CMP Associates Regulation Blog: Dollar Devaluation and Increasing Valuations of Risk Financial Assets, World Inflation Waves, United States Industrial Production, Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates, Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation in the Lost Economic Cycle of the Global Recession with Economic Growth Underperforming Below Trend Worldwide, World Cyclical Slow Growth and Global Recession Risk: Part VII

CANNOT UPLOAD CHARTS AND IMAGES: ERROR 403

Dollar Devaluation and Increasing Valuations of Risk Financial Assets, World Inflation Waves, United States Industrial Production, Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates, Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation in the Lost Economic Cycle of the Global Recession with Economic Growth Underperforming Below Trend Worldwide, World Cyclical Slow Growth and Global Recession Risk

I World Inflation Waves

IA Appendix: Transmission of Unconventional Monetary Policy

IB1 Theory

IB2 Policy

IB3 Evidence

IB4 Unwinding Strategy

IC United States Inflation

IC Long-term US Inflation

ID Current US Inflation

IE Theory and Reality of Economic History, Cyclical Slow Growth Not Secular Stagnation

II United States Industrial Production

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

II IB Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation in the Lost Economic Cycle of the Global Recession with Economic Growth Underperforming Below Trend Worldwide

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

VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets. 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

Table VI-1 shows the phenomenal impulse to valuations of risk financial assets originating in the initial shock of near zero interest rates in 2003-2004 with the fed funds rate at 1 percent, in fear of deflation that never materialized, and quantitative easing in the form of suspension of the auction of 30-year Treasury bonds to lower mortgage rates. World financial markets were dominated by monetary and housing policies in the US. Between 2002 and 2008, the DJ UBS Commodity Index rose 165.5 percent largely because of unconventional monetary policy encouraging carry trades from low US interest rates to long leveraged positions in commodities, exchange rates and other risk financial assets. The charts of risk financial assets show sharp increase in valuations leading to the financial crisis and then profound drops that are captured in Table VI-1 by percentage changes of peaks and troughs. The first round of quantitative easing and near zero interest rates depreciated the dollar relative to the euro by 39.3 percent between 2003 and 2008, with revaluation of the dollar by 25.1 percent from 2008 to 2010 in the flight to dollar-denominated assets in fear of world financial risks. The dollar devalued 2.5 percent by Fri Jan 21, 2018. Dollar devaluation is a major vehicle of monetary policy in reducing the output gap that is implemented in the probably erroneous belief that devaluation will not accelerate inflation, misallocating resources toward less productive economic activities and disrupting financial markets. The last row of Table VI-1 shows CPI inflation in the US rising from 1.9 percent in 2003 to 4.1 percent in 2007 even as monetary policy increased the fed funds rate from 1 percent in Jun 2004 to 5.25 percent in Jun 2006.

Table VI-1, Volatility of Assets

DJIA	10/08/02-10/01/07	10/01/07-3/4/09	3/4/09- 4/6/10
∆%	87.8	-51.2	60.3
NYSE Financial	1/15/04- 6/13/07	6/13/07- 3/4/09	3/4/09- 4/16/07
∆%	42.3	-75.9	121.1
Shanghai Composite	6/10/05- 10/15/07	10/15/07- 10/30/08	10/30/08- 7/30/09
∆%	444.2	-70.8	85.3
STOXX EUROPE 50	3/10/03- 7/25/07	7/25/07- 3/9/09	3/9/09- 4/21/10
∆%	93.5	-57.9	64.3
UBS Com.	1/23/02- 7/1/08	7/1/08- 2/23/09	2/23/09- 1/6/10
∆%	165.5	-56.4	41.4
10-Year Treasury	6/10/03	6/12/07	12/31/08	4/5/10
%	3.112	5.297	2.247	3.986
USD/EUR	6/26/03	7/14/08	6/07/10	01/19/2018
Rate	1.1423	1.5914	1.192	1.2220
CNY/USD	01/03 2000	07/21 2005	7/15 2008	01/19/ 2018
Rate	8.2798	8.2765	6.8211	6.4058
New House	1963	1977	2005	2009
Sales 1000s	560	819	1283	375
New House	2000	2007	2009	2010
Median Price $1000	169	247	217	222
	2003	2005	2007	2010
CPI	2.3	3.4	2.8	1.6

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

http://www.census.gov/const/www/newressalesindex_excel.html

http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/Hist/dat00_eu.htm

Table VI-2 provides the Euro/Dollar (EUR/USD) 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 devalued to USD 1.2220/EUR on Jan 19, 2018 or by 2.5 percent {[(1.2220/1.192)-1]100 = 2.5%}. 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 an extended 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 6.4058/USD on Fri Jan 19, 2018, or by 6.1 percent, for cumulative revaluation of 22.6 percent. The final row of Table VI-2 shows: revaluation of 1.1 percent in the week of Dec 29, 2017; revaluation of 0.2 percent in the week of Jan 5, 2018; revaluation of 0.6 percent in the week of Jan 12, 2018; and revaluation of 0.7 percent in the week of Jan 19, 2018. 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	01/19/18
Rate	1.1423	1.5914	1.192	1.2220
CNY/USD	01/03 2000	07/21 2005	7/15 2008	01/19/18
Rate	8.2765	8.2765	6.8211	6.4058
Weekly Rates	12/29/2016	01/05/2018	01/12/2018	01/19/18
CNY/USD	6.5030	6.4891	6.4518	6.4058
∆% from Earlier Week*	1.1	0.2	0.6	0.7

*Negative sign is depreciation; positive sign is appreciation

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

Bob Davis and Lingling Wei, writing on “China shifts course, lets Yuan drop,” on Jul 25, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444840104577548610131107868.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories), find that China is depreciating the CNY relative to the USD in an effort to diminish the impact of appreciation of the CNY relative to the EUR. Table VI-2A provides the CNY/USD rate from Oct 28, 2011 to Jan 19, 2018 in selected intervals on Fridays. The CNY/USD revalued by 0.9 percent from Oct 28, 2012 to Apr 27, 2012. The CNY was virtually unchanged relative to the USD by Aug 24, 2012 to CNY 6.3558/USD from the rate of CNY 6.3588/USD on Oct 28, 2011 and then revalued slightly by 1.1 percent to CNY 6.2858/USD on Sep 28, 2012. Devaluation of 0.6 percent from CNY 6.2858/USD on Sep 28, 2012 to CNY 6.3240/USD on Oct 5, 2012, reduced to 0.5 percent the cumulative revaluation from Oct 28, 2011 to Oct 5, 2012. Revaluation by 0.2 percent to CNY 6.2546/USD on Oct 12, 2012 and revalued the CNY by 1.6 percent relative to the dollar from CNY 6.3588/USD on Oct 29, 2011. By Jan 19, 2018, the CNY devalued 0.7 percent to CNY 6.4058/USD relative to CNY 6.3588/USD on Oct 29, 2011. There could be reversal of revaluation in favor of devaluation. Robin Harding and Josh Noble, writing on “US warns China after renminbi depreciation,” on Apr 8, 2014, published in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3355dc74-bed7-11e3-a1bf-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2ynwr9l6s), quote concerns of a senior US Treasury official on possible change in China’s policy of revaluation. Meanwhile, the Senate of the US periodically considers a bill on China’s trade that could create a confrontation but may not be approved by the entire Congress. An important statement by the People’s Bank of China (PBC), China’s central bank, on Apr 14, 2012, announced the widening of the daily maximum band of fluctuation of the renminbi (RMB) yuan (http://www.pbc.gov.cn/publish/english/955/2012/20120414090756030448561/20120414090756030448561_.html):

“Along with the development of China’s foreign exchange market, the pricing and risk management capabilities of market participants are gradually strengthening. In order to meet market demands, promote price discovery, enhance the flexibility of RMB exchange rate in both directions, further improve the managed floating RMB exchange rate regime based on market supply and demand with reference to a basket of currencies, the People’s Bank of China has decided to enlarge the floating band of RMB’s trading prices against the US dollar and is hereby making a public announcement as follows:

Effective from April 16, 2012 onwards, the floating band of RMB’s trading prices against the US dollar in the inter-bank spot foreign exchange market is enlarged from 0.5 percent to 1 percent, i.e., on each business day, the trading prices of the RMB against the US dollar in the inter-bank spot foreign exchange market will fluctuate within a band of ±1 percent around the central parity released on the same day by the China Foreign Exchange Trade System. The spread between the RMB/USD selling and buying prices offered by the foreign exchange-designated banks to their customers shall not exceed 2 percent of the central parity, instead of 1 percent, while other provisions in the Circular of the PBC on Relevant Issues Managing the Trading Prices in the Inter-bank Foreign Exchange Market and Quoted Exchange Rates of Exchange-Designated Banks (PBC Document No.[2010]325) remain valid.”

