchase program ends before it will be appropriate to begin to raise rates. And of course on our present path, well, that's not utterly preset. We would be looking at next, next fall. So, I think that's important guidance” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20140319.pdf). Many focused on “next fall,” ignoring that the path of increasing rates is not “utterly preset.”

At the press conference following the meeting on Dec 17, 2014, Chair Yellen answered a question by Jon Hilseranth of the Wall Street Journal explaining “patience” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20141217.pdf):

“So I did say that this statement that the committee can be patient should be interpreted as meaning that it is unlikely to begin the normalization process, for at least the next couple of meetings. Now that doesn't point to any preset or predetermined time at which normalization is -- will begin. There are a range of views on the committee, and it will be dependent on how incoming data bears on the progress, the economy is making. First of all, I want to emphasize that no meeting is completely off the table in the sense that if we do see faster progress toward our objectives than we currently expect, then it is possible that the process of normalization would occur sooner than we now anticipated. And of course the converse is also true. So at this point, we think it unlikely that it will be appropriate, that we will see conditions for at least the next couple of meetings that will make it appropriate for us to decide to begin normalization. A number of committee participants have indicated that in their view, conditions could be appropriate by the middle of next year. But there is no preset time.”

The Swiss National Bank (SNB) announced on Jan 15, 2015, the termination of its peg of the exchange rate of the Swiss franc to the euro (http://www.snb.ch/en/mmr/speeches/id/ref_20150115_tjn/source/ref_20150115_tjn.en.pdf):

“The Swiss National Bank (SNB) has decided to discontinue the minimum exchange rate of CHF 1.20 per euro with immediate effect and to cease foreign currency purchases associated with enforcing it.”

The SNB also lowered interest rates to nominal negative percentages (http://www.snb.ch/en/mmr/speeches/id/ref_20150115_tjn/source/ref_20150115_tjn.en.pdf):

“At the same time as discontinuing the minimum exchange rate, the SNB will be lowering the interest rate for balances held on sight deposit accounts to –0.75% from 22 January. The exemption thresholds remain unchanged. Further lowering the interest rate makes Swiss-franc investments considerably less attractive and will mitigate the effects of the decision to discontinue the minimum exchange rate. The target range for the three-month Libor is being lowered by 0.5 percentage points to between –1.25% and –0.25%.”

The Swiss franc rate relative to the euro (CHF/EUR) appreciated 18.7 percent on Jan 15, 2015. The Swiss franc rate relative to the dollar (CHF/USD) appreciated 17.7 percent. Central banks are taking measures in anticipation of the quantitative easing by the European Central Bank.

On Jan 22, 2015, the European Central Bank (ECB) decided to implement an “expanded asset purchase program” with combined asset purchases of €60 billion per month “until at least Sep 2016 (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2015/html/pr150122_1.en.html). The objective of the program is that (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2015/html/pr150122_1.en.html):

“Asset purchases provide monetary stimulus to the economy in a context where key ECB interest rates are at their lower bound. They further ease monetary and financial conditions, making access to finance cheaper for firms and households. This tends to support investment and consumption, and ultimately contributes to a return of inflation rates towards 2%.”

The President of the ECB, Mario Draghi, explains the coordination of asset purchases with NCBs (National Central Banks) of the euro area and risk sharing (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2015/html/is150122.en.html):

“In March 2015 the Eurosystem will start to purchase euro-denominated investment-grade securities issued by euro area governments and agencies and European institutions in the secondary market. The purchases of securities issued by euro area governments and agencies will be based on the Eurosystem NCBs’ shares in the ECB’s capital key. Some additional eligibility criteria will be applied in the case of countries under an EU/IMF adjustment programme. As regards the additional asset purchases, the Governing Council retains control over all the design features of the programme and the ECB will coordinate the purchases, thereby safeguarding the singleness of the Eurosystem’s monetary policy. The Eurosystem will make use of decentralised implementation to mobilise its resources. With regard to the sharing of hypothetical losses, the Governing Council decided that purchases of securities of European institutions (which will be 12% of the additional asset purchases, and which will be purchased by NCBs) will be subject to loss sharing. The rest of the NCBs’ additional asset purchases will not be subject to loss sharing. The ECB will hold 8% of the additional asset purchases. This implies that 20% of the additional asset purchases will be subject to a regime of risk sharing.”

The President of the ECB, Mario Draghi, rejected the possibility of seigniorage in the new asset purchase program, or central bank financing of fiscal expansion (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2015/html/is150122.en.html):

“As I just said, it would be a big mistake if countries were to consider that the presence of this programme might be an incentive to fiscal expansion. They would undermine the confidence, so it’s not directed to monetary financing at all. Actually, it’s been designed as to avoid any monetary financing.”

The President of the ECB, Mario Draghi, does not find effects of monetary policy in inflating asset prices (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2015/html/is150122.en.html):

“On the first question, we monitor closely any potential instance of risk to financial stability. So we're very alert to that risk. So far we don't see bubbles. There may be some local episodes of certain specific markets where prices are going up fast. But to have a bubble, besides having that, one should also identify, detect an increase, dramatic increase in leverage or in bank credit, and we don't see that now. However, we, as I said, we are alert. If bubbles are of a local nature, they should be addressed by local instruments, namely macro-prudential instruments rather than by monetary policy.”

The DAX index of German equities increased 1.3 percent on Jan 22, 2015 and 2.1 percent on Jan 23, 2015. The euro depreciated from EUR 1.1611/USD (EUR 0.8613/USD) on Wed Jan 21, 2015, to EUR 1.1206/USD (EUR 0.8924/USD) on Fri Jan 23, 2015, or 3.6 percent. Yellen (2011AS, 6) admits that Fed monetary policy results in dollar devaluation with the objective of increasing net exports, which was the policy that Joan Robinson (1947) labeled as “beggar-my-neighbor” remedies for unemployment. Risk aversion erodes devaluation of the dollar.

Chart S provides the yield of the two-year Treasury constant maturity from Mar 17, 2014, two days before the guidance of Chair Yellen on Mar 19, 2014, to Feb 19, 2015. Chart SA provides the yields of the seven-, ten- and thirty-year Treasury constant maturity in the same dates. Yields increased right after the guidance of Chair Yellen. The two-year yield remain at a higher level than before while the ten-year yield fell and increased again. There could be more immediate impact on two-year yields of an increase in the fed funds rates but the effects would spread throughout the term structure of interest rates (Cox, Ingersoll and Ross 1981, 1985, Ingersoll 1987). Yields converged toward slightly lower earlier levels in the week of Apr 24, 2014 with reallocation of portfolios of risk financial assets away from equities and into bonds and commodities. There is ongoing reshuffling of portfolios to hedge against geopolitical events and world/regional economic performance.

Chart S, US, Yield of Two-Year Treasury Constant Maturity, Mar 17, 2014 to Feb 19, 2015

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/

Chart SA, US, Yield of Seven-Year, Ten-Year and Thirty-Year Treasury Constant Maturity, Mar 17, 2014 to Feb 19, 2015

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/

At a speech on Mar 31, 2014, Chair Yellen analyzed labor market conditions as follows (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20140331a.htm):

“And based on the evidence available, it is clear to me that the U.S. economy is still considerably short of the two goals assigned to the Federal Reserve by the Congress. The first of those goals is maximum sustainable employment, the highest level of employment that can be sustained while maintaining a stable inflation rate. Most of my colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee and I estimate that the unemployment rate consistent with maximum sustainable employment is now between 5.2 percent and 5.6 percent, well below the 6.7 percent rate in February.

Let me explain what I mean by that word "slack" and why it is so important.

Slack means that there are significantly more people willing and capable of filling a job than there are jobs for them to fill. During a period of little or no slack, there still may be vacant jobs and people who want to work, but a large share of those willing to work lack the skills or are otherwise not well suited for the jobs that are available. With 6.7 percent unemployment, it might seem that there must be a lot of slack in the U.S. economy, but there are reasons why that may not be true.”

Inflation and unemployment in the period 1966 to 1985 is analyzed by Cochrane (2011Jan, 23) by means of a Phillips circuit joining points of inflation and unemployment. Chart VI-1B for Brazil in Pelaez (1986, 94-5) was reprinted in The Economist in the issue of Jan 17-23, 1987 as updated by the author. Cochrane (2011Jan, 23) argues that the Phillips circuit shows the weakness in Phillips curve correlation. The explanation is by a shift in aggregate supply, rise in inflation expectations or loss of anchoring. The case of Brazil in Chart VI-1B cannot be explained without taking into account the increase in the fed funds rate that reached 22.36 percent on Jul 22, 1981 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm) in the Volcker Fed that precipitated the stress on a foreign debt bloated by financing balance of payments deficits with bank loans in the 1970s. The loans were used in projects, many of state-owned enterprises with low present value in long gestation. The combination of the insolvency of the country because of debt higher than its ability of repayment and the huge government deficit with declining revenue as the economy contracted caused adverse expectations on inflation and the economy. This interpretation is consistent with the case of the 24 emerging market economies analyzed by Reinhart and Rogoff (2010GTD, 4), concluding that “higher debt levels are associated with significantly higher levels of inflation in emerging markets. Median inflation more than doubles (from less than seven percent to 16 percent) as debt rises from the low (0 to 30 percent) range to above 90 percent. Fiscal dominance is a plausible interpretation of this pattern.”

The reading of the Phillips circuits of the 1970s by Cochrane (2011Jan, 25) is doubtful about the output gap and inflation expectations:

“So, inflation is caused by ‘tightness’ and deflation by ‘slack’ in the economy. This is not just a cause and forecasting variable, it is the cause, because given ‘slack’ we apparently do not have to worry about inflation from other sources, notwithstanding the weak correlation of [Phillips circuits]. These statements [by the Fed] do mention ‘stable inflation expectations. How does the Fed know expectations are ‘stable’ and would not come unglued once people look at deficit numbers? As I read Fed statements, almost all confidence in ‘stable’ or ‘anchored’ expectations comes from the fact that we have experienced a long period of low inflation (adaptive expectations). All these analyses ignore the stagflation experience in the 1970s, in which inflation was high even with ‘slack’ markets and little ‘demand, and ‘expectations’ moved quickly. They ignore the experience of hyperinflations and currency collapses, which happen in economies well below potential.”

Yellen (2014Aug22) states that “Historically, slack has accounted for only a small portion of the fluctuations in inflation. Indeed, unusual aspects of the current recovery may have shifted the lead-lag relationship between a tightening labor market and rising inflation pressures in either direction.”

Chart VI-1B provides the tortuous Phillips Circuit of Brazil from 1963 to 1987. There were no reliable consumer price index and unemployment data in Brazil for that period. Chart VI-1B used the more reliable indicator of inflation, the wholesale price index, and idle capacity of manufacturing as a proxy of unemployment in large urban centers.

ChVI1-B, Brazil, Phillips Circuit, 1963-1987

Source:

©Carlos Manuel Pelaez, O Cruzado e o Austral: Análise das Reformas Monetárias do Brasil e da Argentina. São Paulo: Editora Atlas, 1986, pages 94-5. Reprinted in: Brazil. Tomorrow’s Italy, The Economist, 17-23 January 1987, page 25.

The minutes of the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on Sep 16-17, 2014, reveal concern with global economic conditions (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20140917.htm):

“Most viewed the risks to the outlook for economic activity and the labor market as broadly balanced. However, a number of participants noted that economic growth over the medium term might be slower than they expected if foreign economic growth came in weaker than anticipated, structural productivity continued to increase only slowly, or the recovery in residential construction continued to lag.”

There is similar concern in the minutes of the meeting of the FOMC on Dec 16-17, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20141217.htm):

“In their discussion of the foreign economic outlook, participants noted that the implications of the drop in crude oil prices would differ across regions, especially if the price declines affected inflation expectations and financial markets; a few participants said that the effect on overseas employment and output as a whole was likely to be positive. While some participants had lowered their assessments of the prospects for global economic growth, several noted that the likelihood of further responses by policymakers abroad had increased. Several participants indicated that they expected slower economic growth abroad to negatively affect the U.S. economy, principally through lower net exports, but the net effect of lower oil prices on U.S. economic activity was anticipated to be positive.”

It is quite difficult to measure inflationary expectations because they tend to break abruptly from past inflation. There could still be an influence of past and current inflation in the calculation of future inflation by economic agents. Table VIII-1 provides inflation of the CPI. In the three months from Oct 2014 to Dec 2014, CPI inflation for all items seasonally adjusted was minus 2.8 percent in annual equivalent, obtained by calculating accumulated inflation from Oct 2014 to Dec 2014 and compounding for a full year. In the 12 months ending in Dec 2014, CPI inflation of all items not seasonally adjusted was 0.8 percent. Inflation in Dec 2014 seasonally adjusted was minus 0.4 percent relative to Nov 2014, or minus 4.7 percent annual equivalent (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/). The second row provides the same measurements for the CPI of all items excluding food and energy: 1.6 percent in 12 months and 1.2 percent in annual equivalent Oct 2014-Dec 2014. The Wall Street Journal provides the yield curve of US Treasury securities (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/mdc_bonds.html?mod=mdc_topnav_2_3000). The shortest term is 0.020 percent for one month, 0.023 percent for three months, 0.063 percent for six months, 0.211 percent for one year, 0.638 percent for two years, 1.059 percent for three years, 1.592 percent for five years, 1.927 percent for seven years, 2.116 percent for ten years and 2.717 percent for 30 years. The Irving Fisher (1930) definition of real interest rates is approximately the difference between nominal interest rates, which are those estimated by the Wall Street Journal, and the rate of inflation expected in the term of the security, which could behave as in Table VIII-1. Inflation in Dec 2014 is low in 12 months because of the unwinding of carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures prices but could ignite again with subdued risk aversion. Real interest rates in the US have been negative during substantial periods in the past decade while monetary policy pursues a policy of attaining its “dual mandate” of (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm):

“Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates”

Negative real rates of interest distort calculations of risk and returns from capital budgeting by firms, through lending by financial intermediaries to decisions on savings, housing and purchases of households. Inflation on near zero interest rates misallocates resources away from their most productive uses and creates uncertainty of the future path of adjustment to higher interest rates that inhibit sound decisions.

Table VIII-1, US, Consumer Price Index Percentage Change 12 Months NSA and Annual Equivalent

	∆% 12 Months Dec 2014/Dec 2013 NSA	∆% Annual Equivalent Oct 2014 to Dec 2014 SA
CPI All Items	0.8	-2.8
CPI ex Food and Energy	1.6	1.2

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

Professionals use a variety of techniques in measuring interest rate risk (Fabozzi, Buestow and Johnson, 2006, Chapter Nine, 183-226):

Full valuation approach in which securities and portfolios are shocked by 50, 100, 200 and 300 basis points to measure their impact on asset values
Stress tests requiring more complex analysis and translation of possible events with high impact even if with low probability of occurrence into effects on actual positions and capital
Value at Risk (VaR) analysis of maximum losses that are likely in a time horizon
Duration and convexity that are short-hand convenient measurement of changes in prices resulting from changes in yield captured by duration and convexity
Yield volatility

Analysis of these methods is in Pelaez and Pelaez (International Financial Architecture (2005), 101-162) and Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. (I) (2008a), 78-100). Frederick R. Macaulay (1938) introduced the concept of duration in contrast with maturity for analyzing bonds. Duration is the sensitivity of bond prices to changes in yields. In economic jargon, duration is the yield elasticity of bond price to changes in yield, or the percentage change in price after a percentage change in yield, typically expressed as the change in price resulting from change of 100 basis points in yield. The mathematical formula is the negative of the yield elasticity of the bond price or –[dB/d(1+y)]((1+y)/B), where d is the derivative operator of calculus, B the bond price, y the yield and the elasticity does not have dimension (Hallerbach 2001). The duration trap of unconventional monetary policy is that duration is higher the lower the coupon and higher the lower the yield, other things being constant. Coupons and yields are historically low because of unconventional monetary policy. Duration dumping during a rate increase may trigger the same crossfire selling of high duration positions that magnified the credit crisis. Traders reduced positions because capital losses in one segment, such as mortgage-backed securities, triggered haircuts and margin increases that reduced capital available for positioning in all segments, causing fire sales in multiple segments (Brunnermeier and Pedersen 2009; see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2008b), 217-24). Financial markets are currently experiencing fear of duration and riskier asset classes resulting from the debate within and outside the Fed on tapering quantitative easing. Table VIII-2 provides the yield curve of Treasury securities on Feb 20, 2015, Dec 31, 2013, May 1, 2013, Feb 20, 2014 and Feb 21, 2006. There is oscillating steepening of the yield curve for longer maturities, which are also the ones with highest duration. The 10-year yield increased from 1.45 percent on Jul 26, 2012 to 3.04 percent on Dec 31, 2013 and 2.13 percent on Feb 20, 2015, as measured by the United States Treasury. Assume that a bond with maturity in 10 years were issued on Dec 31, 2013, at par or price of 100 with coupon of 1.45 percent. The price of that bond would be 86.3778 with instantaneous increase of the yield to 3.04 percent for loss of 13.6 percent and far more with leverage. Assume that the yield of a bond with exactly ten years to maturity and coupon of 2.13 percent would jump instantaneously from yield of 2.13 percent on Feb 20, 2015 to 4.57 percent as occurred on Feb 21, 2006 when the economy was closer to full employment. The price of the hypothetical bond issued with coupon of 2.13 percent would drop from 100 to 80.5892 after an instantaneous increase of the yield to 4.57 percent. The price loss would be 19.4 percent. Losses absorb capital available for positioning, triggering crossfire sales in multiple asset classes (Brunnermeier and Pedersen 2009). What is the path of adjustment of zero interest rates on fed funds and artificially low bond yields? There is no painless exit from unconventional monetary policy. Chris Dieterich, writing on “Bond investors turn to cash,” on Jul 25, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323971204578625900935618178.html), uses data of the Investment Company Institute (http://www.ici.org/) in showing withdrawals of $43 billion in taxable mutual funds in Jun, which is the largest in history, with flows into cash investments such as $8.5 billion in the week of Jul 17 into money-market funds.

Table VIII-2, United States, Treasury Yields

	2/20/15	12/31/13	5/01/13	2/20/14	2/21/06
1 M	0.02	0.01	0.03	0.02	4.42
3 M	0.02	0.07	0.06	0.05	4.56
6 M	0.07	0.10	0.08	0.08	4.73
1 Y	0.23	0.13	0.11	0.12	4.73
2 Y	0.67	0.38	0.20	0.34	4.71
3 Y	1.07	0.78	0.30	0.72	4.68
5 Y	1.61	1.75	0.65	1.57	4.59
7 Y	1.94	2.45	1.07	2.20	4.58
10 Y	2.13	3.04	1.66	2.76	4.57
20 Y	2.50	3.72	2.44	3.44	4.72
30 Y	2.73	3.96	2.83	3.73	4.53

M: Months; Y: Years

Source: United States Treasury

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield

Chart VI-13, US, Conventional Mortgage Rate, Jan 8, 2004 to Feb 19, 2015

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/update

There is a false impression of the existence of a monetary policy “science,” measurements and forecasting with which to steer the economy into “prosperity without inflation.” Market participants are remembering the Great Bond Crash of 1994 shown in Table VI-7G when monetary policy pursued nonexistent inflation, causing trillions of dollars of losses in fixed income worldwide while increasing the fed funds rate from 3 percent in Jan 1994 to 6 percent in Dec. The exercise in Table VI-7G shows a drop of the price of the 30-year bond by 18.1 percent and of the 10-year bond by 14.1 percent. CPI inflation remained almost the same and there is no valid counterfactual that inflation would have been higher without monetary policy tightening because of the long lag in effect of monetary policy on inflation (see Culbertson 1960, 1961, Friedman 1961, Batini and Nelson 2002, Romer and Romer 2004). The pursuit of nonexistent deflation during the past ten years has resulted in the largest monetary policy accommodation in history that created the 2007 financial market crash and global recession and is currently preventing smoother recovery while creating another financial crash in the future. The issue is not whether there should be a central bank and monetary policy but rather whether policy accommodation in doses from zero interest rates to trillions of dollars in the fed balance sheet endangers economic stability.

Table VI-7G, Fed Funds Rates, Thirty and Ten Year Treasury Yields and Prices, 30-Year Mortgage Rates and 12-month CPI Inflation 1994

1994	FF	30Y	30P	10Y	10P	MOR	CPI
Jan	3.00	6.29	100	5.75	100	7.06	2.52
Feb	3.25	6.49	97.37	5.97	98.36	7.15	2.51
Mar	3.50	6.91	92.19	6.48	94.69	7.68	2.51
Apr	3.75	7.27	88.10	6.97	91.32	8.32	2.36
May	4.25	7.41	86.59	7.18	88.93	8.60	2.29
Jun	4.25	7.40	86.69	7.10	90.45	8.40	2.49
Jul	4.25	7.58	84.81	7.30	89.14	8.61	2.77
Aug	4.75	7.49	85.74	7.24	89.53	8.51	2.69
Sep	4.75	7.71	83.49	7.46	88.10	8.64	2.96
Oct	4.75	7.94	81.23	7.74	86.33	8.93	2.61
Nov	5.50	8.08	79.90	7.96	84.96	9.17	2.67
Dec	6.00	7.87	81.91	7.81	85.89	9.20	2.67

Notes: FF: fed funds rate; 30Y: yield of 30-year Treasury; 30P: price of 30-year Treasury assuming coupon equal to 6.29 percent and maturity in exactly 30 years; 10Y: yield of 10-year Treasury; 10P: price of 10-year Treasury assuming coupon equal to 5.75 percent and maturity in exactly 10 years; MOR: 30-year mortgage; CPI: percent change of CPI in 12 months

Sources: yields and mortgage rates http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm CPI ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.t

Chart VI-14 provides the overnight fed funds rate, the yield of the 10-year Treasury constant maturity bond, the yield of the 30-year constant maturity bond and the conventional mortgage rate from Jan 1991 to Dec 1996. In Jan 1991, the fed funds rate was 6.91 percent, the 10-year Treasury yield 8.09 percent, the 30-year Treasury yield 8.27 percent and the conventional mortgage rate 9.64 percent. Before monetary policy tightening in Oct 1993, the rates and yields were 2.99 percent for the fed funds, 5.33 percent for the 10-year Treasury, 5.94 for the 30-year Treasury and 6.83 percent for the conventional mortgage rate. After tightening in Nov 1994, the rates and yields were 5.29 percent for the fed funds rate, 7.96 percent for the 10-year Treasury, 8.08 percent for the 30-year Treasury and 9.17 percent for the conventional mortgage rate.

Chart VI-14, US, Overnight Fed Funds Rate, 10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity, 30-Year Treasury Constant Maturity and Conventional Mortgage Rate, Monthly, Jan 1991 to Dec 1996

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/update/

Chart VI-15 of the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides the all items consumer price index from Jan 1991 to Dec 1996. There does not appear acceleration of consumer prices requiring aggressive tightening.

Chart VI-15, US, Consumer Price Index All Items, Jan 1991 to Dec 1996

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Chart IV-16 of the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides 12-month percentage changes of the all items consumer price index from Jan 1991 to Dec 1996. Inflation collapsed during the recession from Jul 1990 (III) and Mar 1991 (I) and the end of the Kuwait War on Feb 25, 1991 that stabilized world oil markets. CPI inflation remained almost the same and there is no valid counterfactual that inflation would have been higher without monetary policy tightening because of the long lag in effect of monetary policy on inflation (see Culbertson 1960, 1961, Friedman 1961, Batini and Nelson 2002, Romer and Romer 2004). Policy tightening had adverse collateral effects in the form of emerging market crises in Mexico and Argentina and fixed income markets worldwide.

Chart VI-16, US, Consumer Price Index All Items, Twelve-Month Percentage Change, Jan 1991 to Dec 1996

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Table VI-2 extracts four rows of Table VI-1 with the Dollar/EUR (USD/EUR) exchange rate and Chinese Yuan/Dollar (CNY/USD) exchange rate that reveal pursuit of exchange rate policies resulting from monetary policy in the US and capital control/exchange rate policy in China. The ultimate intentions are the same: promoting internal economic activity at the expense of the rest of the world. The easy money policy of the US was deliberately or not but effectively to devalue the dollar from USD 1.1423/EUR on Jun 26, 2003 to USD 1.5914/EUR on Jul 14, 2008, or by 39.3 percent. The flight into dollar assets after the global recession caused revaluation to USD 1.192/EUR on Jun 7, 2010, or by 25.1 percent. After the temporary interruption of the sovereign risk issues in Europe from Apr to Jul, 2010, shown in Table VI-4 below, the dollar has revalued to USD 1.1381 EUR on Feb 20, 2015 or by 4.5 percent {[(1.1381/1.192)-1]100 = -4.5%}. Yellen (2011AS, 6) admits that Fed monetary policy results in dollar devaluation with the objective of increasing net exports, which was the policy that Joan Robinson (1947) labeled as “beggar-my-neighbor” remedies for unemployment. Risk aversion erodes devaluation of the dollar. China fixed the CNY to the dollar for a long period at a highly undervalued level of around CNY 8.2765/USD subsequently revaluing to CNY 6.8211/USD until Jun 7, 2010, or by 17.6 percent. After fixing again the CNY to the dollar, China revalued to CNY 6.2546/USD on Fri Feb 20, 2015, or by an additional 8.3 percent, for cumulative revaluation of 24.4 percent. The final row of Table VI-2 shows: devaluation of 0.4 percent in the week of Jan 30, 2015; revaluation of 0.2 percent in the week of Feb 6, 2015; change of 0.0 percent in the week of Feb 13, 2015; and revaluation of 0.2 percent in the week of Feb 20, 2015. There could be reversal of revaluation to devalue the Yuan.

Table VI-2, Dollar/Euro (USD/EUR) Exchange Rate and Chinese Yuan/Dollar (CNY/USD) Exchange Rate

USD/EUR	12/26/03	7/14/08	6/07/10	2/20/15
Rate	1.1423	1.5914	1.192	1.1381
CNY/USD	01/03 2000	07/21 2005	7/15 2008	2/20/ 2015
Rate	8.2765	8.2765	6.8211	6.2546
Weekly Rates	1/30/2015	2/6/2015	2/13/2015	2/20/ 2015
CNY/USD	6.2543	6.2445	6.2446	6.2546
∆% from Earlier Week*	-0.4	0.2	0.0	0.2

*Negative sign is depreciation; positive sign is appreciation

Source: http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/mdc_currencies.html?mod=mdc_topnav_2_3000

There are major ongoing and unresolved realignments of exchange rates in the international financial system as countries and regions seek parities that can optimize their productive structures. Seeking exchange rate parity or exchange rate optimizing internal economic activities is complex in a world of unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and even negative nominal interest rates of government obligations such as negative yields for the two-year government bond of Germany. Regulation, trade and devaluation conflicts should have been expected from a global recession (Pelaez and Pelaez (2007), The Global Recession Risk, Pelaez and Pelaez, Government Intervention in Globalization: Regulation, Trade and Devaluation Wars (2008a)): “There are significant grounds for concern on the basis of this experience. International economic cooperation and the international financial framework can collapse during extreme events. It is unlikely that there will be a repetition of the disaster of the Great Depression. However, a milder contraction can trigger regulatory, trade and exchange wars” (Pelaez and Pelaez, Government Intervention in Globalization: Regulation, Trade and Devaluation Wars (2008c), 181). Chart VI-2 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the key exchange rate of US dollars (USD) per euro (EUR) from Jan 4, 1999 to Feb 13, 2015. US recession dates are in shaded areas. The rate on Jan 4, 1999 was USD 1.1812/EUR, declining to USD 0.8279/EUR on Oct 25, 2000, or appreciation of the USD by 29.9 percent. The rate depreciated 21.9 percent to USD 1.0098/EUR on Jul 22, 2002. There was sharp devaluation of the USD of 34.9 percent to USD 1.3625/EUR on Dec 27, 2004 largely because of the 1 percent interest rate between Jun 2003 and Jun 2004 together with a form of quantitative easing by suspension of auctions of the 30-year Treasury, which was equivalent to withdrawing supply from markets. Another depreciation of 17.5 percent took the rate to USD 1.6010/EUR on Apr 22, 2008, already inside the shaded area of the global recession. The flight to the USD and obligations of the US Treasury appreciated the dollar by 22.3 percent to USD 1.2446/EUR on Oct 27, 2008. In the return of the carry trade after stress tests showed sound US bank balance sheets, the rate depreciated 21.2 percent to USD 1.5085/EUR on Nov 25, 2009. The sovereign debt crisis of Europe in the spring of 2010 caused sharp appreciation of 20.7 percent to USD 1.1959/EUR on Jun 6, 2010. Renewed risk appetite depreciated the rate 24.4 percent to USD 1.4875/EUR on May 3, 2011. The rate appreciated 4.6 percent to USD 1.1408/EUR on Feb 13, 2015, which is the last point in Chart VI-2. The data in Table VI-6 is obtained from closing dates in New York published by the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata).

Chart VI-2, US Dollars (USD) per Euro (EUR), Jan 4, 1999 to Feb 13, 2015

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

Chart VI-3 provides three indexes of the US Dollars (USD) from Jan 4, 1995 to Feb 1, 2015.

Chart VI-3A provides the overnight fed funds rate and yields of the three-month constant maturity Treasury bill, the ten-year constant maturity Treasury note and Moody’s Baa bond from Jan 4, 1995 to Feb 19, 2015. The first phase from 1995 to 2001 shows sharp trend of appreciation of the USD while interest rates remained at relatively high levels. The dollar revalued partly because of the emerging market crises that provoked inflows of financial investment into the US and partly because of a deliberate strong dollar policy. DeLong and Eichengreen (2001, 4-5) argue:

“That context was an economic and political strategy that emphasized private investment as the engine for U.S. economic growth. Both components of this term, "private" and "investment," had implications for the administration’s international economic strategy. From the point of view of investment, it was important that international events not pressure on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, since this would have curtailed capital formation and vitiated the effects of the administration’s signature achievement: deficit reduction. A strong dollar -- or rather a dollar that was not expected to weaken -- was a key component of a policy which aimed at keeping the Fed comfortable with low interest rates. In addition, it was important to create a demand for the goods and services generated by this additional productive capacity. To the extent that this demand resided abroad, administration officials saw it as important that the process of increasing international integration, of both trade and finance, move forward for the interest of economic development in emerging markets and therefore in support of U.S. economic growth.”

The process of integration consisted of restructuring “international financial architecture” (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture: G7, IMF, BIS, Debtors and Creditors (2005)). Policy concerns subsequently shifted to the external imbalances, or current account deficits, and internal imbalances, or government deficits (Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk: Dollar Devaluation and the World Economy (2007)). Fed policy consisted of lowering the policy rate or fed funds rate, which is close to the marginal cost of funding of banks, toward zero during the past decade. Near zero interest rates induce carry trades of selling dollar debt (borrowing), shorting the USD and investing in risk financial assets. Without risk aversion, near zero interest rates cause devaluation of the dollar. Chart VI-3 shows the weakening USD between the recession of 2001 and the contraction after IVQ2007. There was a flight to dollar assets and especially obligations of the US government after Sep 2008. Cochrane and Zingales (2009) show that flight was coincident with proposals of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) to withdraw “toxic assets” in US banks (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a) and Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b)). There are shocks to globalization in the form of regulation, trade and devaluation wars and breakdown of international cooperation (Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State: Vol. I (2008a), Globalization and the State: Vol. II (2008b) and Government Intervention in Globalization: Regulation, Trade and Devaluation Wars (2008c)). As evident in Chart VI-3A, there is no exit from near zero interest rates without a financial crisis and economic contraction, verified by the increase of interest rates from 1 percent in Jun 2004 to 5.25 percent in Jun 2006. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) lowered the target of the fed funds rate from 7.03 percent on Jul 3, 2000, to 1.00 percent on Jun 22, 2004, in pursuit of non-existing deflation (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 18-28, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 83-85). The FOMC implemented increments of 25 basis points of the fed funds target from Jun 2004 to Jun 2006, raising the fed funds rate to 5.25 percent on Jul 3, 2006, as shown in Chart VI-3A. The gradual exit from the first round of unconventional monetary policy from 1.00 percent in Jun 2004 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/monetary/2004/20040630/default.htm) to 5.25 percent in Jun 2006 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20060629a.htm) caused the financial crisis and global recession. There are conflicts on exchange rate movements among central banks. There is concern of declining inflation in the euro area and appreciation of the euro. On Jun 5, 2014, the European Central Bank introduced cuts in interest rates and a negative rate paid on deposits of banks (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr140605.en.html):

“5 June 2014 - Monetary policy decisions

At today’s meeting the Governing Council of the ECB took the following monetary policy decisions:

The interest rate on the main refinancing operations of the Eurosystem will be decreased by 10 basis points to 0.15%, starting from the operation to be settled on 11 June 2014.
The interest rate on the marginal lending facility will be decreased by 35 basis points to 0.40%, with effect from 11 June 2014.
The interest rate on the deposit facility will be decreased by 10 basis points to -0.10%, with effect from 11 June 2014. A separate press release to be published at 3.30 p.m. CET today will provide details on the implementation of the negative deposit facility rate.”

The ECB also introduced new measures of monetary policy on Jun 5, 2014 (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr140605_2.en.html):

“5 June 2014 - ECB announces monetary policy measures to enhance the functioning of the monetary policy transmission mechanism

In pursuing its price stability mandate, the Governing Council of the ECB has today announced measures to enhance the functioning of the monetary policy transmission mechanism by supporting lending to the real economy. In particular, the Governing Council has decided:

To conduct a series of targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) aimed at improving bank lending to the euro area non-financial private sector ^[¹^], excluding loans to households for house purchase, over a window of two years.
To intensify preparatory work related to outright purchases of asset-backed securities (ABS).”

The President of the European Central Bank (ECB) Mario Draghi analyzed the measures at a press conference (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2014/html/is140605.en.html). At the press conference following the meeting of the ECB on Jul 3, 2014, Mario Draghi stated (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2014/html/is140703.en.html): “In fact, as I said, interest rates will stay low for an extended period of time, and the Governing Council is unanimous in its commitment to use also nonstandard, unconventional measures to cope with the risk of a too-prolonged period of time of low inflation.”

The President of the ECB Mario Draghi analyzed unemployment in the euro area and the policy response policy in a speech at the Jackson Hole meeting of central bankers on Aug 22, 2014 (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2014/html/sp140822.en.html):

“We have already seen exchange rate movements that should support both aggregate demand and inflation, which we expect to be sustained by the diverging expected paths of policy in the US and the euro area (Figure 7). We will launch our first Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operation in September, which has so far garnered significant interest from banks. And our preparation for outright purchases in asset-backed security (ABS) markets is fast moving forward and we expect that it should contribute to further credit easing. Indeed, such outright purchases would meaningfully contribute to diversifying the channels for us to generate liquidity.”

On Sep 4, 2014, the European Central Bank lowered policy rates (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr140904.en.html):

“4 September 2014 - Monetary policy decisions

At today’s meeting the Governing Council of the ECB took the following monetary policy decisions:

The interest rate on the main refinancing operations of the Eurosystem will be decreased by 10 basis points to 0.05%, starting from the operation to be settled on 10 September 2014.
The interest rate on the marginal lending facility will be decreased by 10 basis points to 0.30%, with effect from 10 September 2014.
The interest rate on the deposit facility will be decreased by 10 basis points to -0.20%, with effect from 10 September 2014.”

The President of the European Central Bank announced on Sep 4, 2014, the decision to expand the balance sheet by purchases of asset-backed securities (ABS) in a new ABS Purchase Program (ABSPP) and covered bonds (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2014/html/is140904.en.html):

“Based on our regular economic and monetary analyses, the Governing Council decided today to lower the interest rate on the main refinancing operations of the Eurosystem by 10 basis points to 0.05% and the rate on the marginal lending facility by 10 basis points to 0.30%. The rate on the deposit facility was lowered by 10 basis points to -0.20%. In addition, the Governing Council decided to start purchasing non-financial private sector assets. The Eurosystem will purchase a broad portfolio of simple and transparent asset-backed securities (ABSs) with underlying assets consisting of claims against the euro area non-financial private sector under an ABS purchase programme (ABSPP). This reflects the role of the ABS market in facilitating new credit flows to the economy and follows the intensification of preparatory work on this matter, as decided by the Governing Council in June. In parallel, the Eurosystem will also purchase a broad portfolio of euro-denominated covered bonds issued by MFIs domiciled in the euro area under a new covered bond purchase programme (CBPP3). Interventions under these programmes will start in October 2014. The detailed modalities of these programmes will be announced after the Governing Council meeting of 2 October 2014. The newly decided measures, together with the targeted longer-term refinancing operations which will be conducted in two weeks, will have a sizeable impact on our balance sheet.”

At the Thirtieth Meeting of the International Monetary and Financial Committee of the IMF (IMFC), the President of the European Central Bank (ECB), Mario Draghi stated (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2014/html/sp141010.en.html):

“Our monetary policy continues to aim at firmly anchoring medium to long-term inflation expectations, in line with our objective of maintaining inflation rates below, but close to, 2% over the medium term. In this context, we have taken both conventional and unconventional measures that will contribute to a return of inflation rates to levels closer to our aim. Our unconventional measures, more specifically our TLTROs (Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations) and our new purchase programmes for ABSs and covered bonds, will further enhance the functioning of our monetary policy transmission mechanism and facilitate credit provision to the real economy. Should it become necessary to further address risks of too prolonged a period of low inflation, the ECB’s Governing Council is unanimous in its commitment to using additional unconventional instruments within its mandate.”

In a speech on “Monetary Policy in the Euro Area,” on Nov 21, 2014, the President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, advised of the determination to bring inflation back to normal levels by aggressive holding of securities in the balance sheet (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2014/html/sp141121.en.html):

“In short, there is a combination of policies that will work to bring growth and inflation back on a sound path, and we all have to meet our responsibilities in achieving that. For our part, we will continue to meet our responsibility – we will do what we must to raise inflation and inflation expectations as fast as possible, as our price stability mandate requires of us.

If on its current trajectory our policy is not effective enough to achieve this, or further risks to the inflation outlook materialise, we would step up the pressure and broaden even more the channels through which we intervene, by altering accordingly the size, pace and composition of our purchases.”

In the Introductory Statement to the press conference on Dec 4, 2014, the President of the European Central Bank Mario Draghi advised that (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2014/html/is141204.en.html):

“In this context, early next year the Governing Council will reassess the monetary stimulus achieved, the expansion of the balance sheet and the outlook for price developments. We will also evaluate the broader impact of recent oil price developments on medium-term inflation trends in the euro area. Should it become necessary to further address risks of too prolonged a period of low inflation, the Governing Council remains unanimous in its commitment to using additional unconventional instruments within its mandate. This would imply altering early next year the size, pace and composition of our measures.”

The SNB also lowered interest rates to nominal negative percentages (http://www.snb.ch/en/mmr/speeches/id/ref_20150115_tjn/source/ref_20150115_tjn.en.pdf):

The President of the ECB, Mario Draghi, does not find effects of monetary policy in inflating asset prices (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2015/html/is150122.en.html):

Chart VI-3, US Dollar Currency Indexes, Jan 4, 1995-Feb 13, 2015

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

Chart VI-3A, US, Overnight Fed Funds Rate, Yield of Three-Month Treasury Constant Maturity, Yield of Ten-Year Treasury Constant Maturity and Yield of Moody’s Baa Bond, Jan 4, 1995 to Feb 19, 2015

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15

Carry trades induced by zero interest rates increase capital flows into emerging markets that appreciate exchange rates. Portfolio reallocations away from emerging markets depreciate their exchange rates in reversals of capital flows. Chart VI-4A provides the exchange rate of the Mexican peso (MXN) per US dollar from Nov 8, 1993 to Feb 13, 2015. The first data point in Chart VI-4A is MXN 3.1520 on Nov 8, 1993. The rate devalued to 11.9760 on Nov 14, 1995 during emerging market crises in the 1990s and the increase of interest rates in the US in 1994 that stressed world financial markets (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture 2005, The Global Recession Risk 2007, 147-77). The MXN depreciated sharply to MXN 15.4060/USD on Mar 2, 2009, during the global recession. The rate moved to MXN 11.5050/USD on May 2, 2011, during the sovereign debt crisis in the euro area. The rate depreciated to 11.9760 on May 9, 2013. The final data point is MXN 14.8730/USD on Feb 13, 2015.