Table VI-2A, Renminbi Yuan US Dollar Rate

	CNY/USD	∆% from CNY 6.3588/USD 0n 10/28/2011
01/19/18	6.4058	-0.7
01/12/18	6.4518	-1.5
01/05/18	6.4891	-2.0
12/29/17	6.5030	-2.3
12/22/17	6.5744	-3.4
12/15/17	6.5989	-3.8
12/08/17	6.6179	-4.1
12/01/17	6.6134	-4.0
11/24/17	6.5983	-3.8
11/17/17	6.6287	-4.2
11/10/17	6.6415	-4.4
11/03/17	6.6387	-4.4
10/27/17	6.6507	-4.6
10/20/17	6.6221	-4.1
10/13/17	6.5901	-3.6
10/06/17	6.6534	-4.6
09/29/17	6.6366	-4.4
09/22/17	6.5935	-3.7
09/15/17	6.5537	-3.1
09/08/17	6.4817	-1.9
09/01/17	6.5591	-3.1
08/25/17	6.6482	-4.6
08/18/17	6.6719	-4.9
08/11/17	6.6647	-4.8
08/04/17	6.7305	-5.8
07/28/17	6.7374	-6.0
07/21/17	6.7670	-6.4
07/14/17	6.7840	-6.7
07/07/17	6.8128	-7.1
06/30/17	6.7787	-6.6
06/23/17	6.8359	-7.5
06/16/17	6.8103	-7.1
06/09/17	6.7987	-6.9
06/02/17	6.8105	-7.1
05/26/17	6.8556	-7.8
05/19/17	6.8839	-8.3
05/12/17	6.8998	-8.5
05/05/17	6.9031	-8.6
04/28/17	6.8940	-8.4
04/21/17	6.8848	-8.3
04/14/17	6.8854	-8.3
04/07/17	6.9044	-8.6
03/31/17	6.8866	-8.3
03/24/17	6.8772	-8.2
03/17/17	6.9093	-8.7
03/10/17	6.9071	-8.6
03/03/17	6.8955	-8.4
02/24/17	6.8668	-8.0
02/17/17	6.8650	-8.0
02/10/17	6.8776	-8.2
02/03/17	6.8661	-8.0
01/27/17	6.8811	-8.2
01/20/17	6.8765	-8.1
01/13/17	6.8998	-8.5
01/06/17	6.9185	-8.8
12/30/16	6.9448	-9.2
12/23/16	6.9463	-9.2
12/16/16	6.9593	-9.4
12/09/16	6.9077	-8.6
12/02/16	6.8865	-8.3
11/25/16	6.9236	-8.9
11/18/16	6.8883	-8.3
11/11/16	6.8151	-7.2
11/04/16	6.7540	-6.2
10/28/16	6.7983	-6.9
10/21/16	6.7624	-6.3
10/14/16	6.7296	-5.8
10/07/16	6.6728	-4.9
09/30/16	6.6711	-4.9
09/23/16	6.6724	-4.9
09/16/16	6.6701	-4.9
09/09/16	6.6876	-5.2
09/02/16	6.6822	-5.1
08/26/16	6.6685	-4.9
08/19/16	6.6523	-4.6
08/12/16	6.6408	-4.4
08/05/16	6.6438	-4.5
07/29/16	6.6550	-4.7
07/22/16	6.6819	-5.1
07/15/16	6.6924	-5.2
07/08/16	6.6881	-5.2
07/01/16	6.6564	-4.7
06/24/16	6.6128	-4.0
06/17/16	6.5836	-3.5
06/10/16	6.5720	-3.4
06/03/16	6.5518	-3.0
05/27/16	6.5630	-3.2
05/20/16	6.5464	-3.0
05/13/16	6.5319	-2.7
05/06/16	6.4965	-2.2
04/29/16	6.4741	-1.8
04/22/16	6.5068	-2.3
04/15/16	6.4781	-1.9
04/08/16	6.4673	-1.7
04/01/16	6.4787	-1.9
03/25/16	6.5204	-2.5
03/18/16	6.4716	-1.8
03/11/16	6.4961	-2.2
03/04/16	6.5027	-2.3
02/26/16	6.5433	-2.9
02/19/16	6.5225	-2.6
02/12/16	6.5733	-3.4
02/05/16	6.5736	-3.4
01/29/16	6.5761	-3.4
01/22/16	6.5789	-3.5
01/15/16	6.5836	-3.5
01/08/16	6.5934	-3.7
01/01/16	6.4931	-2.1
12/25/15	6.4801	-1.9
12/18/15	6.4827	-1.9
12/11/15	6.4558	-1.5
12/04/15	6.4006	-0.7
11/27/15	6.3964	-0.6
11/20/15	6.3885	-0.5
11/13/15	6.3738	-0.2
11/06/15	6.3515	0.1
10/30/15	6.3161	0.7
10/23/15	6.3542	0.1
10/16/15	6.3529	0.1
10/09/15	6.3447	0.2
10/02/15	6.3552	0.1
09/25/15	6.3754	-0.3
09/18/15	6.3639	-0.1
09/11/15	6.3734	-0.2
09/04/15	6.3701	-0.2
08/28/15	6.3872	-0.4
08/21/15	6.3870	-0.4
08/14/15	6.3907	-0.5
08/07/15	6.2097	2.3
07/31/15	6.2077	2.4
07/24/15	6.2085	2.4
07/17/15	6.2110	2.3
07/10/15	6.2115	2.3
07/03/15	6.2048	2.4
06/26/15	6.2090	2.4
06/19/15	6.2098	2.3
06/12/15	6.2068	2.4
06/05/15	6.2016	2.5
05/29/15	6.2004	2.5
05/22/15	6.1974	2.5
05/15/15	6.2054	2.4
05/08/15	6.2143	2.3
05/01/15	6.2134	2.3
04/24/15	6.1935	2.6
04/17/15	6.1953	2.6
04/10/15	6.2063	2.4
04/03/15	6.1466	3.3
03/27/15	6.2150	2.3
03/20/15	6.2046	2.4
03/13/15	6.2599	1.6
03/06/15	6.2644	1.5
02/27/1 5	6.2671	1.4
02/20/15	6.2546	1.6
02/13/2015	6.2446	1.8
02/06/2015	6.2445	1.8
01/30/2015	6.2543	1.6
01/23/2015	6.2309	2.0
01/16/2015	6.2063	2.4
01/09/2015	6.2045	2.4
01/02/2015	6.2063	2.4
12/26/2014	6.2276	2.1
12/19/2014	6.2226	2.1
12/12/2014	6.1852	2.7
12/05/2014	6.1502	3.3
11/28/2014	6.1431	3.4
11/21/2014	6.1228	3.7
11/14/2014	6.1313	3.6
11/07/2014	6.1238	3.7
10/31/2014	6.1133	3.9
10/24/2014	6.1181	3.8
10/17/2014	6.1246	3.7
10/10/2014	6.1299	3.6
0/03/2014	6.1363	3.5
9/26/2014	6.1272	3.6
9/19/2014	6.1412	3.4
9/12/2014	6.1334	3.5
9/05/2014	6.1406	3.4
8/29/2014	6.1457	3.4
8/22/2014	6.1522	3.2
8/15/2014	6.1463	3.3
8/8/2014	6.1548	3.2
8/1/2014	6.1781	2.8
7/25/2014	6.1923	2.6
7/18/2014	6.2074	2.4
7/11/2014	6.2040	2.4
7/4/2014	6.2036	2.4
6/27/2014	6.2189	2.2
6/20/14	6.2238	2.1
6/13/2014	6.2097	2.3
6/6/2014	6.2507	1.7
5/30/2014	6.2486	1.7
5/23/2014	6.2354	1.9
5/16/2014	6.2340	2.0
5/9/2014	6.2281	2.1
5/3/2014	6.2595	1.6
4/28/2014	6.2539	1.6
4/18/2014	6.2377	1.9
4/11/2014	6.2111	2.3
4/4/2014	6.2102	2.3
3/28/2014	6.2130	2.3
3/21/2014	6.2247	2.1
3/14/2014	6.1496	3.3
3/7/2014	6.1260	3.7
2/28/2014	6.1481	3.3
2/21/2014	6.0913	4.2
2/14/2014	6.0670	4.6
2/7/2014	6.0634	4.6
1/31/2014	6.0589	4.7
1/24/2014	6.0472	4.9
1/17/2014	6.0503	4.9
1/10/2014	6.0503	4.9
1/3/2014	6.0516	4.8
12/27/2013	6.0678	4.6
12/20/2013	6.0725	4.5
12/13/2013	6.0691	4.6
12/6/2013	6.0801	4.4
11/29/2013	6.0914	4.2
11/22/2013	6.0911	4.2
11/15/2013	6.0928	4.2
11/8/2013	6.0912	4.2
11/1/2013	6.0996	4.1
10/25/2013	6.0830	4.3
10/18/2013	6.0973	4.1
10/11/2013	6.1210	3.7
10/4/2013	6.1226	3.7
9/27/2013	6.1196	3.8
9/20/2013	6.1206	3.7
9/13/2013	6.1190	3.8
9/6/2013	6.1209	3.7
8/30/2013	6.1178	3.8
8/23/2013	6.1211	3.7
8/16/2013	6.1137	3.9
8/9/2013	6.1225	3.7
8/2/2013	6.1295	3.6
7/26/2013	6.1305	3.6
7/19/2013	6.1380	3.5
7/12/2013	6.1382	3.5
7/5/2013	6.1316	3.6
6/28/2013	6.1910	2.6
6/21/2013	6.1345	3.5
6/14/2013	6.1323	3.6
6/7/2013	6.1334	3.5
5/31/2013	6.1347	3.5
5/24/2013	6.1314	3.6
5/17/2013	6.1395	3.4
5/10/2013	6.1395	3.4
5/3/2013	6.1553	3.2
4/26/2013	6.1636	3.1
4/19/13	6.1788	2.8
4/12/2013	6.1947	2.6
4/5/2013	6.2051	2.4
3/29/2013	6.2119	2.3
3/22/2013	6.2112	2.3
3/15/2013	6.2131	2.3
3/8/2013	6.2142	2.3
3/1/2013	6.2221	2.1
2/22/2013	6.2350	1.9
2/15/2013	6.2328	2.0
2/8/2013	6.2323	2.0
2/1/2013	6.2316	2.0
1/25/2013	6.2228	2.1
1/18/2013	6.2182	2.2
1/11/2013	6.2168	2.2
1/4/2013	6.2316	2.0
12/28/2012	6.2358	1.9
12/21/2012	6.2352	1.9
12/14/2012	6.2460	1.8
12/7/2012	6.2254	2.1
11/30/2012	6.2310	2.0
11/23/2012	6.2328	2.0
11/16/2012	6.2404	1.9
11/9/2012	6.2452	1.8
11/2/2012	6.2458	1.8
10/26/2012	6.2628	1.5
10/19/2012	6.2546	1.6
10/12/2012	6.2670	1.4
10/5/2012	6.3240	0.5
9/28/2012	6.2858	1.1
9/21/2012	6.3078	0.8
9/14/2012	6.3168	0.7
9/7/2012	6.3438	0.2
8/31/2012	6.3498	0.1
8/24/2012	6.3558	0.0
8/17/2012	6.3589	0.0
8/10/2012	6.3604	0.0
8/3/2012	6.3726	-0.2
7/27/2012	6.3818	-0.4
7/20/2012	6.3750	-0.3
7/13/2012	6.3868	-0.4
7/6/2012	6.3658	-0.1
6/29/2012	6.3552	0.1
6/22/2012	6.3650	-0.1
6/15/2012	6.3678	-0.1
6/8/2012	6.3752	-0.3
6/1/2012	6.3708	-0.2
4/27/2012	6.3016	0.9
3/23/2012	6.3008	0.9
2/3/2012	6.3030	0.9
12/30/2011	6.2940	1.0
11/25/2011	6.3816	-0.4
10/28/2011	6.3588	-

Source:

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

http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/Hist/dat00_ch.htm

Professor Edward P Lazear (2013Jan7), writing on “Chinese ‘currency manipulation’ is not the problem,” on Jan 7, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323320404578213203581231448.html), provides clear thought on the role of the yuan in trade between China and the United States and trade between China and Europe. There is conventional wisdom that Chinese exchange rate policy causes the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States, which is shown by Lazear (2013Jan7) to be erroneous. The fact is that manipulation of the CNY/USD rate by China has only minor effects on US employment. Lazear (2013Jan7) shows that the movement of monthly exports of China to its major trading partners, United States and Europe, since 1995 cannot be explained by the fixing of the CNY/USD rate by China. The period is quite useful because it includes rapid growth before 2007, contraction until 2009 and weak subsequent expansion. Professor Charles W. Calomiris, at Columbia University, writing in the Wall Street Journal on Apr 17, 2017, provides perceptive analysis of China’s exchange rate. According to Calomiris (2017Apr), long-run exchange rate appreciation in China originates in productivity growth in accordance with Harrod (1939), Balassa (1964) and Samuelson (1964). In this view, reforms allowing increasing participation of private economic activity caused an increase in productivity measured by Calomiris (2017Apr) as only about 3 percent of US productivity around 1978 to current 13 percent of US productivity. Calomiris (2017Apr) attributes recent depreciation of the Yuan to rapidly increasing debt, slowing growth and inflation motivating capital flight. Chart VI-1 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the CNY/SD exchange rate from Jan 3, 1995 to Jan 12, 2018 together with US recession dates in shaded areas. China fixed the CNY/USD rate for an extended period as shown in the horizontal segment from 1995 to 2005. There was systematic revaluation of 17.6 percent from CNY 8.2765 on Jul 21, 2005 to CNY 6.8211 on Jul 15, 2008. China fixed the CNY/USD rate until Jun 7, 2010, to avoid adverse effects on its economy from the global recession, which is shown as a horizontal segment from 2009 until mid-2010. China then continued the policy of appreciation of the CNY relative to the USD with oscillations until the beginning of 2012 when the rate began to move sideways followed by a final upward slope of devaluation that is measured in Table VI-2A but virtually disappeared in the rate of CNY 6.3589/USD on Aug 17, 2012 and was nearly unchanged at CNY 6.3558/USD on Aug 24, 2012. China then appreciated 0.2 percent in the week of Dec 21, 2012, to CNY 6.2352/USD for cumulative 1.9 percent revaluation from Oct 28, 2011 and left the rate virtually unchanged at CNY 6.2316/USD on Jan 11, 2013, appreciating to CNY 6.4607/USD on Jan 12, 2018, which is the last data point in Chart VI-1. Revaluation of the CNY relative to the USD of 22.6 percent by Jan 19, 2018 has not reduced the trade surplus of China but reversal of the policy of revaluation could result in international confrontation. The interruption with upward slope in the final segment on the right of Chart VI-I is measured as virtually stability in Table VI-2A followed with decrease or revaluation and subsequent increase or devaluation. The final segment shows decline or revaluation with another upward move or devaluation. Linglin Wei, writing on “China intervenes to lower yuan,” on Feb 26, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304071004579406810684766716?KEYWORDS=china+yuan&mg=reno64-wsj), finds from informed sources that the central bank of China conducted the ongoing devaluation of the yuan with the objective of driving out arbitrageurs to widen the band of fluctuation. There is concern if the policy of revaluation is changing to devaluation.