Chart VI-4A, Mexican Peso (MXN) per US Dollar (USD), Nov 8, 1993 to Feb 13, 2015

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

There are collateral effects worldwide from unconventional monetary policy. In remarkable anticipation in 2005, Professor Raghuram G. Rajan (2005) warned of low liquidity and high risks of central bank policy rates approaching the zero bound (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 218-9). Professor Rajan excelled in a distinguished career as an academic economist in finance and was chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Shefali Anand and Jon Hilsenrath, writing on Oct 13, 2013, on “India’s central banker lobbies Fed,” published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304330904579133530766149484?KEYWORDS=Rajan), interviewed Raghuram G Rajan, who is the current Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, which is India’s central bank (http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/AboutusDisplay.aspx). In this interview, Rajan argues that central banks should avoid unintended consequences on emerging market economies of inflows and outflows of capital triggered by monetary policy. Professor Rajan, in an interview with Kartik Goyal of Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/rajan-warns-of-global-policy-breakdown-as-emerging-markets-slide.html), warns of breakdown of global policy coordination. Professor Willem Buiter (2014Feb4), a distinguished economist currently Global Chief Economist at Citigroup (http://www.willembuiter.com/resume.pdf), writing on “The Fed’s bad manners risk offending foreigners,” on Feb 4, 2014, published in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fbb09572-8d8d-11e3-9dbb-00144feab7de.html#axzz2suwrwkFs), concurs with Raghuram Rajan. Buiter (2014Feb4) argues that international policy cooperation in monetary policy is both in the interest of the world and the United States. Portfolio reallocations induced by combination of zero interest rates and risk events stimulate carry trades that generate wide swings in world capital flows. In a speech at the Brookings Institution on Apr 10, 2014, Raghuram G. Rajan (2014Apr10, 1, 10) argues:

“As the world seems to be struggling back to its feet after the great financial crisis, I want to draw attention to an area we need to be concerned about: the conduct of monetary policy in this integrated world. A good way to describe the current environment is one of extreme monetary easing through unconventional policies. In a world where debt overhangs and the need for structural change constrain domestic demand, a sizeable portion of the effects of such policies spillover across borders, sometimes through a weaker exchange rate. More worryingly, it prompts a reaction. Such competitive easing occurs both simultaneously and sequentially, as I will argue, and both advanced economies and emerging economies engage in it. Aggregate world demand may be weaker and more distorted than it should be, and financial risks higher. To ensure stable and sustainable growth, the international rules of the game need to be revisited. Both advanced economies and emerging economies need to adapt, else I fear we are about to embark on the next leg of a wearisome cycle. A first step to prescribing the right medicine is to recognize the cause of the sickness. Extreme monetary easing, in my view, is more cause than medicine. The sooner we recognize that, the more sustainable world growth we will have.”

Chart VI-4B provides the rate of the Indian rupee (INR) per US dollar (USD) from Jan 2, 1973 to Feb 13, 2015. The first data point is INR 8.0200 on Jan 2, 1973. The rate depreciated sharply to INR 51.9600 on Mar 3, 2009, during the global recession. The rate appreciated to INR 44.0300/USD on Jul 28, 2011 in the midst of the sovereign debt event in the euro area. The rate overshot to INR 68.8000 on Aug 28, 2013. The final data point is INR 62.0400/USD on Feb 13, 2015.

Chart VI-4B, Indian Rupee (INR) per US Dollar (USD), Jan 2, 1973 to Feb 13, 2015

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

Chart VI-5 provides the exchange rate of JPY (Japan yen) per USD (US dollars). The first data point on the extreme left is JPY 357.7300/USD for Jan 4, 1971. The JPY has appreciated over the long term relative to the USD with fluctuations along an evident long-term appreciation. Before the global recession, the JPY stood at JPY 124.0900/USD on Jun 22, 2007. The use of the JPY as safe haven is evident by sharp appreciation during the global recession to JPY 110.48/USD on Aug 15, 2008, and to JPY 87.8000/USD on Jan 21, 2009. The final data point in Chart VI-5 is JPY 118.700/USD on Feb 13, 2015 for appreciation of 4.3 percent relative to JPY 124.0900/USD on Jun 22, 2007 before the global recession and expansion characterized by recurring bouts of risk aversion. Takashi Nakamichi and Eleanor Warnock, writing on “Japan lashes out over dollar, euro,” on Dec 29, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323530404578207440474874604.html?mod=WSJ_markets_liveupdate&mg=reno64-wsj), analyze the “war of words” launched by Japan’s new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his finance minister Taro Aso, arguing of deliberate devaluations of the USD and EUR relative to the JPY, which are hurting Japan’s economic activity. Gerard Baker and Jacob M. Shlesinger, writing on “Bank of Japan’s Kuroda signals impatience with Abe government,” on May 23, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579579311491068756?KEYWORDS=bank+of+japan+kuroda&mg=reno64-wsj), analyze concerns of the Governor of the Bank of Japan Haruhiko Kuroda that the JPY has strengthened relative to the USD, partly eroding earlier depreciation. The data in Table VI-6 is obtained from closing dates in New York published by the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata).

Chart VI-5, Japanese Yen JPY per US Dollars USD, Monthly, Jan 4, 1971-Feb 13, 2015

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

The financial crisis and global recession were caused by interest rate and housing subsidies and affordability policies that encouraged high leverage and risks, low liquidity and unsound credit (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 157-66, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 217-27, International Financial Architecture (2005), 15-18, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II (2008b), 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 182-4). Several past comments of this blog elaborate on these arguments, among which: http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/causes-of-2007-creditdollar-crisis.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/professor-mckinnons-bubble-economy.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/world-inflation-quantitative-easing.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/treasury-yields-valuation-of-risk.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/quantitative-easing-theory-evidence-and.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-fed-printing-money-what-are.html

Zero interest rates in the United States forever tend to depreciate the dollar against every other currency if there is no risk aversion preventing portfolio rebalancing toward risk financial assets, which include the capital markets and exchange rates of emerging-market economies. The objective of unconventional monetary policy as argued by Yellen 2011AS) is to devalue the dollar to increase net exports that increase US economic growth. Increasing net exports and internal economic activity in the US is equivalent to decreasing net exports and internal economic activity in other countries.

Continental territory, rich endowment of natural resources, investment in human capital, teaching and research universities, motivated labor force and entrepreneurial initiative provide Brazil with comparative advantages in multiple economic opportunities. Exchange rate parity is critical in achieving Brazil’s potential but is difficult in a world of zero interest rates. Chart IV-6 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the rate of Brazilian real (BRL) per US dollar (USD) from BRL 1.2074/USD on Jan 4, 1999 to BRL 2.8273/USD on Feb 13, 2015. The rate reached BRL 3.9450/USD on Oct 10, 2002 appreciating 60.5 percent to BRL 1.5580/USD on Aug 1, 2008. The rate depreciated 68.1 percent to BRL 2.6187/USD on Dec 5, 2008 during worldwide flight from risk. The rate appreciated again by 41.3 percent to BRL 1.5375/USD on Jul 26, 2011. The final data point in Chart VI-6 is BRL 2.8273/USD on Feb 13, 2015 for depreciation of 83.9 percent. The data in Table VI-6 is obtained from closing dates in New York published by the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata).

Chart VI-6, Brazilian Real (BRL) per US Dollar (USD) Jan 4, 1999 to Feb 13, 2015

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

Chart VI-7 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the history of the BRL beginning with the first data point of BRL 0.8440/USD on Jan 2, 1995. The rate jumped to BRL 2.0700/USD on Jan 29, 1999 after changes in exchange rate policy and then to BRL 2.2000/USD on Mar 3, 1999. The rate depreciated 26.7 percent to BRL 2.7880/USD on Sep 21, 2001 relative to Mar 3, 1999.

Chart VI-7, Brazilian Real (BRL) per US Dollar (USD), Jan 2, 1995 to Feb 13, 2015

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

The major reason and channel of transmission of unconventional monetary policy is through expectations of inflation. Fisher (1930) provided theoretical and historical relation of interest rates and inflation. Let i_n be the nominal interest rate, i_r the real or inflation-adjusted interest rate and π^e the expectation of inflation in the time term of the interest rate, which are all expressed as proportions. The following expression provides the relation of real and nominal interest rates and the expectation of inflation:

(1 + i_r) = (1 + i_n)/(1 + π^e) (1)

That is, the real interest rate equals the nominal interest rate discounted by the expectation of inflation in time term of the interest rate. Fisher (1933) analyzed the devastating effect of deflation on debts. Nominal debt contracts remained at original principal interest but net worth and income of debtors contracted during deflation. Real interest rates increase during declining inflation. For example, if the interest rate is 3 percent and prices decline 0.2 percent, equation (1) calculates the real interest rate as:

(1 +0.03)/(1 – 0.02) = 1.03/(0.998) = 1.032

That is, the real rate of interest is (1.032 – 1) 100 or 3.2 percent. If inflation were 2 percent, the real rate of interest would be 0.98 percent, or about 1.0 percent {[(1.03/1.02) -1]100 = 0.98%}.

The yield of the one-year Treasury security was quoted in the Wall Street Journal at 0.114 percent on Fri May 17, 2013 (http://online.wsj.com/mdc/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_topnav_marketdata_main). The expected rate of inflation π^e in the next twelve months is not observed. Assume that it would be equal to the rate of inflation in the past twelve months estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BLS) at 1.1 percent (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/). The real rate of interest would be obtained as follows:

(1 + 0.00114)/(1 + 0.011) = (1 + r_r) = 0.9902

That is, i_r is equal to 1 – 0.9902 or minus 0.98 percent. Investing in a one-year Treasury security results in a loss of 0.98 percent relative to inflation. The objective of unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates is to induce consumption and investment because of the loss to inflation of riskless financial assets. Policy would be truly irresponsible if it intended to increase inflationary expectations or π^e. The result could be the same rate of unemployment with higher inflation (Kydland and Prescott 1977).

Focus is shifting from tapering quantitative easing by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). There is sharp distinction between the two measures of unconventional monetary policy: (1) fixing of the overnight rate of fed funds at 0 to ¼ percent; and (2) outright purchase of Treasury and agency securities and mortgage-backed securities for the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. Markets overreacted to the so-called “paring” of outright purchases to $15 billion of securities per month for the balance sheet of the Fed.

At a speech on Mar 31, 2014, Chair Yellen analyzed labor market conditions as follows (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20140331a.htm):

Let me explain what I mean by that word "slack" and why it is so important.

Yellen (2014Aug22) provides comprehensive review of the theory and measurement of labor markets. Monetary policy pursues a policy of attaining its “dual mandate” of (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm):

“Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates”

Yellen (2014Aug22) finds that the unemployment rate is not sufficient in determining slack:

“One convenient way to summarize the information contained in a large number of indicators is through the use of so-called factor models. Following this methodology, Federal Reserve Board staff developed a labor market conditions index from 19 labor market indicators, including four I just discussed. This broadly based metric supports the conclusion that the labor market has improved significantly over the past year, but it also suggests that the decline in the unemployment rate over this period somewhat overstates the improvement in overall labor market conditions.”

Yellen (2014Aug22) restates that the FOMC determines monetary policy on newly available information and interpretation of labor markets and inflation and does not follow a preset path:

“But if progress in the labor market continues to be more rapid than anticipated by the Committee or if inflation moves up more rapidly than anticipated, resulting in faster convergence toward our dual objectives, then increases in the federal funds rate target could come sooner than the Committee currently expects and could be more rapid thereafter. Of course, if economic performance turns out to be disappointing and progress toward our goals proceeds more slowly than we expect, then the future path of interest rates likely would be more accommodative than we currently anticipate. As I have noted many times, monetary policy is not on a preset path. The Committee will be closely monitoring incoming information on the labor market and inflation in determining the appropriate stance of monetary policy.”

There is similar concern in the minutes of the meeting of the FOMC on Dec 16-17, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20141217.htm):

Chair Yellen analyzes the view of inflation (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20140416a.htm):

“Inflation, as measured by the price index for personal consumption expenditures, has slowed from an annual rate of about 2-1/2 percent in early 2012 to less than 1 percent in February of this year. This rate is well below the Committee's 2 percent longer-run objective. Many advanced economies are observing a similar softness in inflation.

To some extent, the low rate of inflation seems due to influences that are likely to be temporary, including a deceleration in consumer energy prices and outright declines in core import prices in recent quarters. Longer-run inflation expectations have remained remarkably steady, however. We anticipate that, as the effects of transitory factors subside and as labor market gains continue, inflation will gradually move back toward 2 percent.”

There is a critical phrase in the statement of Sep 19, 2013 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20130918a.htm): “but mortgage rates have risen further.” Did the increase of mortgage rates influence the decision of the FOMC not to taper? Is FOMC “communication” and “guidance” successful? Will the FOMC increase purchases of mortgage-backed securities if mortgage rates increase?

At the confirmation hearing on nomination for Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Vice Chair Yellen (2013Nov14 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20131114a.htm), states needs and intentions of policy:

“We have made good progress, but we have farther to go to regain the ground lost in the crisis and the recession. Unemployment is down from a peak of 10 percent, but at 7.3 percent in October, it is still too high, reflecting a labor market and economy performing far short of their potential. At the same time, inflation has been running below the Federal Reserve's goal of 2 percent and is expected to continue to do so for some time.

For these reasons, the Federal Reserve is using its monetary policy tools to promote a more robust recovery. A strong recovery will ultimately enable the Fed to reduce its monetary accommodation and reliance on unconventional policy tools such as asset purchases. I believe that supporting the recovery today is the surest path to returning to a more normal approach to monetary policy.”

In testimony on the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress before the Committee on Financial Services, US House of Representatives, on Feb 11, 2014, Chair Janet Yellen states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20140211a.htm):

“Turning to monetary policy, let me emphasize that I expect a great deal of continuity in the FOMC's approach to monetary policy. I served on the Committee as we formulated our current policy strategy and I strongly support that strategy, which is designed to fulfill the Federal Reserve's statutory mandate of maximum employment and price stability. If incoming information broadly supports the Committee's expectation of ongoing improvement in labor market conditions and inflation moving back toward its longer-run objective, the Committee will likely reduce the pace of asset purchases in further measured steps at future meetings. That said, purchases are not on a preset course, and the Committee's decisions about their pace will remain contingent on its outlook for the labor market and inflation as well as its assessment of the likely efficacy and costs of such purchases. In December of last year and again this January, the Committee said that its current expectation--based on its assessment of a broad range of measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments--is that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate well past the time that the unemployment rate declines below 6-1/2 percent, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the 2 percent goal. I am committed to achieving both parts of our dual mandate: helping the economy return to full employment and returning inflation to 2 percent while ensuring that it does not run persistently above or below that level (emphasis added).”

In testimony before the Committee on the Budget of the US Senate on May 8, 2004, Chair Yellen provides analysis of the current economic situation and outlook (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20140507a.htm):

“The economy has continued to recover from the steep recession of 2008 and 2009. Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth stepped up to an average annual rate of about 3-1/4 percent over the second half of last year, a faster pace than in the first half and during the preceding two years. Although real GDP growth is currently estimated to have paused in the first quarter of this year, I see that pause as mostly reflecting transitory factors, including the effects of the unusually cold and snowy winter weather. With the harsh winter behind us, many recent indicators suggest that a rebound in spending and production is already under way, putting the overall economy on track for solid growth in the current quarter. One cautionary note, though, is that readings on housing activity--a sector that has been recovering since 2011--have remained disappointing so far this year and will bear watching.

Conditions in the labor market have continued to improve. The unemployment rate was 6.3 percent in April, about 1-1/4 percentage points below where it was a year ago. Moreover, gains in payroll employment averaged nearly 200,000 jobs per month over the past year. During the economic recovery so far, payroll employment has increased by about 8-1/2 million jobs since its low point, and the unemployment rate has declined about 3-3/4 percentage points since its peak.

While conditions in the labor market have improved appreciably, they are still far from satisfactory. Even with recent declines in the unemployment rate, it continues to be elevated. Moreover, both the share of the labor force that has been unemployed for more than six months and the number of individuals who work part time but would prefer a full-time job are at historically high levels. In addition, most measures of labor compensation have been rising slowly--another signal that a substantial amount of slack remains in the labor market.

Inflation has been quite low even as the economy has continued to expand. Some of the factors contributing to the softness in inflation over the past year, such as the declines seen in non-oil import prices, will probably be transitory. Importantly, measures of longer-run inflation expectations have remained stable. That said, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) recognizes that inflation persistently below 2 percent--the rate that the Committee judges to be most consistent with its dual mandate--could pose risks to economic performance, and we are monitoring inflation developments closely.

Looking ahead, I expect that economic activity will expand at a somewhat faster pace this year than it did last year, that the unemployment rate will continue to decline gradually, and that inflation will begin to move up toward 2 percent. A faster rate of economic growth this year should be supported by reduced restraint from changes in fiscal policy, gains in household net worth from increases in home prices and equity values, a firming in foreign economic growth, and further improvements in household and business confidence as the economy continues to strengthen. Moreover, U.S. financial conditions remain supportive of growth in economic activity and employment.”

Tobin (1969) provides more elegant, complete analysis of portfolio allocation in a general equilibrium model. The major point is equally clear in a portfolio consisting of only cash balances and a perpetuity or consol. Let g be the capital gain, r the rate of interest on the consol and r^e the expected rate of interest. The rates are expressed as proportions. The price of the consol is the inverse of the interest rate, (1+r^e). Thus, g = [(r/r^e) – 1]. The critical analysis of Tobin is that at extremely low interest rates there is only expectation of interest rate increases, that is, dr^e>0, such that there is expectation of capital losses on the consol, dg<0. Investors move into positions combining only cash and no consols. Valuations of risk financial assets would collapse in reversal of long positions in carry trades with short exposures in a flight to cash. There is no exit from a central bank created liquidity trap without risks of financial crash and another global recession. The net worth of the economy depends on interest rates. In theory, “income is generally defined as the amount a consumer unit could consume (or believe that it could) while maintaining its wealth intact” (Friedman 1957, 10). Income, Y, is a flow that is obtained by applying a rate of return, r, to a stock of wealth, W, or Y = rW (Ibid). According to a subsequent statement: “The basic idea is simply that individuals live for many years and that therefore the appropriate constraint for consumption is the long-run expected yield from wealth r*W. This yield was named permanent income: Y* = r*W” (Darby 1974, 229), where * denotes permanent. The simplified relation of income and wealth can be restated as:

W = Y/r (10

The argument that anemic population growth causes “secular stagnation” in the US (Hansen 1938, 1939, 1941) is as misplaced currently as in the late 1930s (for early dissent see Simons 1942). There is currently population growth in the ages of 16 to 24 years but not enough job creation and discouragement of job searches for all ages (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/exchange-rate-conflicts-squeeze-of.html and earlier (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/fluctuating-financial-variables.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/weakening-world-economic-growth.html). This is merely another case of theory without reality with dubious policy proposals. The current reality is cyclical slow growth.

In delivering the biannual report on monetary policy (Board of Governors 2013Jul17), Chairman Bernanke (2013Jul17) advised Congress that:

“Instead, we are providing additional policy accommodation through two distinct yet complementary policy tools. The first tool is expanding the Federal Reserve's portfolio of longer-term Treasury securities and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS); we are currently purchasing $40 billion per month in agency MBS and $45 billion per month in Treasuries. We are using asset purchases and the resulting expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet primarily to increase the near-term momentum of the economy, with the specific goal of achieving a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market in a context of price stability. We have made some progress toward this goal, and, with inflation subdued, we intend to continue our purchases until a substantial improvement in the labor market outlook has been realized. We are relying on near-zero short-term interest rates, together with our forward guidance that rates will continue to be exceptionally low--our second tool--to help maintain a high degree of monetary accommodation for an extended period after asset purchases end, even as the economic recovery strengthens and unemployment declines toward more-normal levels. In appropriate combination, these two tools can provide the high level of policy accommodation needed to promote a stronger economic recovery with price stability.

The Committee's decisions regarding the asset purchase program (and the overall stance of monetary policy) depend on our assessment of the economic outlook and of the cumulative progress toward our objectives. Of course, economic forecasts must be revised when new information arrives and are thus necessarily provisional.”

Friedman (1953) argues there are three lags in effects of monetary policy: (1) between the need for action and recognition of the need; (2) the recognition of the need and taking of actions; and (3) taking of action and actual effects. Friedman (1953) finds that the combination of these lags with insufficient knowledge of the current and future behavior of the economy causes discretionary economic policy to increase instability of the economy or standard deviations of real income σ_y and prices σ_p. Policy attempts to circumvent the lags by policy impulses based on forecasts. We are all naïve about forecasting. Data are available with lags and revised to maintain high standards of estimation. Policy simulation models estimate economic relations with structures prevailing before simulations of policy impulses such that parameters change as discovered by Lucas (1977). Economic agents adjust their behavior in ways that cause opposite results from those intended by optimal control policy as discovered by Kydland and Prescott (1977). Advance guidance attempts to circumvent expectations by economic agents that could reverse policy impulses but is of dubious effectiveness. There is strong case for using rules instead of discretionary authorities in monetary policy (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/search?q=rules+versus+authorities http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/financial-irrational-exuberance.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/world-inflation-waves-united-states.html). Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “New view into Fed’s response to crisis,” on Feb 21, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303775504579396803024281322?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), analyzes 1865 pages of transcripts of eight formal and six emergency policy meetings at the Fed in 2008 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomchistorical2008.htm). If there were an infallible science of central banking, models and forecasts would provide accurate information to policymakers on the future course of the economy in advance. Such forewarning is essential to central bank science because of the long lag between the actual impulse of monetary policy and the actual full effects on income and prices many months and even years ahead (Romer and Romer 2004, Friedman 1961, 1953, Culbertson 1960, 1961, Batini and Nelson 2002). The transcripts of the Fed meetings in 2008 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomchistorical2008.htm) analyzed by Jon Hilsenrath demonstrate that Fed policymakers frequently did not understand the current state of the US economy in 2008 and much less the direction of income and prices. The conclusion of Friedman (1953) is that monetary impulses increase financial and economic instability because of lags in anticipating needs of policy, taking policy decisions and effects of decisions. This is a fortiori true when untested unconventional monetary policy in gargantuan doses shocks the economy and financial markets. A competing event is the high level of valuations of risk financial assets (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/peaking-valuations-of-risk-financial.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/theory-and-reality-of-secular.html). Matt Jarzemsky, writing on “Dow industrials set record,” on Mar 5, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324156204578275560657416332.html), analyzes that the DJIA broke the closing high of 14,164.53 set on Oct 9, 2007, and subsequently also broke the intraday high of 14,198.10 reached on Oct 11, 2007. The DJIA closed at 18,140.44 on Fri Feb 20, 2015, which is higher by 28.1 percent than the value of 14,164.53 reached on Oct 9, 2007 and higher by 27.8 percent than the value of 14,198.10 reached on Oct 11, 2007. Values of risk financial are approaching or exceeding historical highs.

Perhaps one of the most critical statements on policy is the answer to a question of Peter Barnes by Chair Janet Yellen at the press conference following the meeting on Jun 18, 2014 (page 19 at http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20140618.pdf):

So I don't have a sense--the committee doesn't try to gauge what is the right level of equity prices. But we do certainly monitor a number of different metrics that give us a feeling for where valuations are relative to things like earnings or dividends, and look at where these metrics stand in comparison with previous history to get a sense of whether or not we're moving to valuation levels that are outside of historical norms, and I still don't see that. I still don't see that for equity prices broadly” (emphasis added).

In a speech at the IMF on Jul 2, 2014, Chair Yellen analyzed the link between monetary policy and financial risks (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20140702a.htm):

“Monetary policy has powerful effects on risk taking. Indeed, the accommodative policy stance of recent years has supported the recovery, in part, by providing increased incentives for households and businesses to take on the risk of potentially productive investments. But such risk-taking can go too far, thereby contributing to fragility in the financial system. This possibility does not obviate the need for monetary policy to focus primarily on price stability and full employment--the costs to society in terms of deviations from price stability and full employment that would arise would likely be significant. In the private sector, key vulnerabilities included high levels of leverage, excessive dependence on unstable short-term funding, weak underwriting of loans, deficiencies in risk measurement and risk management, and the use of exotic financial instruments that redistributed risk in nontransparent ways.”

Yellen (2014Jul14) warned again at the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on Jul 15, 2014:

“The Committee recognizes that low interest rates may provide incentives for some investors to “reach for yield,” and those actions could increase vulnerabilities in the financial system to adverse events. While prices of real estate, equities, and corporate bonds have risen appreciably and valuation metrics have increased, they remain generally in line with historical norms. In some sectors, such as lower-rated corporate debt, valuations appear stretched and issuance has been brisk. Accordingly, we are closely monitoring developments in the leveraged loan market and are working to enhance the effectiveness of our supervisory guidance. More broadly, the financial sector has continued to become more resilient, as banks have continued to boost their capital and liquidity positions, and growth in wholesale short-term funding in financial markets has been modest” (emphasis added).

Greenspan (1996) made similar warnings:

“Clearly, sustained low inflation implies less uncertainty about the future, and lower risk premiums imply higher prices of stocks and other earning assets. We can see that in the inverse relationship exhibited by price/earnings ratios and the rate of inflation in the past. But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade? And how do we factor that assessment into monetary policy? We as central bankers need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs, and price stability. Indeed, the sharp stock market break of 1987 had few negative consequences for the economy. But we should not underestimate or become complacent about the complexity of the interactions of asset markets and the economy. Thus, evaluating shifts in balance sheets generally, and in asset prices particularly, must be an integral part of the development of monetary policy” (emphasis added).

Bernanke (2010WP) and Yellen (2011AS) reveal the emphasis of monetary policy on the impact of the rise of stock market valuations in stimulating consumption by wealth effects on household confidence. What is the success in evaluating deviations of valuations of risk financial assets from “historical norms”? What are the consequences on economic activity and employment of deviations of valuations of risk financial assets from those “historical norms”? What are the policy tools and their effectiveness in returning valuations of risk financial assets to their “historical norms”?

The key policy is maintaining fed funds rate between 0 and ¼ percent. An increase in fed funds rates could cause flight out of risk financial markets worldwide. There is no exit from this policy without major financial market repercussions. There are high costs and risks of this policy because indefinite financial repression induces carry trades with high leverage, risks and illiquidity.

Professor Raguram G Rajan, governor of the Reserve Bank of India, which is India’s central bank, warned about risks in high valuations of asset prices in an interview with Christopher Jeffery of Central Banking Journal on Aug 6, 2014 (http://www.centralbanking.com/central-banking-journal/interview/2358995/raghuram-rajan-on-the-dangers-of-asset-prices-policy-spillovers-and-finance-in-india). Professor Rajan demystifies in the interview “competitive easing” by major central banks as equivalent to competitive devaluation. Rajan (2005) anticipated the risks of the world financial crisis. Professor John B. Taylor (2014Jul15, 2014Jun26) building on advanced research (Taylor (1993, 1998LB, 1999, 1998LB, 1999, 2007JH, 2008Nov, 2009, 2012JMCB, 2014Jan3) finds that a monetary policy rule would function best in promoting an environment of low inflation and strong economic growth with stability of financial markets. There is strong case for using rules instead of discretionary authorities in monetary policy (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/search?q=rules+versus+authorities http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/financial-irrational-exuberance.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/world-inflation-waves-united-states.html).

Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “Jobs upturn isn’t enough to satisfy Fed,” on Mar 8, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324582804578348293647760204.html), finds that much stronger labor market conditions are required for the Fed to end quantitative easing. Unconventional monetary policy with zero interest rates and quantitative easing is quite difficult to unwind because of the adverse effects of raising interest rates on valuations of risk financial assets and home prices, including the very own valuation of the securities held outright in the Fed balance sheet. Gradual unwinding of 1 percent fed funds rates from Jun 2003 to Jun 2004 by seventeen consecutive increases of 25 percentage points from Jun 2004 to Jun 2006 to reach 5.25 percent caused default of subprime mortgages and adjustable-rate mortgages linked to the overnight fed funds rate. The zero interest rate has penalized liquidity and increased risks by inducing carry trades from zero interest rates to speculative positions in risk financial assets. There is no exit from zero interest rates without provoking another financial crash.

The carry trade from zero interest rates to leveraged positions in risk financial assets had proved strongest for commodity exposures but US equities have regained leadership. The DJIA has increased 87.3 percent since the trough of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe on Jul 16, 2010 to Feb 20, 2015; S&P 500 has gained 106.4 percent and DAX 94.9 percent. Before the current round of risk aversion, almost all assets in the column “∆% Trough to 2/20/15” had double digit gains relative to the trough around Jul 2, 2010 followed by negative performance but now some valuations of equity indexes show varying behavior. China’s Shanghai Composite is 36.3 percent above the trough. Japan’s Nikkei Average is 107.8 percent above the trough. DJ Asia Pacific TSM is 30.7 percent above the trough. Dow Global is 51.5 percent above the trough. STOXX 50 of 50 blue-chip European equities (http://www.stoxx.com/indices/index_information.html?symbol=sx5E) is 44.4 percent above the trough. NYSE Financial Index is 57.9 percent above the trough. DAX index of German equities (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/DAX:IND) is 94.9 percent above the trough. Japan’s Nikkei Average is 107.8 percent above the trough on Aug 31, 2010 and 60.9 percent above the peak on Apr 5, 2010. The Nikkei Average closed at 18,332.30 on Fri Feb 20, 2015 (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata), which is 78.8 percent higher than 10,254.43 on Mar 11, 2011, on the date of the Tōhoku or Great East Japan Earthquake/tsunami. Global risk aversion erased the earlier gains of the Nikkei. The dollar appreciated by 4.5 percent relative to the euro. The dollar devalued before the new bout of sovereign risk issues in Europe. The column “∆% week to 2/20/15” in Table VI-4 shows increase of 1.3 percent in the week for China’s Shanghai Composite in the Lunar New Year holiday celebration. DJ Asia Pacific increased 1.5 percent. NYSE Financial increased 0.9 percent in the week. Dow Global increased 0.9 percent in the week of Feb 20, 2015. The DJIA increased 0.7 percent and S&P 500 increased 0.6 percent. DAX of Germany increased 0.8 percent. STOXX 50 increased 1.0 percent. The USD appreciated 0.1 percent. There are still high uncertainties on European sovereign risks and banking soundness, US and world growth slowdown and China’s growth tradeoffs. Sovereign problems in the “periphery” of Europe and fears of slower growth in Asia and the US cause risk aversion with trading caution instead of more aggressive risk exposures. There is a fundamental change in Table VI-4 from the relatively upward trend with oscillations since the sovereign risk event of Apr-Jul 2010. Performance is best assessed in the column “∆% Peak to 2/20/15” that provides the percentage change from the peak in Apr 2010 before the sovereign risk event to Feb 20, 2015. Most risk financial assets had gained not only relative to the trough as shown in column “∆% Trough to 2/20/15” but also relative to the peak in column “∆% Peak to 2/20/15.” There are now several equity indexes above the peak in Table VI-4: DJIA 61.9 percent, S&P 500 73.4 percent, DAX 74.5 percent, Dow Global 23.6 percent, DJ Asia Pacific 14.4 percent, NYSE Financial Index (http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/nykid.shtml) 25.8 percent, Nikkei Average 60.9 percent, STOXX 50 22.3 percent. Shanghai Composite is 2.6 percent above the peak. The US dollar strengthened 24.8 percent relative to the peak. The factors of risk aversion have adversely affected the performance of risk financial assets. The performance relative to the peak in Apr 2010 is more important than the performance relative to the trough around early Jul 2010 because improvement could signal that conditions have returned to normal levels before European sovereign doubts in Apr 2010. Sharp and continuing strengthening of the dollar is affecting balance sheets of US corporations with foreign operations (http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Pronouncement_C/SummaryPage&cid=900000010318). The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is following “financial and international developments’ as part of the process of framing interest rate policy (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20150128a.htm). Inyoung Hwang, writing on “Fed optimism spurs record bets against stock volatility,” on Aug 21, 2014, published in Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-21/fed-optimism-spurs-record-bets-against-stock-voalitlity.html), informs that the S&P 500 is trading at 16.6 times estimated earnings, which is higher than the five-year average of 14.3 Tom Lauricella, writing on Mar 31, 2014, on “Stock investors see hints of a stronger quarter,” published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304157204579473513864900656?mod=WSJ_smq0314_LeadStory&mg=reno64-wsj), finds views of stronger earnings among many money managers with positive factors for equity markets in continuing low interest rates and US economic growth. There is important information in the Quarterly Markets review of the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/quarterly-markets-review-03312014.html) for IQ2014. Alexandra Scaggs, writing on “Tepid profits, roaring stocks,” on May 16, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323398204578487460105747412.html), analyzes stabilization of earnings growth: 70 percent of 458 reporting companies in the S&P 500 stock index reported earnings above forecasts but sales fell 0.2 percent relative to forecasts of increase of 0.5 percent. Paul Vigna, writing on “Earnings are a margin story but for how long,” on May 17, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/05/17/earnings-are-a-margin-story-but-for-how-long/), analyzes that corporate profits increase with stagnating sales while companies manage costs tightly. More than 90 percent of S&P components reported moderate increase of earnings of 3.7 percent in IQ2013 relative to IQ2012 with decline of sales of 0.2 percent. Earnings and sales have been in declining trend. In IVQ2009, growth of earnings reached 104 percent and sales jumped 13 percent. Net margins reached 8.92 percent in IQ2013, which is almost the same at 8.95 percent in IIIQ2006. Operating margins are 9.58 percent. There is concern by market participants that reversion of margins to the mean could exert pressure on earnings unless there is more accelerated growth of sales. Vigna (op. cit.) finds sales growth limited by weak economic growth. Kate Linebaugh, writing on “Falling revenue dings stocks,” on Oct 20, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592704578066933466076070.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories), identifies a key financial vulnerability: falling revenues across markets for United States reporting companies. Global economic slowdown is reducing corporate sales and squeezing corporate strategies. Linebaugh quotes data from Thomson Reuters that 100 companies of the S&P 500 index have reported declining revenue only 1 percent higher in Jun-Sep 2012 relative to Jun-Sep 2011 but about 60 percent of the companies are reporting lower sales than expected by analysts with expectation that revenue for the S&P 500 will be lower in Jun-Sep 2012 for the entities represented in the index. Results of US companies are likely repeated worldwide. Future company cash flows derive from investment projects. In IQ1980, real gross private domestic investment in the US was $951.6 billion of chained 2009 dollars, growing to $1,222.9 billion in IIQ1988 or 28.5 percent. Real gross private domestic investment in the US increased 7.5 percent from $2605.2 billion in IVQ2007 to $2,800.2 billion in IVQ2014. Real private fixed investment increased 2.8 percent from $2,586.3 billion of chained 2009 dollars in IVQ2007 to $2,658.5 billion in IVQ2014. Private fixed investment fell relative to IVQ2007 in all quarters preceding IIQ2014. Growth of real private investment is mediocre for all but four quarters from IIQ2011 to IQ2012. The investment decision of United States corporations has been fractured in the current economic cycle in preference of cash.

Corporate profits with IVA and CCA rebounded with $3.1 billion in IVQ2013. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA fell $201.7 billion in IQ2014 and increased $164.1 billion in IIQ2014. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA increased $64.5 billion in IIIQ2014. In IVQ2013, profits after tax with IVA and CCA decreased $24.7 billion. In IQ2014, profits after tax with IVA and CCA decreased $268.6 billion. Profits after tax with IVA and CCA increased at $118.4 billion in IIQ2014 and at $70.1 billion in IIIQ2014. Net dividends fell at $187.0 billion in IIIQ2013 and increased at $80.6 billion in IVQ2013. Net dividends fell at $89.5 billion in IQ2014 and fell at $0.5 billion in IIQ2014. Net dividends fell at $3.9 billion in IIIQ2014. Undistributed profits with IVA and CCA fell at $105.5 billion in IVQ2013. Undistributed profits with IVA and CCA fell $178.9 percent in IQ2014 and increased at $118.8 billion in IIQ2014 and at $73.9 billion in IIIQ2014. Undistributed corporate profits swelled 315.9 percent from $107.7 billion in IQ2007 to $447.9 billion in IIIQ2014 and changed signs from minus $55.9 billion in current dollars in IVQ2007. Uncertainty originating in fiscal, regulatory and monetary policy causes wide swings in expectations and decisions by the private sector with adverse effects on investment, real economic activity and employment.

The investment decision of US business is fractured. The basic valuation equation that is also used in capital budgeting postulates that the value of stocks or of an investment project is given by:

Where R_τ is expected revenue in the time horizon from τ =1 to T; C_τ denotes costs; and ρ is an appropriate rate of discount. In words, the value today of a stock or investment project is the net revenue, or revenue less costs, in the investment period from τ =1 to T discounted to the present by an appropriate rate of discount. In the current weak economy, revenues have been increasing more slowly than anticipated in investment plans. An increase in interest rates would affect discount rates used in calculations of present value, resulting in frustration of investment decisions. If V represents value of the stock or investment project, as ρ → ∞, meaning that interest rates increase without bound, then V → 0, or

declines. Equally, decline in expected revenue from the stock or project, R_τ, causes decline in valuation.

An intriguing issue is the difference in performance of valuations of risk financial assets and economic growth and employment. Paul A. Samuelson (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1970/samuelson-bio.html) popularized the view of the elusive relation between stock markets and economic activity in an often-quoted phrase “the stock market has predicted nine of the last five recessions.” In the presence of zero interest rates forever, valuations of risk financial assets are likely to differ from the performance of the overall economy. The interrelations of financial and economic variables prove difficult to analyze and measure.

Table VI-4, Stock Indexes, Commodities, Dollar and 10-Year Treasury

	Peak	Trough	∆% to Trough	∆% Peak to 2/20/ /15	∆% Week 2/20/15	∆% Trough to 2/20/ 15
DJIA	4/26/ 10	7/2/10	-13.6	61.9	0.7	87.3
S&P 500	4/23/ 10	7/20/ 10	-16.0	73.4	0.6	106.4
NYSE Finance	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-20.3	25.8	0.9	57.9
Dow Global	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-18.4	23.6	0.9	51.5
Asia Pacific	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-12.5	14.4	1.5	30.7
Japan Nikkei Aver.	4/05/ 10	8/31/ 10	-22.5	60.9	2.3	107.8
China Shang.	4/15/ 10	7/02 /10	-24.7	2.6	1.3	36.3
STOXX 50	4/15/10	7/2/10	-15.3	22.3	1.0	44.4
DAX	4/26/ 10	5/25/ 10	-10.5	74.5	0.8	94.9
Dollar Euro	11/25 2009	6/7 2010	21.2	24.8	0.1	4.5
DJ UBS Comm.	1/6/ 10	7/2/10	-14.5	NA	NA	NA
10-Year T Note	4/5/ 10	4/6/10	3.986	2.784	2.119

T: trough; Dollar: positive sign appreciation relative to euro (less dollars paid per euro), negative sign depreciation relative to euro (more dollars paid per euro)

Source: http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_hps_marketdata

ESII Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates. The GDP of Japan grew at 1.0 percent per year on average from 1991 to 2002, with the GDP implicit deflator falling at 0.8 percent per year on average. The average growth rate of Japan’s GDP was 4 percent per year on average from the middle of the 1970s to 1992 (Ito 2004). Low growth in Japan in the 1990s is commonly labeled as “the lost decade” (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 81-115). Table VB-GDP provides yearly growth rates of Japan’s GDP from 1995 to 2014. Growth weakened from 1.9 per cent in 1995 and 2.6 percent in 1996 to contractions of 2.0 percent in 1998 and 0.2 percent in 1999. Growth rates were below 2 percent with exception of 2.3 percent in 2000, 2.4 percent in 2004 and 2.2 percent in 2007. Japan’s GDP contracted sharply by 1.0 percent in 2008 and 5.5 percent in 2009. As in most advanced economies, growth was robust at 4.7 percent in 2010 but mediocre at minus 0.5 percent in 2011 because of the tsunami and 1.8 percent in 2012. Japan’s GDP grew 1.6 percent in 2013 and stagnated in 2014. There is classic research on analyzing deviations of output from trend (see for example Schumpeter 1939, Hicks 1950, Lucas 1975, Sargent and Sims 1977). Japan’s real GDP in calendar year 2014 is 0.7 percent higher than in calendar year 2007 (http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/index-e.html).