Chart VI-1, Chinese Yuan (CNY) per US Dollar (USD), Business Days, Jan 3, 1995-Jan 12, 2018

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=h10

Chart VI-1A provides the daily CNY/USD rate from Jan 5, 1981 to Jan 12, 2018. The exchange rate was CNY 1.5418/USD on Jan 5, 1981. There is sharp cumulative depreciation of 107.8 percent to CNY 3.2031 by Jul 2, 1986, continuing to CNY 5.8145/USD on Dec 29, 1993 for cumulative 277.1 percent since Jan 5, 1981. China then devalued sharply to CNY 8.7117/USD on Jan 7, 1994 for 49.8 percent relative to Dec 29, 1993 and cumulative 465.0 percent relative to Jan 5, 1981. China then fixed the rate at CNY 8.2765/USD until Jul 21, 2005 and revalued as analyzed in Chart VI-1. The final data point in Chart VI-1A is CNY 6.4607/USD on Jan 12, 2018. To be sure, China fixed the exchange rate after substantial prior devaluation. It is unlikely that the devaluation could have been effective after many years of fixing the exchange rate with high inflation and multiple changes in the world economy. The argument of Lazear (2013Jan7) is still valid in view of the lack of association between monthly exports of China to the US and Europe since 1995 and the exchange rate of China.

Chart VI-1A, Chinese Yuan (CNY) per US Dollar (USD), Business Days, Jan 5, 1981-Jan 12, 2018

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=h10

Chart VI-1B provides finer details with the rate of Chinese Yuan (CNY) to the US Dollar (USD) from Oct 28, 2011 to Jan 12, 2018. There have been alternations of revaluation and devaluation. The initial data point is CNY 6.5370 on Nov 3, 2011. There is an episode of devaluation from CNY 6.2790 on Apr 30, 2012 to CNY 6.3879 on Jul 25, 2012, or devaluation of 1.4 percent. Another devaluation is from CNY 6.0402/USD on Jan 21, 2014 to CNY 6.4607/USD on Jan 12, 2018, or devaluation of 7.0 percent. Calomiris (2017Apr) attributes recent depreciation of the Yuan to rapidly increasing debt, slowing growth and inflation motivating capital flight. China is the largest holder of US Treasury debt with $1189.2 billion in Oct 2017, increasing 0.7 percent from $1180.8 billion in Sep 2017 while increasing $73.5 billion from Oct 2016 or 6.6 percent. The United States Treasury estimates US government debt held by private investors at $11,643 billion in Sep 2017 (Fiscal Year 2017). China’s holding of US Treasury securities represents 10.2 percent of US government marketable interest-bearing debt held by private investors (http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html). Min Zeng, writing on “China plays a big role as US Treasury yields fall,” on Jul 16, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/articles/china-plays-a-big-role-as-u-s-treasury-yields-fall-1405545034?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj), finds that acceleration in purchases of US Treasury securities by China has been an important factor in the decline of Treasury yields in 2014. Japan decreased its holdings from $1131.9 billion in Oct 2016 to $1093.9 billion in Oct 2017 or 3.4 percent. The combined holdings of China and Japan in Oct 2017 add to $2283.1 billion, which is equivalent to 19.6 percent of US government marketable interest-bearing securities held by investors of $11,643 billion in Sep 2017 (Fiscal Year 2017) (http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html). Total foreign holdings of Treasury securities increased from $6043.6 billion in Oct 2016 to $6349.4 billion in Oct 2017, or 5.1 percent. The US continues to finance its fiscal and balance of payments deficits with foreign savings (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007)). A point of saturation of holdings of US Treasury debt may be reached as foreign holders evaluate the threat of reduction of principal by dollar devaluation and reduction of prices by increases in yield, including possibly risk premium. Shultz et al (2012) find that the Fed financed three-quarters of the US deficit in fiscal year 2011, with foreign governments financing significant part of the remainder of the US deficit while the Fed owns one in six dollars of US national debt. Concentrations of debt in few holders are perilous because of sudden exodus in fear of devaluation and yield increases and the limit of refinancing old debt and placing new debt. In their classic work on “unpleasant monetarist arithmetic,” Sargent and Wallace (1981, 2) consider a regime of domination of monetary policy by fiscal policy (emphasis added):

“Imagine that fiscal policy dominates monetary policy. The fiscal authority independently sets its budgets, announcing all current and future deficits and surpluses and thus determining the amount of revenue that must be raised through bond sales and seignorage. Under this second coordination scheme, the monetary authority faces the constraints imposed by the demand for government bonds, for it must try to finance with seignorage any discrepancy between the revenue demanded by the fiscal authority and the amount of bonds that can be sold to the public. Suppose that the demand for government bonds implies an interest rate on bonds greater than the economy’s rate of growth. Then if the fiscal authority runs deficits, the monetary authority is unable to control either the growth rate of the monetary base or inflation forever. If the principal and interest due on these additional bonds are raised by selling still more bonds, so as to continue to hold down the growth of base money, then, because the interest rate on bonds is greater than the economy’s growth rate, the real stock of bonds will growth faster than the size of the economy. This cannot go on forever, since the demand for bonds places an upper limit on the stock of bonds relative to the size of the economy. Once that limit is reached, the principal and interest due on the bonds already sold to fight inflation must be financed, at least in part, by seignorage, requiring the creation of additional base money.”

Chart VI-1B, Chinese Yuan (CNY) per US Dollar (US), Business Days, Oct 28, 2011-Jan 12, 2018

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=h10

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.

Chart VI1-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 key to success in stabilizing an economy with significant risk aversion is finding parity of internal and external interest rates. Brazil implemented fiscal consolidation and reforms that are advisable in explosive foreign debt environments. In addition, Brazil had the capacity to find parity in external and internal interest rates to prevent capital flight and disruption of balance sheets (for analysis of balance sheets, interest rates, indexing, devaluation, financial instruments and asset/liability management in that period see Pelaez and Pelaez (2007), The Global Recession Risk: Dollar Devaluation and the World Economy, 178-87). Table VI-2C provides monthly percentage changes of inflation, devaluation and indexing and the monthly percent overnight interest rate. Parity was attained by means of a simple inequality:

Cost of Domestic Loan ≥ Cost of Foreign Loan

This ordering was attained in practice by setting the domestic interest rate of the overnight interest rate plus spread higher than indexing of government securities with lower spread than loans in turn higher than devaluation plus spread of foreign loans. Interest parity required equality of inflation, devaluation and indexing. Brazil devalued the cruzeiro by 30 percent in 1983 because the depreciation of the German mark DM relative to the USD had eroded the competitiveness of Brazil’s products in Germany and in competition with German goods worldwide. The database of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System quotes DM 1.7829/USD on Mar 3 1980 and DM 2.4425/USD on Mar 15, 1983 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/hist/dat89_ge.htm) for devaluation of 37.0 percent. Parity of costs and rates of domestic and foreign loans and assets required ensuring that there would not be appreciation of the exchange rate, inducing capital flight in expectation of future devaluation that would have reversed stabilization. Table VI-2C provides inflation, devaluation, overnight interest rate and indexing. One of the main problems of adjustment of members of the euro area with high debts is that they cannot adjust the exchange rate because of the common euro currency. This is not an argument in favor of breaking the euro area because there would be also major problems of adjustment such as exiting the euro in favor of a new Drachma in the case of Greece. Another hurdle of adjustment in the euro area is that Brazil could have moved swiftly to adjust its economy in 1983 but the euro area has major sovereignty and distribution of taxation hurdles in moving rapidly.