Table VB-GDP, Japan, Yearly Percentage Change of GDP ∆%

Calendar Year	∆%
1995	1.9
1996	2.6
1997	1.6
1998	-2.0
1999	-0.2
2000	2.3
2001	0.4
2002	0.3
2003	1.7
2004	2.4
2005	1.3
2006	1.7
2007	2.2
2008	-1.0
2009	-5.5
2010	4.7
2011	-0.5
2012	1.8
2013	1.6
2014	0.0

Source: Source: Japan Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/index-e.html

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/en/sna/sokuhou/sokuhou_top.html

Japan’s economy grew 1.3 percent in IQ2014, seasonally adjusted, partly because of anticipation of purchases to avoid the increase in the tax on value added of consumption in Apr 2014, contracting 1.7 percent in IIQ2014, as shown in Table VB-1, incorporating the latest estimates and revisions. Japan’s GDP contracted 0.6 percent in IIIQ2014 and grew 0.6 percent in IVQ2014. The economy of Japan contracted 0.4 percent in IVQ2013 after growing 0.4 percent in IIIQ2013, 0.8 percent in IIQ2013 and 1.4 percent in IQ2013. Japan’s GDP decreased 0.2 percent in IVQ2012 relative to IIIQ2012. IQ2012 GDP growth was revised to 1.1 percent; IIQGDP growth was revised to -0.4 percent; and IIIQ2012 growth was revised to -0.6 percent. The economy of Japan had already weakened in IVQ2010 when GDP fell revised 0.6 percent. As in other advanced economies, Japan’s recovery from the global recession has not been robust. GDP fell 1.9 percent in IQ2011 and fell again 0.6 percent in IIQ2011 because of the disruption of the tragic Tōhoku or Great East Earthquake and Tsunami of Mar 11, 2011. Recovery was robust in the first two quarters of 2010 but GDP grew at 1.4 percent in IIIQ2010 and fell 0.6 percent in IVQ2010. The deepest quarterly contractions in the global recession were 3.3 percent in IVQ2008 and 4.1 percent in IQ2009. There is classic research on analyzing deviations of output from trend (see for example Schumpeter 1939, Hicks 1950, Lucas 1975, Sargent and Sims 1977). Using seasonally adjusted and price adjusted data (http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/index-e.html), Japan’s GDP fell 9.3 percent from the peak in IQ2008 before the contraction to the lowest reading in IQ2009. Japan’s GDP fell 0.7 percent from IQ2008 to IVQ2014. GDP in Japan grew 9.4 percent from IIQ2009 to IVQ2014 at the annual equivalent rate of 1.6 percent.

Table VB-1, Japan, Real GDP ∆% Changes from the Previous Quarter Seasonally Adjusted ∆%

	IQ	IIQ	IIIQ	IVQ
2014	1.3	-1.7	-0.6	0.6
2013	1.4	0.8	0.4	-0.4
2012	1.1	-0.4	-0.6	-0.2
2011	-1.9	-0.6	2.6	0.2
2010	1.4	1.2	1.4	-0.6
2009	-4.1	1.8	0.0	1.7
2008	0.6	-1.1	-1.1	-3.3
2007	0.9	0.2	-0.4	0.9
2006	0.4	0.4	-0.1	1.3
2005	0.3	1.3	0.3	0.2
2004	1.0	0.0	0.1	-0.3
2003	-0.5	1.2	0.4	1.0
2002	-0.2	1.0	0.6	0.4
2001	0.6	-0.2	-1.1	-0.1
2000	1.6	0.2	-0.3	0.7
1999	-0.8	0.4	-0.1	0.5
1998	-1.9	-0.6	0.3	0.5
1997	0.8	-1.0	0.4	-0.1

Source: Japan Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/index-e.html

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/en/sna/sokuhou/sokuhou_top.html

Table VB-2 provides contributions to real GDP at seasonally adjusted annual rates (SAAR). GDP expanded at 2.2 percent in IVQ2014 with contribution of 0.7 percent by personal consumption expenditures, 0.9 percent by net trade and 0.1 percent by government consumption expenditures. Gross fixed capital formation contributed 0.0 percent and private inventory divestment 0.7 percent. Japan contracted at 6.7 percent in IIQ2014 with deduction of 12.4 percentage points of personal consumption expenditures and deduction of 3.9 percentage points of gross fixed capital formation. Japan’s GDP contracted at 6.7 percent in IIIQ2014 with deductions of 12.5 percent by personal consumption and 4.1 percent by gross fixed capital formation. Trade added 0.2 percentage points and government expenditures 0.2 percent. Gross fixed capital formation deducted 0.5 percent and inventory divestment deducted 2.7 percent. Trade added 4.2 percentage points to GDP growth in IIQ2014; private inventory investment added 5.3 percentage points; and government expenditures added 0.3 percentage points. The GDP of Japan expanded at 5.5 percent in IQ2014 with contributions of 5.4 percent by personal consumption and 3.2 percent of gross fixed capital formation. There were deductions of 1.2 percent by trade, 1.7 percent by inventory divestment and 0.3 percent by government expenditures. The GDP of Japan contracted at 1.4 percent annual equivalent in IVQ2013 with contraction of personal consumption expenditures of 0.3 percent and growth of GFCF at 1.1 percent. Trade deducted 2.1 percentage points. Japan grew at 1.5 percent in IIIQ 2013 with contribution of 0.8 percentage points by personal consumption and 1.9 percentage points by GFCF. Trade deducted 1.5 percentage points. Japan grew at 3.2 percent SAAR in IIQ2013 driven by contributions of 2.0 percent of personal consumption (PC), 0.2 percent of net trade and gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) at 2.0 percent. In IQ2013, Japan’s GDP increased at the SAAR of 5.7 percent in large part because of 3.2 percent in personal consumption and 1.6 percent in trade. The SAAR of GDP in IVQ2012 was minus 0.7 percent: 0.2 percentage points from growth of personal consumption expenditures (PC) less 0.4 percentage points of net trade (exports less imports) less 0.8 percentage points of private inventory investment (PINV) plus 0.6 percentage points of government consumption and minus 0.2 percentage points of gross fixed capital formation (GFCF). The SAAR of GDP in IIIQ2011 was revised to a high 10.8 percent. Net trade deducted from GDP growth in three quarters of 2011 and provided the growth impulse of 3.9 percentage points in IIIQ2011. Growth in 2011 and IQ2012 was driven by personal consumption expenditures that deducted 0.8 percentage points from GDP growth in IIIQ2012 but added 0.2 percentage points to GDP growth in IVQ2012.

Table VB-2, Japan, Contributions to Changes in Real GDP, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rates (SAAR), %

	GDP	PC	GFCF	Trade	PINV	GOVC
2014
I	5.5	5.4	3.2	-1.2	-1.7	-0.3
II	-6.7	-12.5	-4.1	4.2	5.3	0.3
III	-2.3	0.6	-0.5	0.2	-2.7	0.2
IV	2.2	0.7	0.0	0.9	0.7	0.1
2013
I	5.7	3.2	0.4	1.6	0.0	0.6
II	3.2	2.0	2.0	0.2	-1.7	0.5
III	1.5	0.8	1.9	-1.5	0.5	-0.1
IV	-1.4	-0.3	1.1	-2.1	-0.3	0.1
2012
I	4.4	1.4	-0.4	0.3	2.1	0.9
II	-1.5	1.6	0.5	-1.4	-1.8	-0.3
III	-2.2	-0.8	-0.9	-1.9	1.0	0.4
IV	-0.7	0.2	-0.2	-0.4	-0.8	0.6
2011
I	-7.3	-4.0	-0.2	-1.1	-1.8	-0.1
II	-2.2	2.6	0.3	-4.4	-1.1	0.4
III	10.8	3.9	1.3	3.9	1.5	0.1
IV	0.6	1.0	3.2	-3.0	-0.8	0.3
2010
I	5.7	1.8	0.2	2.1	2.2	-0.6
II	4.8	0.1	1.2	0.1	2.2	1.2
III	5.8	3.1	0.9	0.5	1.1	0.3
IV	-2.3	-1.1	-1.2	-0.4	0.0	0.3
2009
I	-15.4	-1.9	-2.0	-4.4	-7.7	0.7
II	7.6	4.2	-3.0	7.5	-1.8	0.7
III	0.1	-0.1	-1.4	2.2	-1.6	1.0
IV	7.0	3.4	0.0	2.7	0.6	0.3
2008
I	2.4	1.5	0.4	1.2	-0.6	-0.1
II	-4.3	-3.1	-2.2	0.5	1.3	-0.8
III	-4.2	-0.6	-1.0	0.0	-2.6	0.0
IV	-12.5	-2.8	-4.6	-11.4	5.8	0.3
2007
I	3.8	0.9	0.5	1.2	1.1	0.3
II	0.8	0.6	-1.5	0.8	0.1	0.5
III	-1.5	-1.0	-1.7	2.0	-0.6	-0.2
IV	3.5	0.3	0.3	1.4	1.0	0.6

Note: PC: Private Consumption; GFCF: Gross Fixed Capital Formation; PINV: Private Inventory; Trade: Net Exports; GOVC: Government Consumption

Source: Japan Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/index-e.html

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/en/sna/sokuhou/sokuhou_top.html

Long-term economic growth in Japan significantly improved by increasing competitiveness in world markets. Net trade of exports and imports is an important component of the GDP accounts of Japan. Table VB-3 provides quarterly data for net trade, exports and imports of Japan. Net trade had strong positive contributions to GDP growth in Japan in all quarters from IQ2007 to IIQ2009 with exception of IVQ2008 and IQ2009. The US recession is dated by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) as beginning in IVQ2007 (Dec) and ending in IIQ2009 (Jun) (http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html). Net trade contributions helped to cushion the economy of Japan from the global recession. Net trade deducted from GDP growth in seven of the nine quarters from IVQ2010 IQ2012. The only strong contribution of net trade was 3.9 percent in IIIQ2011. Net trade added 1.6 percentage points to GDP growth in IQ2013 and 0.2 percentage points in IIQ2013 but deducted 1.5 percentage points in IIIQ2013 and deducted 2.1 percentage points in IVQ2013. Net trade deducted 1.2 percentage points from GDP growth in IQ2014. Net trade added 4.2 percentage points to GDP growth in IIQ2014 and 0.2 percentage points in IIIQ2014. Net trade added 0.9 percentage points to GDP growth in IVQ2014. Private consumption assumed the role of driver of Japan’s economic growth but should moderate as in most mature economies.

Table VB-3, Japan, Contributions to Changes in Real GDP, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rates (SAAR), %

	Net Trade	Exports	Imports
2014
I	-1.2	4.2	-5.4
II	4.2	-0.2	4.5
III	0.2	1.0	-0.8
IV	0.9	1.9	-1.0
2013
I	1.6	2.5	-0.9
II	0.2	1.8	-1.5
III	-1.5	-0.3	-1.2
IV	-2.1	-0.1	-2.0
2012
I	0.3	1.7	-1.4
II	-1.4	-0.3	-1.2
III	-1.9	-2.4	0.5
IV	-0.4	-2.0	1.6
2011
I	-1.1	-0.4	-0.7
II	-4.4	-4.6	0.2
III	3.9	5.7	-1.9
IV	-3.0	-2.0	-0.9
2010
I	2.1	3.5	-1.4
II	0.1	2.7	-2.6
III	0.5	1.4	-0.9
IV	-0.4	0.0	-0.4
2009
I	-4.4	-16.4	12.0
II	7.5	4.7	2.7
III	2.2	5.2	-3.1
IV	2.7	4.1	-1.4
2008
I	1.2	2.1	-1.0
II	0.5	-1.6	2.1
III	0.0	0.1	-0.2
IV	-11.4	-10.2	-1.2
2007
I	1.2	1.7	-0.5
II	0.8	1.6	-0.8
III	2.0	1.4	0.6
IV	1.4	2.1	-0.7

Source: Japan Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/index-e.html

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/en/sna/sokuhou/sokuhou_top.html

Japan’s percentage growth of GDP not seasonally adjusted in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier is shown in Table VB-4. Contraction of GDP in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier extended over seven quarters from IIQ2008 through IVQ2009. Contraction was sharpest in IQ2009 with output declining 9.4 percent relative to a year earlier. Yearly quarterly rates of growth of Japan were relatively high for a mature economy through the decade with the exception of the contractions from IVQ2001 to IIQ2002 and after 2007. The Tōhoku or Great East Earthquake and Tsunami of Mar 11, 2011 caused flat GDP in IQ2011 at 0.0 percent relative to the same quarter a year earlier and decline of 1.5 percent in IIQ2011. GDP fell 0.5 percent in IIIQ2011 relative to a year earlier and increased 0.1 percent in IVQ2011 relative to a year earlier. Growth resumed with 3.5 percent in IQ2012 relative to a year earlier. Growth of 3.5 percent in IIQ2012 is largely caused by the low level in IIQ2011 resulting from the Tōhoku or Great East Earthquake and Tsunami of Mar 11, 2011. GDP increased 0.2 percent in IIIQ2012 relative to a year earlier and changed 0.0 percent in IVQ2012 relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.5 percent in IQ2013 relative to a year earlier and 1.4 percent in IIQ2013. Growth of 2.2 percent in IIIQ2013 relative to a year earlier is partly due to the decline of 0.6 percent in GDP in IIIQ2012. GDP increased 2.3 percent in IVQ2013 relative to a year earlier. The GDP of Japan increased 2.4 percent in IQ2014 relative to a year earlier. Japan’s GDP contracted 0.4 percent in IIQ2014 relative to a year earlier. GDP contracted 1.4 percent in IIIQ2014 relative to a year earlier. Japan’s GDP contracted 0.5 percent in IVQ2014 relative to a year earlier. Japan faces the challenge of recovery from the devastation of the Tōhoku or Great East Earthquake and Tsunami of Mar 11, 2011 in an environment of declining world trade and bouts of risk aversion that cause appreciation of the Japanese yen, eroding the country’s competitiveness in world markets. There is classic research on analyzing deviations of output from trend (see for example Schumpeter 1939, Hicks 1950, Lucas 1975, Sargent and Sims 1977). Using price adjusted but not seasonally adjusted data (http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/index-e.html), Japan’s GDP contracted 11.5 percent from the high in IVQ2007 to the low in IIQ2009. GDP fell 0.1 percent from IVQ2007 to IVQ2014. Japan’s GDP grew 12.9 percent from IIIQ2009 to IVQ2014 at the annual equivalent rate of 2.2 percent.

Table VB-4, Japan, Real GDP ∆% Changes from Same Quarter Year Earlier, NSA ∆%

	IQ	IIQ	IIIQ	IVQ
2014	2.4	-0.4	-1.4	-0.5
2013	0.5	1.4	2.2	2.3
2012	3.5	3.5	0.2	0.0
2011	0.0	-1.5	-0.5	0.1
2010	4.9	4.4	6.0	3.3
2009	-9.4	-6.6	-5.6	-0.5
2008	1.4	-0.1	-0.6	-4.7
2007	2.8	2.3	2.0	1.6
2006	2.6	1.3	0.9	2.0
2005	0.4	1.4	1.5	1.9
2004	4.0	2.6	2.2	0.7
2003	1.7	1.8	1.5	1.8
2002	-1.6	-0.2	1.4	1.6
2001	1.6	0.9	0.0	-1.0
2000	2.7	2.4	2.2	1.8
1999	-0.3	0.1	-0.1	-0.5
1998	-2.4	-1.8	-2.3	-1.5
1997	3.5	1.5	1.7	-0.2

Source: Japan Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/index-e.html

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/en/sna/sokuhou/sokuhou_top.html

Table VB-3, Japan, Contributions to Changes in Real GDP, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rates (SAAR), %

	Net Trade	Exports	Imports
2014
I	-1.2	4.2	-5.4
II	4.2	-0.2	4.5
III	0.2	1.0	-0.8
IV	0.9	1.9	-1.0
2013
I	1.6	2.5	-0.9
II	0.2	1.8	-1.5
III	-1.5	-0.3	-1.2
IV	-2.1	-0.1	-2.0
2012
I	0.3	1.7	-1.4
II	-1.4	-0.3	-1.2
III	-1.9	-2.4	0.5
IV	-0.4	-2.0	1.6
2011
I	-1.1	-0.4	-0.7
II	-4.4	-4.6	0.2
III	3.9	5.7	-1.9
IV	-3.0	-2.0	-0.9
2010
I	2.1	3.5	-1.4
II	0.1	2.7	-2.6
III	0.5	1.4	-0.9
IV	-0.4	0.0	-0.4
2009
I	-4.4	-16.4	12.0
II	7.5	4.7	2.7
III	2.2	5.2	-3.1
IV	2.7	4.1	-1.4
2008
I	1.2	2.1	-1.0
II	0.5	-1.6	2.1
III	0.0	0.1	-0.2
IV	-11.4	-10.2	-1.2
2007
I	1.2	1.7	-0.5
II	0.8	1.6	-0.8
III	2.0	1.4	0.6
IV	1.4	2.1	-0.7

Source: Japan Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/index-e.html

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/en/sna/sokuhou/sokuhou_top.html

There was milder increase in Japan’s export corporate goods price index during the global recession in 2008 but similar sharp decline during the bank balance sheets effect in late 2008, as shown in Chart IV-5 of the Bank of Japan. Japan exports industrial goods whose prices have been less dynamic than those of commodities and raw materials. As a result, the export CGPI on the yen basis in Chart IV-5 trends down with oscillations after a brief rise in the final part of the recession in 2009. The export corporate goods price index on the yen basis fell from 104.9 in Jun 2009 to 94.0 in Jan 2012 or minus 10.4 percent and increased to 113.7 in Jan 2014 for a gain of 21.0 percent relative to Jan 2012 and 8.4 percent relative to Jun 2009. The choice of Jun 2009 is designed to capture the reversal of risk aversion beginning in Sep 2008 with the announcement of toxic assets in banks that would be withdrawn with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Reversal of risk aversion in the form of flight to the USD and obligations of the US government opened the way to renewed carry trades from zero interest rates to exposures in risk financial assets such as commodities. Japan exports industrial products and imports commodities and raw materials.

Chart IV-5, Japan, Export Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Yen Basis, 2008-2015

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html

Chart IV-5A provides the export corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency. The export corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency increased from 97.9 in Jun 2009 to 103.1 in Apr 2012 or 5.3 percent but dropped to 95.0 in Jan 2015 or minus 7.9 percent relative to Apr 2012 and fell 3.0 percent to 95.0 in Jan 2015 relative to Jun 2009.

Chart IV-5A, Japan, Export Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Contract Currency Basis, 2008-2015

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html

Japan imports primary commodities and raw materials. As a result, the import corporate goods price index on the yen basis in Chart IV-6 shows an upward trend after declining from the increase during the global recession in 2008 driven by carry trades from fed funds rates. The index increases with carry trades from zero interest rates into commodity futures and declines during risk aversion from late 2008 into beginning of 2008 originating in doubts about soundness of US bank balance sheets. More careful measurement should show that the terms of trade of Japan, export prices relative to import prices, declined during the commodity shocks originating in unconventional monetary policy. The decline of the terms of trade restricted potential growth of income in Japan (for the relation of terms of trade and growth see Pelaez 1979, 1976a). The import corporate goods price index on the yen basis increased from 93.5 in Jun 2009 to 113.1 in Apr 2012 or 21.0 percent and to 121.6 in Jan 2015 or gain of 7.5 percent relative to Apr 2012 and 30.1 percent relative to Jun 2009.

Chart IV-6, Japan, Import Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Yen Basis, 2008-2015

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html

Chart IV-6A provides the import corporate goods price index on the contract currency basis. The import corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency increased from 86.2 in Jun 2009 to 119.5 in Apr 2012 or 38.6 percent and to 98.5 in Jan 2015 or minus 17.6 percent relative to Apr 2012 and gain of 14.3 percent relative to Jun 2009. There is evident deterioration of the terms of trade of Japan: the export corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency decreased 3.0 percent from Jun 2009 to Jan 2015 while the import corporate goods price index increased 14.3 percent. Prices of Japan’s exports of corporate goods, mostly industrial products, increased only 5.3 percent from Jun 2009 to Apr 2012, while imports of corporate goods, mostly commodities and raw materials increased 38.6 percent. Unconventional monetary policy induces carry trades from zero interest rates to exposures in commodities that squeeze economic activity of industrial countries by increases in prices of imported commodities and raw materials during periods without risk aversion. Reversals of carry trades during periods of risk aversion decrease prices of exported commodities and raw materials that squeeze economic activity in economies exporting commodities and raw materials. Devaluation of the dollar by unconventional monetary policy could increase US competitiveness in world markets but economic activity is squeezed by increases in prices of imported commodities and raw materials. Unconventional monetary policy causes instability worldwide instead of the mission of central banks of promoting financial and economic stability.

Chart IV-6A, Japan, Import Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Contract Currency Basis, 2008-2015

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html

Table IV-6B provides the Bank of Japan’s Corporate Goods Price indexes of exports and imports on the yen and contract bases from Jan 2008 to Jan 2015. There are oscillations of the indexes that are shown vividly in the four charts above. For the entire period from Jan 2008 to Jan 2015, the export index on the contract currency basis decreased 4.2 percent and decreased 1.6 percent on the yen basis. For the entire period from Jan 2008 to Jan 2015, the import price index decreased 2.2 percent on the contract currency basis and increased 2.2 percent on the yen basis. During significant part of the expansion period, prices of Japan’s exports of corporate goods, mostly industrial products, increased only 5.3 percent from Jun 2009 to Apr 2012, while imports of corporate goods, mostly commodities and raw materials increased 38.6 percent. The charts show sharp deteriorations in relative prices of exports to prices of imports during multiple periods. Price margins of Japan’s producers are subject to periodic squeezes resulting from carry trades from zero interest rates of monetary policy to exposures in commodities.

Table IV-6B, Japan, Exports and Imports Corporate Goods Price Index, Contract Currency Basis and Yen Basis

	X-CC	X-Y	M-CC	M-Y
2008/01	99.2	115.5	100.7	119.0
2008/02	99.8	116.1	102.4	120.6
2008/03	100.5	112.6	104.5	117.4
2008/04	101.6	115.3	110.1	125.2
2008/05	102.4	117.4	113.4	130.4
2008/06	103.5	120.7	119.5	140.3
2008/07	104.7	122.1	122.6	143.9
2008/08	103.7	122.1	123.1	147.0
2008/09	102.7	118.3	117.1	137.1
2008/10	100.2	109.6	109.1	121.5
2008/11	98.6	104.5	97.8	105.8
2008/12	97.9	100.6	89.3	93.0
2009/01	98.0	99.5	85.6	88.4
2009/02	97.5	100.1	85.7	89.7
2009/03	97.3	104.2	85.2	93.0
2009/04	97.6	105.6	84.4	93.0
2009/05	97.5	103.8	84.0	90.8
2009/06	97.9	104.9	86.2	93.5
2009/07	97.5	103.1	89.2	95.0
2009/08	98.3	104.4	89.6	95.8
2009/09	98.3	102.1	91.0	94.7
2009/10	98.0	101.2	91.0	94.0
2009/11	98.4	100.8	92.8	94.8
2009/12	98.3	100.7	95.4	97.5
2010/01	99.4	102.2	97.0	100.0
2010/02	99.7	101.6	97.6	99.8
2010/03	99.7	101.8	97.0	99.2
2010/04	100.5	104.6	99.9	104.6
2010/05	100.7	102.9	101.7	104.9
2010/06	100.1	101.6	100.0	102.3
2010/07	99.4	99.0	99.9	99.8
2010/08	99.1	97.3	99.5	97.5
2010/09	99.4	97.0	100.0	97.2
2010/10	100.1	96.4	100.5	95.8
2010/11	100.7	97.4	102.6	98.2
2010/12	101.2	98.3	104.4	100.6
2011/01	102.1	98.6	107.2	102.6
2011/02	102.9	99.5	109.0	104.3
2011/03	103.5	99.6	111.8	106.3
2011/04	104.1	101.7	115.9	111.9
2011/05	103.9	99.9	118.8	112.4
2011/06	103.8	99.3	117.5	110.5
2011/07	103.6	98.3	118.3	110.2
2011/08	103.6	96.6	118.6	108.1
2011/09	103.7	96.1	117.0	106.2
2011/10	103.0	95.2	116.6	105.6
2011/11	101.9	94.8	115.4	105.4
2011/12	101.5	94.5	116.1	106.2
2012/01	101.8	94.0	115.0	104.2
2012/02	102.4	95.8	115.8	106.4
2012/03	102.9	99.2	118.3	112.9
2012/04	103.1	98.7	119.5	113.1
2012/05	102.3	96.3	118.1	109.8
2012/06	101.4	95.0	115.2	106.7
2012/07	100.6	94.0	112.0	103.5
2012/08	100.9	94.1	112.4	103.6
2012/09	101.0	94.1	114.7	105.2
2012/10	101.1	94.7	113.8	105.2
2012/11	100.9	95.9	113.2	106.5
2012/12	100.7	98.0	113.4	109.5
2013/01	101.0	102.4	113.8	115.4
2013/02	101.5	105.9	114.8	120.2
2013/03	101.3	106.6	115.1	122.0
2013/04	100.2	107.5	114.1	123.8
2013/05	99.6	109.1	112.6	125.3
2013/06	99.2	106.1	112.0	121.2
2013/07	99.1	107.5	111.6	122.8
2013/08	99.0	106.1	111.8	121.3
2013/09	99.0	107.2	113.0	124.0
2013/10	99.2	106.7	113.1	122.9
2013/11	99.1	108.0	113.1	124.9
2013-12	99.1	110.4	113.8	129.0
2014-01	99.2	110.7	114.5	130.2
2014-02	98.9	109.2	113.9	127.8
2014-03	98.6	109.1	113.5	127.5
2014-04	98.5	109.2	112.8	127.0
2014-05	98.3	108.5	112.5	126.0
2014-06	98.1	108.3	112.6	126.3
2014-07	98.2	108.2	112.6	126.0
2014-08	98.3	109.0	112.4	126.8
2014-09	98.1	111.2	111.6	129.5
2014-10	97.5	111.0	109.8	128.0
2014-11	97.1	115.9	107.0	131.6
2014-12	96.1	116.6	103.4	129.4
2015-01	95.0	113.7	98.5	121.6

Note: X-CC: Exports Contract Currency; X-Y: Exports Yen; M-CC: Imports Contract; M-Y: Imports Yen

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/index.htm/

Chart IV-7, Japan, Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, 1970-2015

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html

The producer price index of the US from 1970 to 2014 in Chart IV-8 shows various periods of more rapid or less rapid inflation but no bumps. The major event is the decline in 2008 when risk aversion because of the global recession caused the collapse of oil prices from $148/barrel to less than $80/barrel with most other commodity prices also collapsing. The event had nothing in common with explanations of deflation but rather with the concentration of risk exposures in commodities after the decline of stock market indexes. Eventually, there was a flight to government securities because of the fears of insolvency of banks caused by statements supporting proposals for withdrawal of toxic assets from bank balance sheets in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as explained by Cochrane and Zingales (2009). The bump in 2008 with decline in 2009 is consistent with the view that zero interest rates with subdued risk aversion induce carry trades into commodity futures.

Chart IV-8, US, Producer Price Index Finished Goods, Monthly, 1970-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Further insight into inflation of the corporate goods price index (CGPI) of Japan is provided in Table IV-7. The increase in the tax on value added of consumption caused sharp increases in prices across all segments. Petroleum and coal with weight of 5.7 percent decreased 12.9 percent in Jan 2015 and decreased 23.1 percent in 12 months. Japan exports manufactured products and imports raw materials and commodities such that the country’s terms of trade, or export prices relative to import prices, deteriorate during commodity price increases. In contrast, prices of production machinery, with weight of 3.1 percent, decreased 0.5 percent in Jan 2015 and increased 3.0 percent in 12 months. In general, most manufactured products have been experiencing negative or low increases in prices while inflation rates have been high in 12 months for products originating in raw materials and commodities. Ironically, unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and quantitative easing that intended to increase aggregate demand and GDP growth deteriorated the terms of trade of advanced economies with adverse effects on real income (for analysis of terms of trade and growth see Pelaez (1979, 1976a). There are now inflation effects of the intentional policy of devaluing the yen and recent collapse of commodity prices.

Table IV-7, Japan, Corporate Goods Prices and Selected Components, % Weights, Month and 12 Months ∆%

Jan 2015	Weight	Month ∆%	12 Month ∆%
Total	1000.0	-1.3	0.3
Food, Beverages, Tobacco, Feedstuffs	137.5	0.2	3.5
Petroleum & Coal	57.4	-12.9	-23.1
Production Machinery	30.8	-0.5	3.0
Electronic Components	31.0	-0.1	-0.1
Electric Power, Gas & Water	52.7	0.4	8.3
Iron & Steel	56.6	-0.3	1.9
Chemicals	92.1	-3.6	-4.7
Transport Equipment	136.4	0.1	2.6

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/index.htm/

Percentage point contributions to change of the corporate goods price index (CGPI) in Jan 2015 are provided in Table IV-8 divided into domestic, export and import segments. The final block provides change in the corporate goods price without the effects of the increase in the tax on value added of consumption. In the domestic CGPI, decreasing 1.3 percent in Jan 2015, the energy shock is evident in the deduction of 0.83 percentage points by petroleum and coal products and 0.34 percentage points in chemicals and related products in reversal of carry trades of exposures in commodity futures. The exports CGPI decreased 1.1 percent on the basis of the contract currency with deduction of 0.58 percentage points by chemicals and related products and 0.51 percentage points by other primary products and manufactured goods. The imports CGPI decreased 4.7 percent on the contract currency basis. Petroleum, coal and natural gas products deducted 4.15 percentage points. Shocks of risk aversion cause unwinding carry trades that result in declining commodity prices with resulting downward pressure on price indexes. The volatility of inflation adversely affects financial and economic decisions worldwide. The final block D shows that the change in the domestic corporate goods price index without the effects of the consumption tax is minus 1.3 percent.

Table IV-8, Japan, Percentage Point Contributions to Change of Corporate Goods Price Index

Groups Jan 2015	Contribution to Change Percentage Points
A. Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index	Monthly Change: -1.3%
Petroleum & Coal Products	-0.83
Chemicals & Related Products	-0.34
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishery Products	-0.11
Nonferrous Metals	-0.04
Scrap & Waste	-0.03
Food, Beverages, Tobacco & Feedstuffs	0.03
Electric Power, Gas & Water	0.03
Information & Communications Equipment	0.02
B. Export Price Index	Monthly Change: -1.1% contract currency
Chemicals & Related Products	-0.58
Other Primary Products & Manufactured Goods	-0.51
Metals & Related Products	-0.20
Transportation Equipment	-0.08
Electric & Electronic Products	0.11
C. Import Price Index	Monthly Change: -4.7% contract currency basis
Petroleum, Coal & Natural Gas	-4.15
Metals & Related Products	-0.51
Chemicals & Related Products	-0.06
Other Primary Products & Manufactured Goods	-0.05
Electric & Electronic Products	-0.03
Foodstuffs & Feedstuffs	-0.02
D. Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index Excluding Consumption Tax	Monthly Change: -1.3%
Petroleum & Coal Products	-0.83
Chemicals & Related Products	-0.34
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishery Products	-0.11
Nonferrous Metals	-0.04
Scrap & Waste	-0.03
Food, Beverages, Tobacco & Feedstuffs	0.03
Electric Power, Gas & Water	0.03
Information & Communications Equipment	0.02

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/index.htm/

There are two categories of responses in the Empire State Manufacturing Survey of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (http://www.newyorkfed.org/survey/empire/empiresurvey_overview.html): current conditions and expectations for the next six months. There are responses in the survey for two types of prices: prices received or inputs of production and prices paid or sales prices of products. Table IV-5 provides indexes for the two categories and within them for the two types of prices from Jan 2011 to Feb 2015. The index of current prices paid or costs of inputs moved from 16.13 in Dec 2012 to 14.61 in Feb 2015 while the index of current prices received or sales prices increased from 1.08 in Dec 2012 to 3.37 in Jan 2015. The farther the index is from the area of no change at zero, the faster the rate of change. Prices paid or costs of inputs are expanding in Feb 2015 at a faster rate than prices received or of sales of products at 3.37. The index of future prices paid or expectations of costs of inputs in the next six months fell from 51.61 in Dec 2012 to 26.97 in Feb 2015 while the index of future prices received or expectation of sales prices in the next six months decreased from 25.81 in Dec 2012 to 5.62 in Feb 2015. Priced paid or of inputs are expected to increase at a faster pace in the next six months than prices received or prices of sales products. Prices of sales of finished products are less dynamic than prices of costs of inputs during waves of increases. Prices of costs of costs of inputs fall less rapidly than prices of sales of finished products during waves of price decreases. As a result, margins of prices of sales less costs of inputs oscillate with typical deterioration against producers, forcing companies to manage tightly costs and labor inputs. Instability of sales/costs margins discourages investment and hiring.

Table IV-5, US, FRBNY Empire State Manufacturing Survey, Diffusion Indexes, Prices Paid and Prices Received, SA

	Current Prices Paid	Current Prices Received	Six Months Prices Paid	Six Months Prices Received
Feb 2015	14.61	3.37	26.97	5.62
Jan	12.63	12.63	33.68	15.79
Dec 2014	10.42	6.25	40.63	32.29
Nov	10.64	0.00	41.49	25.53
Oct	11.36	6.82	42.05	26.14
Sep	23.91	17.39	43.48	32.61
Aug	27.27	7.95	42.05	21.59
Jul	25.00	6.82	37.50	18.18
Jun	17.20	4.30	36.56	16.13
May	19.78	6.59	31.87	14.29
Apr	22.45	10.20	33.67	14.29
Mar	21.18	2.35	43.53	25.88
Feb	25.00	15.00	40.00	23.75
Jan	36.59	13.41	45.12	23.17
Dec 2013	15.66	3.61	48.19	27.71
Nov	17.11	-3.95	42.11	17.11
Oct	21.69	2.41	45.78	25.30
Sep	21.51	8.60	39.78	24.73
Aug	20.48	3.61	40.96	19.28
Jul	17.39	1.09	28.26	11.96
Jun	20.97	11.29	45.16	17.74
May	20.45	4.55	29.55	14.77
Apr	28.41	5.68	44.32	14.77
Mar	25.81	2.15	50.54	23.66
Feb	26.26	8.08	44.44	13.13
Jan	22.58	10.75	38.71	21.51
Dec 2012	16.13	1.08	51.61	25.81
Nov	14.61	5.62	39.33	15.73
Oct	17.20	4.30	44.09	24.73
Sep	19.15	5.32	40.43	23.40
Aug	16.47	2.35	31.76	14.12
Jul	7.41	3.70	35.80	16.05
Jun	19.59	1.03	34.02	17.53
May	37.35	12.05	57.83	22.89
Apr	45.78	19.28	50.60	22.89
Mar	50.62	13.58	66.67	32.10
Feb	25.88	15.29	62.35	34.12
Jan	26.37	23.08	53.85	30.77
Dec 2011	24.42	3.49	56.98	36.05
Nov	18.29	6.10	36.59	25.61
Oct	22.47	4.49	40.45	17.98
Sep	32.61	8.70	53.26	22.83
Aug	28.26	2.17	42.39	15.22
Jul	43.33	5.56	51.11	30.00
Jun	56.12	11.22	55.10	19.39
May	69.89	27.96	68.82	35.48
Apr	57.69	26.92	56.41	38.46
Mar	53.25	20.78	71.43	36.36
Feb	45.78	16.87	55.42	27.71
Jan 2011	35.79	15.79	60.00	42.11

Source: http://www.newyorkfed.org/survey/empire/empiresurvey_overview.html

Price indexes of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Outlook Survey are in Table IV-6. As inflation waves throughout the world (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/competitive-currency-conflicts-world.html) indexes of both current and expectations of future prices paid and received were quite high until May 2011. Prices paid, or inputs, were more dynamic, reflecting carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures. All indexes softened after May 2011 with even decline of prices received in Aug 2011 during the first round of risk aversion. Current and future price indexes have increased again but not back to the intensity in the beginning of 2011 because of risk aversion frustrating carry trades even induced by zero interest rates. The index of prices paid or prices of inputs moved from 20.8 in Dec 2012 to 9.8 in Jan 2015. The index of current prices received was minus 2.4 in Apr 2013, indicating decrease of prices received. The index of current prices received decreased from 9.2 in Dec 2012 to -0.2 in Jan 2015. The farther the index is from the area of no change at zero, the faster the rate of change. The index of current prices paid or costs of inputs at 4.7 in Feb 2015 indicates faster increase than the index of current prices received or sales prices of production contracting at -0.2. The index of future prices paid decreased to 32.2 in Feb 2015 from 40.6 in Dec 2012 while the index of future prices received decreased from 21.9 in Dec 2012 to 19.3 in Feb 2015. Expectations are incorporating faster increases in prices of inputs or costs of production, 32.2 in Feb 2015, than of sales prices of produced goods, 19.3 in Feb 2015, forcing companies to manage tightly costs and labor inputs. Volatility of margins of sales/costs discourages investment and hiring.

Table IV-6, US, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey, Current and Future Prices Paid and Prices Received, SA

	Current Prices Paid	Current Prices Received	Future Prices Paid	Future Prices Received
10-Dec	42.8	5.3	56.0	24.2
11-Jan	48.1	12.3	58.3	34.8
11-Feb	61.1	13.4	67.7	31.5
11-Mar	59	17.6	62.4	33.4
11-Apr	52.1	23.6	56.2	35.7
11-May	49.8	20.6	54.9	28.6
11-Jun	37.4	7.2	41.4	6.9
11-Jul	34.4	5.5	49.3	17.5
11-Aug	23.6	-3.9	43.5	22.8
11-Sep	30.7	6.3	38.3	20.6
11-Oct	23	1.7	41.5	27.9
11-Nov	22.2	5.3	33.3	26.3
11-Dec	25.1	5.8	42	21.1
12-Jan	25.8	8.6	46.9	22.2
12-Feb	32.7	9.9	50.5	26.3
12-Mar	16.6	6.5	38.7	24.3
12-Apr	19.9	10	36.7	23.7
12-May	8.9	0.9	39.9	9.6
12-Jun	3.4	-4.5	34.5	16.9
12-Jul	9	3.5	29.1	21.4
12-Aug	17	6.1	36.8	23.9
12-Sep	14	2.6	39	24.9
12-Oct	18	5.2	44.1	15.4
12-Nov	22.8	5.1	44.6	10.6
12-Dec	20.8	9.2	40.6	21.9
13-Jan	12.3	-0.5	33.2	22.3
13-Feb	11.9	-0.7	33.9	22.5
13-Mar	11.4	0.6	34.3	19.3
13-Apr	7.6	-2.4	31.1	14.7
13-May	11.9	0.5	34.3	19.8
13-Jun	20.8	13.6	33.1	24
13-Jul	20.3	6	42.7	26.9
13-Aug	19.6	12	36.9	23
13-Sep	23.8	11.6	39	27.9
13-Oct	18.5	10.2	41.2	35
13-Nov	24.4	7.6	39.4	36
13-Dec	16.9	8.5	37.9	28.8
14-Jan	18.8	6.3	34.3	14.2
14-Feb	14.8	7.9	27.2	18.1
14-Mar	18.3	6.4	31.8	18.8
14-Apr	14.5	9.6	38.3	18.6
14-May	26.5	18	36.9	29.6
14-Jun	32	13.1	45.1	30.1
14-Jul	32.3	14.7	40.1	25
14-Aug	24.1	5.1	47.5	27.7
14-Sep	24.4	8	41.9	26.6
14-Oct	24.9	18.2	30.5	23
14-Nov	15.8	10	30.5	18.7
14-Dec	14.4	9.8	22.3	20.6
15-Jan	9.8	-0.2	26	20.7
15-Feb	4.7	-0.2	32.2	19.3

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

http://www.philadelphiafed.org/index.cfm

Chart IV-1 of the Business Outlook Survey of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Outlook Survey provides the diffusion index of current prices paid or prices of inputs from 2006 to 2015. Recession dates are in shaded areas. In the middle of deep global contraction after IVQ2007, input prices continued to increase in speculative carry trades from central bank policy rates falling toward zero into commodities futures. The index peaked above 70 in the second half of 2008. Inflation of inputs moderated significantly during the shock of risk aversion in late 2008, even falling briefly into contraction territory below zero during several months in 2009 in the flight away from risk financial assets into US government securities (Cochrane and Zingales 2009) that unwound carry trades. Return of risk appetite induced carry trade with significant increase until return of risk aversion in the first round of the European sovereign debt crisis in Apr 2010. Carry trades returned during risk appetite in expectation that the European sovereign debt crisis was resolved. The various inflation waves originating in carry trades induced by zero interest rates with alternating episodes of risk aversion are mirrored in the prices of inputs after 2011, in particular after Aug 2012 with the announcement of the Outright Monetary Transactions Program of the European Central Bank (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html). Subsequent risk aversion and flows of capital away from commodities into stocks and high-yield bonds caused sharp decline in the index of prices paid followed by another recent rebound with marginal decline and new increase. The index falls, rebounds and falls again in the final segment but there are no episodes of contraction after 2009.