Table VI-2C, Brazil, Inflation, Devaluation, Overnight Interest Rate and Indexing, Percent per Month, 1984

1984	Inflation IGP ∆%	Devaluation ∆%	Overnight Interest Rate %	Indexing ∆%
Jan	9.8	9.8	10.0	9.8
Feb	12.3	12.3	12.2	12.3
Mar	10.0	10.1	11.3	10.0
Apr	8.9	8.8	10.1	8.9
May	8.9	8.9	9.8	8.9
Jun	9.2	9.2	10.2	9.2
Jul	10.3	10.2	11.9	10.3
Aug	10.6	10.6	11.0	10.6
Sep	10.5	10.5	11.9	10.5
Oct	12.6	12.6	12.9	12.6
Nov	9.9	9.9	10.9	9.9
Dec	10.5	10.5	11.5	10.5

Source: Carlos Manuel Pelaez, O Cruzado e o Austral: Análise das Reformas Monetárias do Brasil e da Argentina. São Paulo, Editora Atlas, 1986, 86.

The G7 meeting in Washington on Apr 21, 2006 of finance ministers and heads of central bank governors of the G7 established the “doctrine of shared responsibility” (G7 2006Apr):

“We, Ministers and Governors, reviewed a strategy for addressing global imbalances. We recognized that global imbalances are the product of a wide array of macroeconomic and microeconomic forces throughout the world economy that affect public and private sector saving and investment decisions. We reaffirmed our view that the adjustment of global imbalances:

Is shared responsibility and requires participation by all regions in this global process;
Will importantly entail the medium-term evolution of private saving and investment across countries as well as counterpart shifts in global capital flows; and
Is best accomplished in a way that maximizes sustained growth, which requires strengthening policies and removing distortions to the adjustment process.

In this light, we reaffirmed our commitment to take vigorous action to address imbalances. We agreed that progress has been, and is being, made. The policies listed below not only would be helpful in addressing imbalances, but are more generally important to foster economic growth.

In the United States, further action is needed to boost national saving by continuing fiscal consolidation, addressing entitlement spending, and raising private saving.
In Europe, further action is needed to implement structural reforms for labor market, product, and services market flexibility, and to encourage domestic demand led growth.
In Japan, further action is needed to ensure the recovery with fiscal soundness and long-term growth through structural reforms.

Others will play a critical role as part of the multilateral adjustment process.

In emerging Asia, particularly China, greater flexibility in exchange rates is critical to allow necessary appreciations, as is strengthening domestic demand, lessening reliance on export-led growth strategies, and actions to strengthen financial sectors.

In oil-producing countries, accelerated investment in capacity, increased economic diversification, enhanced exchange rate flexibility in some cases.

Other current account surplus countries should encourage domestic consumption and investment, increase micro-economic flexibility and improve investment climates.

We recognized the important contribution that the IMF can make to multilateral surveillance.”

The concern at that time was that fiscal and current account global imbalances could result in disorderly correction with sharp devaluation of the dollar after an increase in premiums on yields of US Treasury debt (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007)). The IMF was entrusted with monitoring and coordinating action to resolve global imbalances. The G7 was eventually broadened to the formal G20 in the effort to coordinate policies of countries with external surpluses and deficits.

The database of the WEO (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/02/weodata/index.aspx) is used to construct Table I-7 with fiscal and current account imbalances projected for 2016 and 2018. The WEO finds the need to rebalance external and domestic demand (IMF 2011WEOSep xvii):

“Progress on this front has become even more important to sustain global growth. Some emerging market economies are contributing more domestic demand than is desirable (for example, several economies in Latin America); others are not contributing enough (for example, key economies in emerging Asia). The first set needs to restrain strong domestic demand by considerably reducing structural fiscal deficits and, in some cases, by further removing monetary accommodation. The second set of economies needs significant currency appreciation alongside structural reforms to reduce high surpluses of savings over investment. Such policies would help improve their resilience to shocks originating in the advanced economies as well as their medium-term growth potential.”

The IMF (2012WEOApr, XVII) explains decreasing importance of the issue of global imbalances as follows:

“The latest developments suggest that global current account imbalances are no longer expected to widen again, following their sharp reduction during the Great Recession. This is largely because the excessive consumption growth that characterized economies that ran large external deficits prior to the crisis has been wrung out and has not been offset by stronger consumption in .surplus economies. Accordingly, the global economy has experienced a loss of demand and growth in all regions relative to the boom years just before the crisis. Rebalancing activity in key surplus economies toward higher consumption, supported by more market-determined exchange rates, would help strengthen their prospects as well as those of the rest of the world.”

The IMF (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/pdf/c4.pdf) analyzes global imbalances as:

Global current account imbalances have narrowed by more than a third from

their peak in 2006. Key imbalances—the large deficit of the United States and

the large surpluses of China and Japan—have more than halved.

The narrowing in imbalances has largely been driven by demand contraction

(“expenditure reduction”) in deficit economies.

Exchange rate adjustment has facilitated rebalancing in China and the United

States, but in general the contribution of exchange rate changes (“expenditure

switching”) to current account adjustment has been relatively modest.

The narrowing of imbalances is expected to be durable, as domestic demand in

deficit economies is projected to remain well below pre-crisis trends.

Since flow imbalances have narrowed but not reversed, net creditor and debtor

positions have widened further. Weak growth has also contributed to still high

ratios of net external liabilities to GDP in some debtor economies.

Risks of a disruptive adjustment in global current account balances have

decreased, but global demand rebalancing remains a policy priority. Stronger

external demand will be instrumental for reviving growth in debtor countries and

reducing their net external liabilities.”

Table VI-3, Fiscal Deficit, Current Account Deficit and Government Debt as % of GDP and 2016 Dollar GDP

	GDP $B 2016	FD %GDP 2016	CAD %GDP 2016	Debt %GDP 2016	FD%GDP 2018	CAD%GDP 2018	Debt %GDP 2018
US	18624	-2.3	-2.4	81.3	-1.5	-2.7	81.1
Japan	4937	-4.0	3.8	119.8	-3.4	3.8	120.7
UK	2629	-1.3	-4.4	80.1	-0.6	-3.3	80.6
Euro	11923	0.4	3.5	73.3	0.7	3.0	70.3
Ger	3479	1.9	8.3	48.3	1.4	7.7	43.2
France	2466	-1.7	-1.0	87.8	-1.4	-0.8	88.7
Italy	1851	1.4	2.6	120.6	2.3	2.3	119.9
Can	1530	-1.2	-3.3	27.4	-1.3	-2.9	22.7
China	11232	-2.9	1.7	44.3	-2.7	1.2	50.8
Brazil	1799	-2.5	-1.3	46.2	-2.3	-1.8	57.7

Note: GER = Germany; Can = Canada; FD = fiscal deficit; CAD = current account deficit

FD is primary except total for China; Debt is net except gross for China

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/02/weodata/index.aspx

The current account of the US balance of payments is in Table VI-3A for IIIQ2016 and IIIQ2017. The Bureau of Economic Analysis analyzes as follows (https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/transactions/2017/pdf/trans317.pdf):

“The U.S. current-account deficit decreased to $100.6 billion (preliminary) in the third quarter of 2017 from $124.4 billion (revised) in the second quarter of 2017, according to statistics released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The deficit decreased to 2.1 percent of current-dollar gross domestic product (GDP) from 2.6 percent in the second quarter. The $23.8 billion decrease in the current-account deficit reflected decreases in the deficits on secondary income and goods and increases in the surpluses on primary income and services.”

The US has a large deficit in goods or exports less imports of goods but it has a surplus in services that helps to reduce the trade account deficit or exports less imports of goods and services. The current account deficit of the US not seasonally adjusted decreased from $126.0 billion in IIIQ2016 to $112.8 billion in IIIQ2017. The current account deficit seasonally adjusted at annual rate increased from 2.4 percent of GDP in IIIQ2016 to 2.6 percent of GDP in IIQ2017, decreasing to 2.1 percent of GDP in IIIQ2017. The ratio of the current account deficit to GDP has stabilized below 3 percent of GDP compared with much higher percentages before the recession but is combined now with much higher imbalance in the Treasury budget (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2008b), 183-94, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 167-71). There is still a major challenge in the combined deficits in current account and in federal budgets.