Chart IV-1, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey Current Prices Paid Diffusion Index SA

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

http://www.philadelphiafed.org/index.cfm

Chart IV-2 of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Outlook Survey provides the diffusion index of current prices received from 2006 to 2015. The significant difference between the index of current prices paid in Chart IV-1 and the index of current prices received in Chart IV-2 is that increases in prices paid are significantly sharper than increases in prices received. There were several periods of negative readings of prices received from 2010 to 2015 but none of prices paid. Prices paid relative to prices received deteriorate most of the time largely because of the carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures. Profit margins of business are compressed intermittently by fluctuations of commodity prices induced by unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates, frustrating production, investment and hiring decisions of business, which is precisely the opposite outcome pursued by unconventional monetary policy.

Chart IV-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey Current Prices Received Diffusion Index SA

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

http://www.philadelphiafed.org/index.cfm

ESIII United States Industrial Production. Manufacturing increased 0.2 percent in Jan 2015 after changing 1.0 percent in Dec 2014 and increasing 1.2 percent in Nov 2014 seasonally adjusted, increasing 5.5 percent not seasonally adjusted in the 12 months ending in Jan 2015, as shown in Table I-2. Manufacturing grew cumulatively 1.5 percent in the six months ending in Jan 2015 or at the annual equivalent rate of 3.0 percent. Excluding the increase of 1.2 percent in Nov 2014, manufacturing accumulated growth of 0.3 percent from Aug 2013 to Jan 2015 or at the annual equivalent rate of 0.7 percent. Table I-2 provides a longer perspective of manufacturing in the US. There has been evident deceleration of manufacturing growth in the US from 2010 and the first three months of 2011 with recovery in more recent months as shown by 12 months rates of growth. Growth rates appeared to be increasing again closer to 5 percent in Apr-Jun 2012 but deteriorated. The rates of decline of manufacturing in 2009 are quite high with a drop of 18.2 percent in the 12 months ending in Apr 2009. Manufacturing recovered from this decline and led the recovery from the recession. Rates of growth appeared to be returning to the levels at 3 percent or higher in the annual rates before the recession but the pace of manufacturing fell steadily with some strength at the margin. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System conducted the annual revision of industrial production released on Mar 28, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/revisions/Current/DefaultRev.htm):

“The Federal Reserve has revised its index of industrial production (IP) and the related measures of capacity and capacity utilization. The annual revision for 2014 was more limited than in recent years because the source data required to extend the annual benchmark indexes of production into 2012 were mostly unavailable. Consequently, the IP indexes published with this revision are very little changed from previous estimates. Measured from fourth quarter to fourth quarter, total IP is now reported to have increased about 3 1/3 percent in each year from 2011 to 2013. Relative to the rates of change for total IP published earlier, the new rates are 1/2 percentage point higher in 2012 and little changed in any other year. Total IP still shows a peak-to-trough decline of about 17 percent for the most recent recession, and it still returned to its pre-recession peak in the fourth quarter of 2013.”

The bottom part of Table I-2 shows decline of manufacturing by 21.9 from the peak in Jun 2007 to the trough in Apr 2009 and increase by 25.2 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Dec 2014. Manufacturing grew 24.2 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Jan 2015. Manufacturing output in Jan 2015 is 3.1 percent below the peak in Jun 2007. Growth at trend in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IVQ2014 would have accumulated to 23.0 percent. GDP in IVQ2014 would be $18,438.0 billion (in constant dollars of 2009) if the US had grown at trend, which is higher by $2,126.4 billion than actual $16,311.6 billion. There are about two trillion dollars of GDP less than at trend, explaining the 28.3 million unemployed or underemployed equivalent to actual unemployment of 17.1 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/job-creation-and-monetary-policy-twenty.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/fluctuating-valuations-of-risk.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/financial-risks-twenty-six-million.html). US GDP in IVQ2014 is 11.5 percent lower than at trend. US GDP grew from $14,991.8 billion in IVQ2007 in constant dollars to $16,311.6 billion in IVQ2014 or 8.8 percent at the average annual equivalent rate of 1.2 percent. Cochrane (2014Jul2) estimates US GDP at more than 10 percent below trend. The US missed the opportunity to grow at higher rates during the expansion and it is difficult to catch up because growth rates in the final periods of expansions tend to decline. The US missed the opportunity for recovery of output and employment always afforded in the first four quarters of expansion from recessions. Zero interest rates and quantitative easing were not required or present in successful cyclical expansions and in secular economic growth at 3.0 percent per year and 2.0 percent per capita as measured by Lucas (2011May). There is cyclical uncommonly slow growth in the US instead of allegations of secular stagnation. There is similar behavior in manufacturing. There is classic research on analyzing deviations of output from trend (see for example Schumpeter 1939, Hicks 1950, Lucas 1975, Sargent and Sims 1977). The long-term trend is growth at average 3.3 percent per year from Jan 1919 to Jan 2015. Growth at 3.3 percent per year would raise the NSA index of manufacturing output from 99.2392 in Dec 2007 to 124.8993 in Jan 2015. The actual index NSA in Jan 2015 is 99.8883, which is 20.0 percent below trend. Manufacturing output grew at average 2.4 percent between Dec 1986 and Dec 2014, raising the index at trend to 117.3927 in Jan 2015. The output of manufacturing at 99.8883 in Jan 2015 is 14.9 percent below trend under this alternative calculation.

Table I-2, US, Monthly and 12-Month Rates of Growth of Manufacturing ∆%

	Month SA ∆%	12-Month NSA ∆%
Jan 2015	0.2	5.5
Dec 2014	0.0	4.4
Nov	1.2	4.4
Oct	0.1	3.4
Sep	0.3	3.8
Aug	-0.3	3.9
Jul	0.8	4.3
Jun	0.4	3.6
May	0.4	3.6
Apr	0.3	3.0
Mar	0.8	3.4
Feb	1.3	2.4
Jan	-1.0	1.4
Dec 2013	0.2	2.2
Nov	0.3	2.8
Oct	0.4	3.7
Sep	0.3	2.8
Aug	0.7	2.9
Jul	-0.4	1.7
Jun	0.3	2.3
May	0.3	2.4
Apr	-0.2	2.7
Mar	0.1	2.6
Feb	0.6	2.5
Jan	-0.2	2.9
Dec 2012	0.7	3.8
Nov	1.3	3.8
Oct	-0.4	2.6
Sep	0.2	3.5
Aug	-0.5	3.8
Jul	0.4	4.3
Jun	0.4	5.0
May	-0.2	4.9
Apr	0.8	5.1
Mar	-0.3	3.8
Feb	0.6	5.1
Jan	1.0	4.0
Dec 2011	0.7	3.5
Nov	-0.1	2.9
Oct	0.5	3.0
Sep	0.4	2.9
Aug	0.3	2.3
Jul	0.8	2.6
Jun	0.1	2.1
May	0.2	1.9
Apr	-0.6	3.2
Mar	0.7	4.9
Feb	0.0	5.4
Jan	0.2	5.7
Dec 2010	0.4	6.3
Nov	0.2	5.4
Oct	0.1	6.6
Sep	0.1	6.9
Aug	0.1	7.4
Jul	0.8	7.8
Jun	0.0	9.3
May	1.5	8.8
Apr	0.9	7.0
Mar	1.3	4.8
Feb	-0.1	1.3
Jan	1.1	1.2
Dec 2009	-0.1	-3.1
Nov	1.0	-6.0
Oct	0.2	-9.1
Sep	0.8	-10.6
Aug	1.0	-13.6
Jul	1.4	-15.2
Jun	-0.3	-17.7
May	-1.1	-17.6
Apr	-0.7	-18.2
Mar	-1.8	-17.3
Feb	-0.3	-16.1
Jan	-2.9	-16.4
Dec 2008	-3.4	-13.9
Nov	-2.4	-11.3
Oct	-0.6	-8.9
Sep	-3.4	-8.5
Aug	-1.2	-5.0
Jul	-1.1	-3.5
Jun	-0.6	-3.1
May	-0.5	-2.4
Apr	-1.1	-1.1
Mar	-0.3	-0.6
Feb	-0.6	0.9
Jan	-0.4	2.2
Dec 2007	0.1	1.9
Nov	0.5	3.3
Oct	-0.4	2.8
Sep	0.5	2.9
Aug	-0.4	2.6
Jul	0.2	3.5
Jun	0.3	3.0
May	-0.1	3.1
Apr	0.7	3.6
Mar	0.8	2.5
Feb	0.4	1.6
Jan	-0.5	1.3
Dec 2006		2.7
Dec 2005		3.5
Dec 2004		3.8
Dec 2003		2.0
Dec 2002		2.4
Dec 2001		-5.7
Dec 2000		0.7
Dec 1999		5.3
Average ∆% Dec 1986-Dec 2014		2.4
Average ∆% Dec 1986-Dec 2013		2.3
Average ∆% Dec 1986-Dec 1999		4.2
Average ∆% Dec 1999-Dec 2006		1.3
Average ∆% Dec 1999-Dec 2014		0.8
∆% Peak 103.0351 in 06/2007 to 100.7538 in 2/2014		-2.2
∆% Peak 103.0351 in 06/2007 to Trough 80.4551 in 4/2009		-21.9
∆% Trough 80.4551 in 04/2009 to 100.7538 in 12/2014		25.2
∆% Trough 80.4551 in 04/2009 to 99.8883 in 1/2015		24.2
∆% Peak 103.0351 on 06/2007 to 99.8883 in 1/2015		-3.1

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm

United States manufacturing output from 1919 to 2015 on a monthly basis is in Chart I-4 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The second industrial revolution of Jensen (1993) is quite evident in the acceleration of the rate of growth of output given by the sharper slope in the 1980s and 1990s. Growth was robust after the shallow recession of 2001 but dropped sharply during the global recession after IVQ2007. Manufacturing output recovered sharply but has not reached earlier levels and is losing momentum at the margin. Current output is well below the extrapolation of a long-term trend. There is classic research on analyzing deviations of output from trend (see for example Schumpeter 1939, Hicks 1950, Lucas 1975, Sargent and Sims 1977). The long-term trend is growth at average 3.3 percent per year from Jan 1919 to Jan 2015. Growth at 3.3 percent per year would raise the NSA index of manufacturing output from 99.2392 in Dec 2007 to 124.8993 in Jan 2015. The actual index NSA in Jan 2015 is 99.8883, which is 20.0 percent below trend. Manufacturing output grew at average 2.4 percent between Dec 1986 and Dec 2014, raising the index at trend to 117.3927 in Jan 2015. The output of manufacturing at 99.8883 in Jan 2015 is 14.9 percent below trend under this alternative calculation.

Chart I-4, US, Manufacturing Output, 1919-2015

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm

Manufacturing jobs not seasonally adjusted increased 232,000 from Jan 2014 to
Jan 2015 or at the average monthly rate of 19,333. There are effects of the weaker economy and international trade together with the yearly adjustment of labor statistics. Industrial production decreased 0.1 percent in Dec 2014 and increased 1.3 percent in Nov 2014 after changing 0.0 percent in Oct 2014, with all data seasonally adjusted. The Federal Reserve completed its annual revision of industrial production and capacity utilization on Mar 28, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/revisions/Current/DefaultRev.htm). The report of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm):

“Industrial production increased 0.2 percent in January after decreasing 0.3 percent in December. The rates of change in output for September through December are all slightly lower than previously published; even so, production is estimated to have advanced at an annual rate of 4.3 percent in the fourth quarter of last year. In January, manufacturing output moved up 0.2 percent and was 5.6 percent above its year-earlier level. The index for mining decreased 1.0 percent, with the decline more than accounted for by a substantial drop in the index for oil and gas well drilling and related support activities. The output of utilities increased 2.3 percent. At 106.2 percent of its 2007 average, total industrial production in January was 4.8 percent above its level of a year earlier. Capacity utilization for the industrial sector was unchanged in January at 79.4 percent, a rate that is 0.7 percentage point below its long-run (1972–2014) average.”

In the six months ending in Jan 2015, United States national industrial production accumulated increase of 1.6 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 3.2 percent, which is lower than growth of 4.8 percent in the 12 months ending in Jan 2015. Excluding growth of 1.1 percent in Nov 2014, growth in the remaining five months from Aug 2014 to Jan 2015 accumulated to 0.5 percent or 1.2 percent annual equivalent. Industrial production declined in two of the past six months. Industrial production expanded at annual equivalent 4.1 percent in the most recent quarter from Nov 2014 to Jan 2015 and at 2.4 percent in the prior quarter Aug to Oct 2014. Business equipment accumulated growth of 1.4 percent in the six months from Aug 2014 to Jan 2015 at the annual equivalent rate of 2.8 percent, which is lower than growth of 7.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Jan 2015. The Fed analyzes capacity utilization of total industry in its report (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm): “Capacity utilization for the industrial sector was unchanged in January at 79.4 percent, a rate that is 0.7 percentage point below its long-run (1972–2014) average.” United States industry apparently decelerated to a lower growth rate followed by possible acceleration and oscillating growth in past months.

Manufacturing fell 21.9 from the peak in Jun 2007 to the trough in Apr 2009 and increased by 25.2 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Dec 2014. Manufacturing grew 24.2 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Jan 2015. Manufacturing output in Jan 2015 is 3.1 percent below the peak in Jun 2007. Growth at trend in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IVQ2014 would have accumulated to 23.0 percent. GDP in IVQ2014 would be $18,438.0 billion (in constant dollars of 2009) if the US had grown at trend, which is higher by $2,126.4 billion than actual $16,311.6 billion. There are about two trillion dollars of GDP less than at trend, explaining the 28.3 million unemployed or underemployed equivalent to actual unemployment of 17.1 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/job-creation-and-monetary-policy-twenty.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/fluctuating-valuations-of-risk.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/financial-risks-twenty-six-million.html). US GDP in IVQ2014 is 11.5 percent lower than at trend. US GDP grew from $14,991.8 billion in IVQ2007 in constant dollars to $16,311.6 billion in IVQ2014 or 8.8 percent at the average annual equivalent rate of 1.2 percent. Cochrane (2014Jul2) estimates US GDP at more than 10 percent below trend. The US missed the opportunity to grow at higher rates during the expansion and it is difficult to catch up because growth rates in the final periods of expansions tend to decline. The US missed the opportunity for recovery of output and employment always afforded in the first four quarters of expansion from recessions. Zero interest rates and quantitative easing were not required or present in successful cyclical expansions and in secular economic growth at 3.0 percent per year and 2.0 percent per capita as measured by Lucas (2011May). There is cyclical uncommonly slow growth in the US instead of allegations of secular stagnation. There is similar behavior in manufacturing. The long-term trend is growth at average 3.3 percent per year from Jan 1919 to Jan 2015. Growth at 3.3 percent per year would raise the NSA index of manufacturing output from 99.2392 in Dec 2007 to 124.8993 in Jan 2015. The actual index NSA in Jan 2015 is 99.8883, which is 20.0 percent below trend. Manufacturing output grew at average 2.4 percent between Dec 1986 and Dec 2014, raising the index at trend to 117.3927 in Jan 2015. The output of manufacturing at 99.8883 in Jan 2015 is 14.9 percent below trend under this alternative calculation.

Table I-3 provides national income by industry without capital consumption adjustment (WCCA). “Private industries” or economic activities have share of 87.4 percent in IIIQ2014. Most of US national income is in the form of services. In Jan 2015, there were 138.728 million nonfarm jobs NSA in the US, according to estimates of the establishment survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Table B-1). Total private jobs of 116.976 million NSA in Jan 2015 accounted for 84.3 percent of total nonfarm jobs of 138.728 million, of which 12.219 million, or 10.4 percent of total private jobs and 8.8 percent of total nonfarm jobs, were in manufacturing. Private service-providing jobs were 97.946 million NSA in Jan 2015, or 70.6 percent of total nonfarm jobs and 83.7 percent of total private-sector jobs. Manufacturing has share of 11.3 percent in US national income in IIIQ2014 and durable goods 6.5 percent, as shown in Table I-3. Most income in the US originates in services. Subsidies and similar measures designed to increase manufacturing jobs will not increase economic growth and employment and may actually reduce growth by diverting resources away from currently employment-creating activities because of the drain of taxation.

Table I-3, US, National Income without Capital Consumption Adjustment by Industry, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rates, Billions of Dollars, % of Total

	SAAR IIQ2014	% Total	SAAR IIIQ2014	% Total
National Income WCCA	15,222.0	100.0	15,472.0	100.0
Domestic Industries	15,008.6	98.6	15,242.2	98.5
Private Industries	13,287.8	87.3	13,516.5	87.4
Agriculture	179.0	1.2	167.3	1.1
Mining	261.4	1.7	274.4	1.8
Utilities	215.6	1.4	221.7	1.4
Construction	670.3	4.4	680.4	4.4
Manufacturing	1712.8	11.3	1741.7	11.3
Durable Goods	975.4	6.4	1,000.7	6.5
Nondurable Goods	737.4	4.8	740.9	4.8
Wholesale Trade	917.7	6.0	936.9	6.1
Retail Trade	1048.0	6.9	1054.2	6.8
Transportation & WH	478.1	3.1	480.3	3.1
Information	580.3	3.8	576.5	3.7
Finance, Insurance, RE	2642.8	17.4	2787.2	18.0
Professional & Business Services	2064.5	13.6	2060.0	13.3
Education, Health Care	1484.3	9.8	1494.1	9.7
Arts, Entertainment	605.0	4.0	610.6	3.9
Other Services	428.0	2.8	431.3	2.8
Government	1720.8	11.3	1725.6	11.2
Rest of the World	213.5	1.4	229.9	1.5

Notes: SSAR: Seasonally-Adjusted Annual Rate; WCCA: Without Capital Consumption Adjustment by Industry; WH: Warehousing; RE, includes rental and leasing: Real Estate; Art, Entertainment includes recreation, accommodation and food services; BS: business services

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

ESIV United States Producer Prices. Headline and core producer price indexes are in Table I-6. The headline PPI SA decreased 2.1 percent in Jan 2015 and decreased 3.1 percent NSA in the 12 months ending in Jan 2015. The core PPI SA increased 0.2 percent in Jan 2015 and rose 1.5 percent in 12 months. Analysis of annual equivalent rates of change shows inflation waves similar to those worldwide. In the first wave, the absence of risk aversion from the sovereign risk crisis in Europe motivated the carry trade from zero interest rates into commodity futures that caused the annual equivalent rate of 10.4 percent in the headline PPI in Jan-Apr 2011 and 3.7 percent in the core PPI. In the second wave, commodity futures prices collapsed in Jun 2011 with the return of risk aversion originating in the sovereign risk crisis of Europe. The annual equivalent rate of headline PPI inflation collapsed to 1.2 percent in May-Jun 2011 but the core annual equivalent inflation rate was higher at 2.4 percent. In the third wave, headline PPI inflation resuscitated with annual equivalent at 4.5 percent in Jul-Sep 2011 and core PPI inflation at 3.7 percent. Core PPI inflation was persistent throughout 2011, jumping from annual equivalent at 2.0 percent in the first three months of 2010 to 3.0 percent in 12 months ending in Dec 2011. Unconventional monetary policy is based on the proposition that core rates reflect more fundamental inflation and are thus better predictors of the future. In practice, the relation of core and headline inflation is as difficult to predict as future inflation (see IIID Supply Shocks in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html). In the fourth wave, risk aversion originating in the lack of resolution of the European debt crisis caused unwinding of carry trades with annual equivalent headline PPI inflation of minus 0.4 percent in Oct-Dec 2011 and 2.0 percent in the core annual equivalent. In the fifth wave from Jan to Mar 2012, annual equivalent inflation was 2.8 percent for the headline index but 3.2 percent for the core index excluding food and energy. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Apr-May 2012 during renewed risk aversion was minus 3.5 percent for the headline PPI and 1.8 percent for the core. In the seventh wave, continuing risk aversion caused reversal of carry trades into commodity exposures with annual equivalent headline inflation of 0.6 percent in Jun-Jul 2012 while core PPI inflation was at annual equivalent 3.7 percent. In the eighth wave, relaxed risk aversion because of the announcement of the impaired bond buying program or Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) of the European Central Bank (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html) induced carry trades that drove annual equivalent inflation of producer prices of the United States at 14.0 percent in Aug-Sep 2012 and 0.6 percent in the core index. In the ninth wave, renewed risk aversion caused annual equivalent inflation of minus 2.4 percent in Oct 2011-Dec 2012 in the headline index and 1.2 percent in the core index. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 6.2 percent in the headline index in Jan-Feb 2013 and 2.4 percent in the core index. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 7.0 percent in Mar-Apr 2012 and 1.8 percent for the core index. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 3.7 percent in May-Aug 2013 and 1.2 percent in the core index. In the thirteenth wave, portfolio reallocations away from commodities and into equities reversed commodity carry trade with annual equivalent inflation of 0.0 percent in Sep-Nov 2013 in the headline PPI and 0.8 percent in the core. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 5.3 percent annual equivalent for the headline index in Dec 2013-Feb 2014 and 4.1 percent for the core index. In the fifteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 3.7 percent for the general PPI index in Mar 2014 and 0.0 percent for the core PPI index. In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent headline PPI inflation increased at 2.7 percent in Apr-Jul 2014 and 1.8 percent for the core PPI. In the seventeenth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Aug-Nov 2014 was minus 3.5 percent and 1.2 percent for the core index. In the eighteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation fell at 17.6 percent for the general index in Dec 2014 to Jan 2015 and increased at 3.0 percent in the core index. It is almost impossible to forecast PPI inflation and its relation to CPI inflation. “Inflation surprise” by monetary policy could be proposed to climb along a downward sloping Phillips curve, resulting in higher inflation but lower unemployment (see Kydland and Prescott 1977, Barro and Gordon 1983 and past comments of this blog http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html). The architects of monetary policy would require superior inflation forecasting ability compared to forecasting naivety by everybody else. In practice, we are all naïve in forecasting inflation and other economic variables and events.