Table VI-3A, US, Balance of Payments, Millions of Dollars NSA

	IIIQ2016	IIIQ2017	Difference
Goods Balance	-203,022	-211,273	-8,251
X Goods	364,117	382,172	5.0 ∆%
M Goods	-567,139	-593,444	4.6 ∆%
Services Balance	66,707	64,279	-2,428
X Services	197,136	200,710	1.8 ∆%
M Services	-130,429	-136,431	4.6 ∆%
Balance Goods and Services	-136,315	-146,994	-10,679
Exports of Goods and Services and Income Receipts	802,389	861,331
Imports of Goods and Services and Income Payments	-928,421	-974,147
Current Account Balance	-126,032	-112,816	-13,216
% GDP	IIIQ2016	IIIQ2017	IIQ2017
	2.4	2.1	2.6

X: exports; M: imports

Balance on Current Account = Exports of Goods and Services – Imports of Goods and Services and Income Payments

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/international/index.htm#bop

In their classic work on “unpleasant monetarist arithmetic,” Sargent and Wallace (1981, 2) consider a regime of domination of monetary policy by fiscal policy (emphasis added):

The alternative fiscal scenario of the CBO (2012NovCDR, 2013Sep17) resembles an economic world in which eventually the placement of debt reaches a limit of what is proportionately desired of US debt in investment portfolios. This unpleasant environment is occurring in various European countries.

The current real value of government debt plus monetary liabilities depends on the expected discounted values of future primary surpluses or difference between tax revenue and government expenditure excluding interest payments (Cochrane 2011Jan, 27, equation (16)). There is a point when adverse expectations about the capacity of the government to generate primary surpluses to honor its obligations can result in increases in interest rates on government debt.

First, Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic. Fiscal policy is described by Sargent and Wallace (1981, 3, equation 1) as a time sequence of D(t), t = 1, 2,…t, …, where D is real government expenditures, excluding interest on government debt, less real tax receipts. D(t) is the real deficit excluding real interest payments measured in real time t goods. Monetary policy is described by a time sequence of H(t), t=1,2,…t, …, with H(t) being the stock of base money at time t. In order to simplify analysis, all government debt is considered as being only for one time period, in the form of a one-period bond B(t), issued at time t-1 and maturing at time t. Denote by R(t-1) the real rate of interest on the one-period bond B(t) between t-1 and t. The measurement of B(t-1) is in terms of t-1 goods and [1+R(t-1)] “is measured in time t goods per unit of time t-1 goods” (Sargent and Wallace 1981, 3). Thus, B(t-1)[1+R(t-1)] brings B(t-1) to maturing time t. B(t) represents borrowing by the government from the private sector from t to t+1 in terms of time t goods. The price level at t is denoted by p(t). The budget constraint of Sargent and Wallace (1981, 3, equation 1) is:

D(t) = {[H(t) – H(t-1)]/p(t)} + {B(t) – B(t-1)[1 + R(t-1)]} (1)

Equation (1) states that the government finances its real deficits into two portions. The first portion, {[H(t) – H(t-1)]/p(t)}, is seigniorage, or “printing money.” The second part,

{B(t) – B(t-1)[1 + R(t-1)]}, is borrowing from the public by issue of interest-bearing securities. Denote population at time t by N(t) and growing by assumption at the constant rate of n, such that:

N(t+1) = (1+n)N(t), n>-1 (2)

The per capita form of the budget constraint is obtained by dividing (1) by N(t) and rearranging:

B(t)/N(t) = {[1+R(t-1)]/(1+n)}x[B(t-1)/N(t-1)]+[D(t)/N(t)] – {[H(t)-H(t-1)]/[N(t)p(t)]} (3)

On the basis of the assumptions of equal constant rate of growth of population and real income, n, constant real rate of return on government securities exceeding growth of economic activity and quantity theory equation of demand for base money, Sargent and Wallace (1981) find that “tighter current monetary policy implies higher future inflation” under fiscal policy dominance of monetary policy. That is, the monetary authority does not permanently influence inflation, lowering inflation now with tighter policy but experiencing higher inflation in the future.

Second, Unpleasant Fiscal Arithmetic. The tool of analysis of Cochrane (2011Jan, 27, equation (16)) is the government debt valuation equation:

(M_t + B_t)/P_t = E_t∫(1/R_t_{, t+τ})s_t_+τdτ (4)

Equation (4) expresses the monetary, M_t, and debt, B_t, liabilities of the government, divided by the price level, P_t, in terms of the expected value discounted by the ex-post rate on government debt, R_t_{, t+τ}, of the future primary surpluses s_t_+τ, which are equal to T_t_+τ – G_t_+τ or difference between taxes, T, and government expenditures, G. Cochrane (2010A) provides the link to a web appendix demonstrating that it is possible to discount by the ex post R_t_{, t+τ}. The second equation of Cochrane (2011Jan, 5) is:

M_tV(i_t, ·) = P_tY_t (5)

Conventional analysis of monetary policy contends that fiscal authorities simply adjust primary surpluses, s, to sanction the price level determined by the monetary authority through equation (5), which deprives the debt valuation equation (4) of any role in price level determination. The simple explanation is (Cochrane 2011Jan, 5):

“We are here to think about what happens when [4] exerts more force on the price level. This change may happen by force, when debt, deficits and distorting taxes become large so the Treasury is unable or refuses to follow. Then [4] determines the price level; monetary policy must follow the fiscal lead and ‘passively’ adjust M to satisfy [5]. This change may also happen by choice; monetary policies may be deliberately passive, in which case there is nothing for the Treasury to follow and [4] determines the price level.”

An intuitive interpretation by Cochrane (2011Jan 4) is that when the current real value of government debt exceeds expected future surpluses, economic agents unload government debt to purchase private assets and goods, resulting in inflation. If the risk premium on government debt declines, government debt becomes more valuable, causing a deflationary effect. If the risk premium on government debt increases, government debt becomes less valuable, causing an inflationary effect.

There are multiple conclusions by Cochrane (2011Jan) on the debt/dollar crisis and Global recession, among which the following three:

(1) The flight to quality that magnified the recession was not from goods into money but from private-sector securities into government debt because of the risk premium on private-sector securities; monetary policy consisted of providing liquidity in private-sector markets suffering stress

(2) Increases in liquidity by open-market operations with short-term securities have no impact; quantitative easing can affect the timing but not the rate of inflation; and purchase of private debt can reverse part of the flight to quality

(3) The debt valuation equation has a similar role as the expectation shifting the Phillips curve such that a fiscal inflation can generate stagflation effects similar to those occurring from a loss of anchoring expectations.

This analysis suggests that there may be a point of saturation of demand for United States financial liabilities without an increase in interest rates on Treasury securities. A risk premium may develop on US debt. Such premium is not apparent currently because of distressed conditions in the world economy and international financial system. Risk premiums are observed in the spread of bonds of highly indebted countries in Europe relative to bonds of the government of Germany.

The issue of global imbalances centered on the possibility of a disorderly correction (Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), Globalization and the State Vol. II (2008b) 183-94, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 167-71). Such a correction has not occurred historically but there is no argument proving that it could not occur. The need for a correction would originate in unsustainable large and growing United States current account deficits (CAD) and net international investment position (NIIP) or excess of financial liabilities of the US held by foreigners net relative to financial liabilities of foreigners held by US residents. The IMF estimated that the US could maintain a CAD of two to three percent of GDP without major problems (Rajan 2004). The threat of disorderly correction is summarized by Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 15):

“It is possible that foreigners may be unwilling to increase their positions in US financial assets at prevailing interest rates. An exit out of the dollar could cause major devaluation of the dollar. The depreciation of the dollar would cause inflation in the US, leading to increases in American interest rates. There would be an increase in mortgage rates followed by deterioration of real estate values. The IMF has simulated that such an adjustment would cause a decline in the rate of growth of US GDP to 0.5 percent over several years. The decline of demand in the US by four percentage points over several years would result in a world recession because the weakness in Europe and Japan could not compensate for the collapse of American demand. The probability of occurrence of an abrupt adjustment is unknown. However, the adverse effects are quite high, at least hypothetically, to warrant concern.”

The United States could be moving toward a situation typical of heavily indebted countries, requiring fiscal adjustment and increases in productivity to become more competitive internationally. The CAD and NIIP of the United States are not observed in full deterioration because the economy is well below trend. There are two complications in the current environment relative to the concern with disorderly correction in the first half of the past decade. In the release of Jun 14, 2013, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/transactions/2013/pdf/trans113.pdf) informs of revisions of US data on US international transactions since 1999:

“The statistics of the U.S. international transactions accounts released today have been revised for the first quarter of 1999 to the fourth quarter of 2012 to incorporate newly available and revised source data, updated seasonal adjustments, changes in definitions and classifications, and improved estimating methodologies.”

The BEA introduced new concepts and methods (http://www.bea.gov/international/concepts_methods.htm) in comprehensive restructuring on Jun 18, 2014 (http://www.bea.gov/international/modern.htm):

“BEA introduced a new presentation of the International Transactions Accounts on June 18, 2014 and will introduce a new presentation of the International Investment Position on June 30, 2014. These new presentations reflect a comprehensive restructuring of the international accounts that enhances the quality and usefulness of the accounts for customers and bring the accounts into closer alignment with international guidelines.”

Table VI-3B provides data on the US fiscal and balance of payments imbalances incorporating all revisions and methods. In 2007, the federal deficit of the US was $161 billion corresponding to 1.1 percent of GDP while the Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal deficit in 2012 at $1087 billion or 6.8 percent of GDP. The estimate of the deficit for 2013 is $680 billion or 4.1 percent of GDP. The combined record federal deficits of the US from 2009 to 2012 are $5094 billion or 31.6 percent of the estimate of GDP for fiscal year 2012 implicit in the CBO (CBO 2013Sep11) estimate of debt/GDP. The deficits from 2009 to 2012 exceed one trillion dollars per year, adding to $5.094 trillion in four years, using the fiscal year deficit of $1087 billion for fiscal year 2012, which is the worst fiscal performance since World War II. Federal debt in 2007 was $5035 billion, slightly less than the combined deficits from 2009 to 2012 of $5094 billion. Federal debt in 2012 was 70.4 percent of GDP (CBO 2015Jan26) and 72.6 percent of GDP in 2013 (http://www.cbo.gov/). This situation may worsen in the future (CBO 2013Sep17):

“Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar. Federal debt held by the public is now about 73 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP). That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007. If current laws generally remained in place, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next several years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing deficits would ultimately push debt back above its current high level. CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP in 2038, 25 years from now, even without accounting for the harmful effects that growing debt would have on the economy. Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely.

The gap between federal spending and revenues would widen steadily after 2015 under the assumptions of the extended baseline, CBO projects. By 2038, the deficit would be 6½ percent of GDP, larger than in any year between 1947 and 2008, and federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP, more than in any year except 1945 and 1946. With such large deficits, federal debt would be growing faster than GDP, a path that would ultimately be unsustainable.

Incorporating the economic effects of the federal policies that underlie the extended baseline worsens the long-term budget outlook. The increase in debt relative to the size of the economy, combined with an increase in marginal tax rates (the rates that would apply to an additional dollar of income), would reduce output and raise interest rates relative to the benchmark economic projections that CBO used in producing the extended baseline. Those economic differences would lead to lower federal revenues and higher interest payments. With those effects included, debt under the extended baseline would rise to 108 percent of GDP in 2038.”

Table VI-3B, US, Current Account, NIIP, Fiscal Balance, Nominal GDP, Federal Debt and Direct Investment, Dollar Billions and %

	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Goods & Services	-705	-709	-384	-495	-549
Primary Income	85	130	115	168	211
Secondary Income	-91	-102	-104	-104	-107
Current Account	-711	-681	-373	-431	-445
NGDP	14478	14719	14419	14964	15518
Current Account % GDP	-4.9	-4.6	-2.6	-2.9	-2.9
NIIP	-1279	-3995	-2628	-2512	-4455
US Owned Assets Abroad	20705	19423	19426	21767	22209
Foreign Owned Assets in US	21984	23418	22054	24279	26664
NIIP % GDP	-8.8	-27.1	-18.2	-16.8	-28.7
Exports Goods, Services and Income	2559	2742	2283	2625	2983
NIIP % Exports Goods, Services and Income	-50	-145	-115	-95	-149
DIA MV	5858	3707	4945	5486	5215
DIUS MV	4134	3091	3619	4099	4199
Fiscal Balance	-161	-459	-1413	-1294	-1300
Fiscal Balance % GDP	-1.1	-3.1	-9.8	-8.7	-8.5
Federal Debt	5035	5803	7545	9019	10128
Federal Debt % GDP	35.2	39.3	52.3	60.9	65.9
Federal Outlays	2729	2983	3518	3457	3603
∆%	2.8	9.3	17.9	-1.7	4.2
% GDP	19.1	20.2	24.4	23.4	23.4
Federal Revenue	2568	2524	2105	2163	2303
∆%	6.7	-1.7	-16.6	2.7	6.5
% GDP	17.9	17.1	14.6	14.6	15.0

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Goods & Services	-537	-462	-490	-500	-505
Primary Income	207	206	210	181	173
Secondary Income	-97	-94	-94	-115	-120
Current Account	-426	-350	-374	-434	-452
NGDP	16155	16692	17428	18121	18625
Current Account % GDP	-2.6	-2.1	-2.1	-2.4	-2.4
NIIP	-4518	-5373	-6980	-7493	-8318
US Owned Assets Abroad	22562	24145	24832	23352	23849
Foreign Owned Assets in US	27080	29517	31813	30846	32168
NIIP % GDP	-28.0	-32.2	-40.1	-41.3	-44.7
Exports Goods, Services and Income	3096	3212	3333	3173	3157
NIIP % Exports Goods, Services and Income	-146	-167	-209	-236	-263
DIA MV	5969	7121	7189	6999	7375
DIUS MV	4662	5815	6370	6701	7569
Fiscal Balance	-1087	-680	-485	-439	-585
Fiscal Balance % GDP	-6.8	-4.1	-2.8	-2.4	-3.2
Federal Debt	11281	11983	12780	13117	14168
Federal Debt % GDP	70.4	72.6	74.2	73.3	77.0
Federal Outlays	3537	3455	3506	3688	3853
∆%	-1.8	-2.3	1.5	5.2	4.5
% GDP	22.1	20.9	20.4	20.6	20.9
Federal Revenue	2450	2775	3022	3250	3268
∆%	6.4	13.3	8.9	7.6	0.5
% GDP	15.3	16.8	17.5	18.2	17.8

Sources:

Notes: NGDP: nominal GDP or in current dollars; NIIP: Net International Investment Position; DIA MV: US Direct Investment Abroad at Market Value; DIUS MV: Direct Investment in the US at Market Value. There are minor discrepancies in the decimal point of percentages of GDP between the balance of payments data and federal debt, outlays, revenue and deficits in which the original number of the CBO source is maintained. See Bureau of Economic Analysis, US International Economic Accounts: Concepts and Methods. 2014. Washington, DC: BEA, Department of Commerce, Jun 2014 http://www.bea.gov/international/concepts_methods.htm These discrepancies do not alter conclusions. Budget http://www.cbo.gov/

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#6

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget_economic_data#3

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#2

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget_economic_data#2 Balance of Payments and NIIP http://www.bea.gov/international/index.htm#bop Gross Domestic Product, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

The most recent CBO long-term budget on Mar 27, 2017, projects US federal debt at 150.0 percent of GDP in 2047 (Congressional Budget Office, The 2017 Long-term Budget Outlook. Washington, DC, Mar 30, 2017 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52480).