Table I-6, US, Headline and Core PPI Inflation Monthly SA and 12-Month NSA ∆%

	Finished Goods SA Month	Finished Goods NSA 12 months	Finished Core SA Month	Finished Core NSA 12 months
Jan 2015	-2.1	-3.1	0.2	1.5
Dec 2014	-1.1	-0.5	0.3	1.8
AE ∆% Dec-Jan	-17.6		3.0
Nov	-0.8	1.1	0.1	2.0
Oct	-0.2	1.7	0.0	2.1
Sep	-0.1	2.2	0.2	2.1
Aug	-0.1	2.3	0.1	1.9
AE ∆% Aug-Nov	-3.5		1.2
July	0.0	2.9	0.1	1.9
Jun	0.4	2.8	0.2	1.9
May	0.1	2.5	0.2	1.8
Apr	0.4	3.1	0.1	1.7
AE ∆% Apr-Jul	2.7		1.8
Mar	0.3	1.9	0.0	1.7
AE ∆% Mar	3.7		0.0
Feb	0.1	1.3	0.1	1.9
Jan	0.6	1.6	0.5	2.0
Dec 2013	0.6	1.4	0.4	1.6
AE ∆% Dec-Feb	5.3		4.1
Nov	-0.2	0.8	0.2	1.3
Oct	0.2	0.3	0.0	1.2
Sep	0.0	0.3	0.0	1.2
AE ∆% Sep-Nov	0.0		0.8
Aug	0.3	1.3	0.1	1.2
Jul	0.0	2.1	0.1	1.3
Jun	0.2	2.3	0.1	1.6
May	0.7	1.6	0.1	1.7
AE ∆% May-Aug	3.7		1.2
Apr	-0.7	0.5	0.1	1.7
Mar	-0.5	1.1	0.2	1.7
AE ∆% Mar-Apr	-7.0		1.8
Feb	0.6	1.8	0.2	1.8
Jan	0.4	1.5	0.2	1.8
AE ∆% Jan-Feb	6.2		2.4
Dec 2012	-0.1	1.4	0.1	2.1
Nov	-0.7	1.5	0.2	2.2
Oct	0.2	2.3	0.0	2.2
AE ∆% Oct-Dec	-2.4		1.2
Sep	1.0	2.1	0.0	2.4
Aug	1.2	1.9	0.1	2.6
AE ∆% Aug-Sep	14.0		0.6
Jul	0.2	0.5	0.4	2.6
Jun	-0.3	0.7	0.2	2.6
AE ∆% Jun-Jul	-0.6		3.7
May	-0.4	0.6	0.1	2.7
Apr	-0.2	1.8	0.2	2.7
AE ∆% Apr-May	-3.5		1.8
Mar	0.1	2.8	0.2	2.9
Feb	0.3	3.4	0.2	3.1
Jan	0.3	4.1	0.4	3.1
AE ∆% Jan-Mar	2.8		3.2
Dec 2011	-0.1	4.7	0.2	3.0
Nov	0.2	5.6	0.1	3.0
Oct	-0.2	5.8	0.2	2.9
AE ∆% Oct-Dec	-0.4		2.0
Sep	0.8	7.0	0.3	2.8
Aug	-0.1	6.6	0.1	2.7
Jul	0.4	7.1	0.5	2.7
AE ∆% Jul-Sep	4.5		3.7
Jun	-0.3	6.9	0.2	2.3
May	0.5	7.1	0.2	2.1
AE ∆% May-Jun	1.2		2.4
Apr	0.8	6.6	0.3	2.3
Mar	0.7	5.6	0.3	2.0
Feb	1.0	5.4	0.2	1.8
Jan	0.8	3.6	0.4	1.6
AE ∆% Jan-Apr	10.4		3.7
Dec 2010	0.8	3.8	0.2	1.4
Nov	0.4	3.4	0.0	1.2
Oct	0.8	4.3	0.0	1.6
Sep	0.4	3.9	0.2	1.6
Aug	0.5	3.3	0.1	1.3
Jul	0.1	4.1	0.1	1.5
Jun	-0.3	2.7	0.1	1.1
May	0.0	5.1	0.3	1.3
Apr	0.0	5.4	0.0	0.9
Mar	0.7	5.9	0.2	0.9
Feb	-0.7	4.2	0.1	1.0
Jan	1.0	4.5	0.2	1.0

Note: Core: excluding food and energy; AE: annual equivalent

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm

The US producer price index NSA from 2000 to 2015 is shown in Chart I-24. There are two episodes of decline of the PPI during recessions in 2001 and in 2008. Barsky and Kilian (2004) consider the 2001 episode as one in which real oil prices were declining when recession began. Recession and the fall of commodity prices instead of generalized deflation explain the behavior of US inflation in 2008. There is similar collapse of producer prices into 2015 as in 2009 caused by the drop of commodity prices.

Chart I-24, US, Producer Price Index, NSA, 2000-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Twelve-month percentage changes of the PPI NSA from 2000 to 2015 are shown in Chart I-25. It may be possible to forecast trends a few months in the future under adaptive expectations but turning points are almost impossible to anticipate especially when related to fluctuations of commodity prices in response to risk aversion. In a sense, monetary policy has been tied to behavior of the PPI in the negative 12-month rates in 2001 to 2003 and then again in 2009 to 2010. There is similar sharp decline of inflation into 2015 caused by the drop of commorices. Monetary policy following deflation fears caused by commodity price fluctuations would introduce significant volatility and risks in financial markets and eventually in consumption and investment.

Chart I-25, US, Producer Price Index, 12-Month Percentage Change NSA, 2000-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

The US PPI excluding food and energy from 2000 to 2015 is in Chart I-26. There is here again a smooth trend of inflation instead of prolonged deflation as in Japan.

Chart I-26, US, Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 2000-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Twelve-month percentage changes of the producer price index excluding food and energy are in Chart I-27. Fluctuations replicate those in the headline PPI. There is an evident trend of increase of 12 months rates of core PPI inflation in 2011 but lower rates in 2012-2014. Prices rose less rapidly into 2015 as during earlier fluctuations.

Chart I-27, US, Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 12-Month Percentage Changes, 2000-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

The US producer price index of energy goods from 2000 to 2014 is in Chart I-28. There is a clear upward trend with fluctuations, which would not occur under persistent deflation.

Chart I-28, US, Producer Price Index Finished Energy Goods, NSA, 2000-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Chart I-29, US, Producer Price Index Energy Goods, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2000-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is enhancing the producer price index of the US with the final demand producer price index (FD PPI) beginning in Jan 2014 (http://www.bls.gov/ppi/fdidtransition.htm):

“Effective with the January 2014 Producer Price Index (PPI) data release in February 2014, BLS transitioned from the Stage of Processing (SOP) to the Final Demand-Intermediate Demand (FD-ID) aggregation system. This shift resulted in significant changes to the PPI news release, as well as other documents available from PPI. The transition to the FD-ID system was the culmination of a long-standing PPI objective to improve the current SOP aggregation system by incorporating PPIs for services, construction, government purchases, and exports. In comparison to the SOP system, the FD-ID system more than doubled PPI coverage of the United States economy to over 75 percent of in-scope domestic production. The FD-ID system was first introduced as a set of experimental indexes in January 2011. Nearly all new FD-ID goods, services, and construction indexes provide historical data back to either November 2009 or April 2010, while the indexes for goods that correspond with the historical SOP indexes go back to the 1970s or earlier.”

Headline and core final demand producer price indexes are in Table I-6A. The headline FD PPI SA decreased 0.8 percent in Jan 2015 and changed 0.0 percent NSA in the 12 months ending in Jan 2015. The core FD PPI SA decreased 0.1 percent in Jan 2015 and rose 1.6 percent in 12 months. Analysis of annual equivalent rates of change shows inflation waves similar to those worldwide. In the first wave, the absence of risk aversion from the sovereign risk crisis in Europe motivated the carry trade from zero interest rates into commodity futures that caused the average equivalent rate of 7.4 percent in the headline FD PPI in Jan-Apr 2011 and 4.9 percent in the core FD PPI. In the second wave, commodity futures prices collapsed in Jun 2011 with the return of risk aversion originating in the sovereign risk crisis of Europe. The annual equivalent rate of headline FD PPI inflation collapsed to 2.4 percent in May-Jun 2011 but the core annual equivalent inflation rate was lower at 1.8 percent. In the third wave, headline FD PPI inflation resuscitated with annual equivalent at 3.2 percent in Jul-Sep 2011 and core PPI inflation at 3.2 percent. Core FD PPI inflation was persistent throughout 2011, from annual equivalent at 4.9 percent in the first four months of 2011 to 2.6 percent in 12 months ending in Dec 2011. Unconventional monetary policy is based on the proposition that core rates reflect more fundamental inflation and are thus better predictors of the future. In practice, the relation of core and headline inflation is as difficult to predict as future inflation (see IIID Supply Shocks in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html). In the fourth wave, risk aversion originating in the lack of resolution of the European debt crisis caused unwinding of carry trades with annual equivalent headline FD PPI inflation of minus 0.8 percent in Oct-Dec 2011 and minus 0.4 percent in the core annual equivalent. In the fifth wave from Jan to Mar 2012, annual equivalent inflation was 3.7 percent for the headline index and 3.7 percent for the core index excluding food and energy. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Apr-May 2012 during renewed risk aversion was 0.6 percent for the headline FD PPI and 3.0 percent for the core. In the seventh wave, continuing risk aversion caused reversal of carry trades into commodity exposures with annual equivalent headline inflation of minus 1.2 percent in Jun-Jul 2012 while core FD PPI inflation was at annual equivalent minus 1.2 percent. In the eighth wave, relaxed risk aversion because of the announcement of the impaired bond buying program or Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) of the European Central Bank (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html) induced carry trades that drove annual equivalent inflation of final demand producer prices of the United States at 5.5 percent in Aug-Sep 2012 and 1.2 percent in the core index. In the ninth wave, renewed risk aversion caused annual equivalent inflation of 1.2 percent in Oct 2011-Dec 2012 in the headline index and 2.8 percent in the core index. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent in the headline index in Jan-Feb 2013 and 0.6 percent in the core index. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent was minus 1.8 percent in Mar-Apr 2012 and 2.4 percent for the core index. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 2.1 percent in May-Aug 2013 and 1.2 percent in the core index. In the thirteenth wave, portfolio reallocations away from commodities and into equities reversed commodity carry trade with annual equivalent inflation of 1.6 percent in Sep-Nov 2013 in the headline FD PPI and 2.0 percent in the core. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent annual equivalent for the headline index in Dec 2013-Feb 2014 and 1.6 percent for the core index. In the fifteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation increased to 2.7 percent in the headline FD PPI and 2.7 percent in the core in Mar-Jul 2014. In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.8 percent for the headline FD index and minus 1.2 percent for the core FD index in Aug-Sep 2014. In the seventeenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent for the headline FD and 4.9 percent for the core FD in Oct 2014. In the eighteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 4.7 percent for the headline FDI and 1.2 percent for the core in Nov 2014-Jan 2015. It is almost impossible to forecast PPI inflation and its relation to CPI inflation. “Inflation surprise” by monetary policy could be proposed to climb along a downward sloping Phillips curve, resulting in higher inflation but lower unemployment (see Kydland and Prescott 1977, Barro and Gordon 1983 and past comments of this blog http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html). The architects of monetary policy would require superior inflation forecasting ability compared to forecasting naivety by everybody else. In practice, we are all naïve in forecasting inflation and other economic variables and events.

Table I-6B, US, Headline and Core Final Demand Producer Price Inflation Monthly SA and 12-Month NSA ∆%

	Final Demand SA Month	Final Demand NSA 12 months	Final Demand Core SA Month	Final Demand Core NSA 12 months
Jan 2015	-0.8	0.0	-0.1	1.6
Dec 2014	-0.2	1.1	0.3	2.1
Nov	-0.2	1.4	0.1	1.8
AE ∆% Nov-Jan	-4.7		1.2
Oct	0.2	1.5	0.4	1.8
AE ∆% Oct	2.4		4.9
Sep	-0.2	1.6	-0.2	1.6
Aug	-0.1	1.9	0.0	1.9
AE ∆% Aug-Sep	-1.8		-1.2
Jul	0.3	1.9	0.5	1.9
Jun	0.1	1.8	0.0	1.6
May	0.3	2.1	0.3	2.1
Apr	0.1	1.8	0.0	1.5
Mar	0.3	1.6	0.3	1.6
AE ∆% Mar-Jul	2.7		2.7
Feb	0.2	1.2	0.2	1.6
Jan	0.3	1.3	0.3	1.4
Dec 2013	0.1	1.2	-0.1	1.2
AE ∆% Dec-Feb	2.4		1.6
Nov	0.1	1.1	0.2	1.4
Oct	0.2	1.3	0.2	1.7
Sep	0.1	1.1	0.1	1.6
AE ∆% Sep-Nov	1.6		2.0
Aug	0.0	1.7	-0.1	1.8
Jul	0.3	2.0	0.3	1.7
Jun	0.4	1.7	0.5	1.3
May	0.0	0.9	-0.3	0.9
AE ∆% May-Aug	2.1		1.2
Apr	-0.2	0.9	0.2	1.3
Mar	-0.1	1.3	0.2	1.5
AE ∆% Mar-Apr	-1.8		2.4
Feb	0.3	1.6	0.0	1.4
Jan	0.1	1.6	0.1	1.7
AE ∆% Jan-Feb	2.4		0.6
Dec 2012	0.1	1.9	0.2	2.0
Nov	0.1	1.7	0.4	1.8
Oct	0.1	1.9	0.1	1.6
AE ∆% Oct-Dec	1.2		2.8
Sep	0.7	1.5	0.3	1.4
Aug	0.2	1.2	-0.1	1.2
AE ∆% Aug-Sep	5.5		1.2
Jul	0.0	1.0	-0.1	1.7
Jun	-0.2	1.3	-0.1	1.9
AE ∆% Jun-Jul	-1.2		-1.2
May	-0.1	1.6	0.2	2.2
Apr	0.2	2.0	0.3	2.1
AE ∆% Apr-May	0.6		3.0
Mar	0.2	2.4	0.2	2.3
Feb	0.3	2.8	0.3	2.6
Jan	0.4	3.1	0.4	2.5
AE ∆% Jan-Mar	3.7		3.7
Dec 2011	-0.1	3.2	0.0	2.6
Nov	0.2	3.7	0.2	2.7
Oct	-0.3	3.7	-0.3	2.7
AE ∆% Oct-Dec	-0.8		-0.4
Sep	0.4	4.5	0.2	2.9
Aug	0.2	4.4	0.3	3.0
Jul	0.2	4.5	0.3	2.7
AE ∆% Jul-Sep	3.2		3.2
Jun	0.1	4.3	0.2	2.6
May	0.3	4.2	0.1	2.3
AE ∆% May-Jun	2.4		1.8
Apr	0.5	4.2	0.4	2.5
Mar	0.7	4.0	0.5	NA
Feb	0.6	3.3	0.3	NA
Jan	0.6	2.4	0.4	NA
AE ∆% Jan-Apr	7.4		4.9
Dec 2010	0.3	2.8	0.1	NA
Nov	0.3	2.6	0.1	NA
Oct	0.4	NA	0.1	NA
Sep	0.3	NA	0.2	NA
Aug	0.2	NA	0.0	NA
Jul	0.2	NA	0.2	NA
Jun	-0.2	NA	-0.1	NA
May	0.2	NA	0.3	NA
Apr	0.3	NA	NA	NA
Mar	0.1	NA	NA	NA
Feb	-0.2	NA	NA	NA
Jan	0.9	NA	NA	NA

Note: Core: excluding food and energy; AE: annual equivalent

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm

Chart I-24B provides the FD PPI NSA from 2009 to 2015. There is persistent inflation with periodic declines in inflation waves similar to those worldwide.

Chart I-24B, US, Final Demand Producer Price Index, NSA, 2009-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Twelve-month percentage changes of the FD PPI from 2010 to 2015 are in Chart I-25B. There are fluctuations in the rates with evident trend of decline to more subdued inflation. Reallocations of investment portfolios of risk financial assets from commodities to stocks explain much lower FD PPI inflation.

Chart I-25B, US, Final Demand Producer Price Index, 12-Month Percentage Change NSA, 2010-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

The core FD PPI NSA is in Chart I-26B. The behavior is similar to the headline index but with much less cumulative inflation.

Chart I-26B, US, Final Demand Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 2009-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Percentage changes in 12 months of the core FD PPI are in Chart I-27B. There are fluctuations in 12 months percentage changes but with evident declining trend to more moderate inflation.

Chart I-27B, US, Final Demand Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2010-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

The energy FD PPI NSA is in Chart I-28B. The index increased during the reposition of carry trades after the discovery of lack of toxic assets in banks that caused flight away from risk financial assets into government obligations of the US (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Alternating risk aversion and appetite with reallocations among classes of risk financial assets explain the behavior of the index after late 2010.

Chart I-28B, US, Final Demand Energy Producer Price Index, NSA, 2009-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Twelve-month percentage changes of the FD energy PPI are in Chart I-29B. Rates moderated from late 2010 to the present. There are multiple negative rates. Investors create and reverse carry trades from zero interest rates to derivatives of commodities in accordance with relative risk evaluations of classes of risk financial assets.

Chart I-29B, US, Final Demand Energy Producer Price Index, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2010-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

CMP Associates Regulation Blog

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, February 23, 2015

World Financial Turbulence, Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates, United States Industrial Production, United States Producer Prices, World Cyclical Slow Growth and Global Recession Risk: Part I

No comments:

Post a Comment