Table VI-3C provides quarterly estimates NSA of the external imbalance of the United States. The current account deficit seasonally adjusted at 2.4 percent in IIIQ2016 stabilizes to 2.4 percent of GDP in IVQ2016. The deficit does not change to 2.4 percent in IQ2017 and increases to 2.6 percent in IIQ2017. The current account deficits decreased to 2.1 percent in IIIQ2017. The absolute value of the net international investment position increases from minus $8.0 trillion in IIIQ2016 to minus $8.3 trillion in IVQ2016. The absolute value of the net international investment position decreases to minus $8.1 trillion in IQ2017 and decreases to minus $8.0 trillion in IIQ2017. The absolute value of the net international investment position decreased to $7.8 trillion in IIIQ2017. The BEA explains as follows (https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/2017/pdf/intinv217.pdf):

“The U.S. net international investment position increased to -$7,768.7 billion (preliminary) at the end of the third quarter of 2017 from -$8,004.1 billion (revised) at the end of the second quarter, according to statistics released today by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The $235.4 billion increase reflected a $1,001.2 billion increase in U.S. assets and a $765.8 billion increase in U.S. liabilities (table 1).”

The BEA explains further (https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/2017/pdf/intinv317.pdf): “

“The $235.4 billion increase in the net investment position reflected net financial transactions of –$87.4 billion and net other changes in position, such as price and exchange-rate changes, of $322.8 billion (table A).

The net investment position increased 2.9 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 1.1 percent in the second quarter, and an average quarterly decrease of 5.3 percent from the first quarter of 2011 through the first quarter of 2017.

U.S. assets increased $1,001.2 billion to $26,854.9 billion at the end of the third quarter, mostly reflecting increases in portfolio investment and direct investment assets that were partly offset by a decrease in financial derivatives.

· Assets excluding financial derivatives increased $1,227.5 billion to $25,149.7 billion. The increase resulted from other changes in position of $869.2 billion and financial transactions of $358.2 billion. Other changes in position mostly reflected foreign equity price increases that raised the equity value of portfolio investment and direct investment assets, and the appreciation of major foreign currencies against the U.S. dollar that raised the value of foreign-currency-denominated assets in dollar terms. Financial transactions mostly reflected net acquisition of portfolio investment assets.

· Financial derivatives decreased $226.2 billion to $1,705.1 billion, mostly in single-currency interest rate contracts.”

U.S. liabilities increased $765.8 billion to $34,623.6 billion at the end of the third quarter, mostly reflecting increases in portfolio investment and direct investment liabilities that were partly offset by a decrease in financial derivatives.

· Liabilities excluding financial derivatives increased $988.8 billion to $32,952.3 billion. The increase resulted from other changes in position of $524.6 billion and financial transactions of $464.2 billion (table A). Other changes in position mostly reflected U.S. equity price increases that raised the equity value of portfolio investment and direct investment liabilities. Financial transactions mostly reflected net incurrence of portfolio investment liabilities.

· Financial derivatives decreased $223.0 billion to $1,671.3 billion, mostly in single-currency interest rate contracts.”

Table VI-3C, US, Current Account, NIIP, Fiscal Balance, Nominal GDP, Federal Debt and Direct Investment, Dollar Billions and % NSA

	IIIQ2016	IVQ2016	IQ2017	IIQ2017	IIIQ2017
Goods & Services	-136	-132	-113	-155	-147
Primary Income	43	51	49	51	58
Secondary Income	-32	-31	-26	-31	-24
Current Account	-126	-112	-90	-134	-113
Current Account % GDP	-2.4	-2.4	-2.4	-2.6	-2.1
NIIP	-8036	-8318	-8092	-8004	-7769
US Owned Assets Abroad	24839	23849	24933	25853	26855
Foreign Owned Assets in US	-32875	-32168	-33025	-33857	-34623
DIA MV	7392	7375	7895	8125	8581
DIA MV Equity	6147	6172	6609	6909	7355
DIUS MV	7424	7569	7952	8135	8453
DIUS MV Equity	5607	5784	6153	6341	6630

Notes: NIIP: Net International Investment Position; DIA MV: US Direct Investment Abroad at Market Value; DIUS MV: Direct Investment in the US at Market Value. See Bureau of Economic Analysis, US International Economic Accounts: Concepts and Methods. 2014. Washington, DC: BEA, Department of Commerce, Jun 2014 http://www.bea.gov/international/concepts_methods.htm

Chart VI-3C of the US Bureau of Economic Analysis provides the quarterly and annual US net international investment position (NIIP) NSA in billion dollars. The NIIP deteriorated in 2008, improving in 2009-2011 followed by deterioration after 2012. There is improvement in 2017.

Chart VI-3C, US Net International Investment Position, NSA, Billion US Dollars

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm

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 (2013WEOOct) 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) (IMF 2013GFSROct) (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/gfsr/index.htm); and of fiscal affairs with the Fiscal Monitor (IMF 2013FMOct) (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 global economic and financial risks, which are analyzed in the comments of this blog.

Economic risks include the following:

First. China’s Economic Growth. China lowered the GDP growth forecast to “around 6.5 percent” in 2017 (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-03/05/c_136104699.htm). The National People’s Congress of China in Mar 2016 is reducing the GDP growth target to the range of 6.5 percent to 7.0 percent in guiding stable market expectations (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2016-03/05/c_135157171.htm). President Xi Jinping announced on Nov 3, 2015 that “For China to double 2010 GDP and the per capita income of both urban and rural residents by 2010, annual growth for the 2016-2020 period must be at least 6.5 percent,” as quoted by Xinhuanet (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-11/03/c_134780377.htm). China lowered the growth target to approximately 7.0 percent in 2015, as analyzed by Xiang Bo, writing on “China lowers 2015 economic growth target to around 7 percent,” published on Xinhuanet on Mar 5, 2015 (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-03/05/c_134039341.htm). China had lowered its growth target to 7.5 percent per year. Lu Hui, writing on “China lowers GDP target to achieve quality economic growth, on Mar 12, 2012, published in Beijing by Xinhuanet (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-03/12/c_131461668.htm), informs that Premier Jiabao wrote in a government work report that the GDP growth target will be lowered to 7.5 percent to enhance the quality and level of development of China over the long term. The Third Plenary Session of the 18^th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China adopted unanimously on Nov 15, 2013, a new round of reforms with 300 measures (Xinhuanet, “China details reform decision-making process,” Nov 19, 2013 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-11/19/c_125722517.htm). China’s GDP grew 1.9 percent in IQ2012, annualizing to 7.8 percent, and 8.1 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of China grew at 2.1 percent in IIQ2012, which annualizes to 8.7 percent, and 7.6 percent relative to a year earlier. China grew at 1.8 percent in IIIQ2012, which annualizes at 7.4 percent, and 7.5 percent relative to a year earlier. In IVQ2012, China grew at 2.0 percent, which annualizes at 8.2 percent, and 8.1 percent in IVQ2012 relative to IVQ2011. In IQ2013, China grew at 1.9 percent, which annualizes at 7.8 percent, and 7.9 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIQ2013, China grew at 1.7 percent, which annualizes at 7.0 percent, and 7.6 percent relative to a year earlier. China grew at 2.1 percent in IIIQ2013, which annualizes at 8.7 percent, and increased 7.9 percent relative to a year earlier. China grew at 1.6 percent in IVQ2013, which annualized to 6.6 percent, and 7.7 percent relative to a year earlier. China’s GDP grew 1.7 percent in IQ2014, which annualizes to 7.0 percent, and 7.4 percent relative to a year earlier. China’s GDP grew 1.8 percent in IIQ2014, which annualizes at 7.4 percent, and 7.5 percent relative to a year earlier. China’s GDP grew 1.8 percent in IIIQ2014, which is equivalent to 7.4 percent in a year, and 7.1 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of China grew 1.7 percent in IVQ2014, which annualizes at 7.2 percent, and 7.2 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of China grew at 1.7 percent in IQ2015, which annualizes at 7.0 percent, and 7.0 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of China grew 1.7 percent in IIQ2015, which annualizes at 7.0 percent, and increased 7.0 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIIQ2015, China’s GDP grew at 1.7 percent, which annualizes at 7.0 percent, and increased 6.9 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of China grew at 1.6 percent in IVQ2015, which annualizes at 6.6 percent, and increased 6.8 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of China grew 1.3 percent in IQ2016, which annualizes at 5.3 percent, and increased 6.7 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIQ2016, the GDP of China increased 1.9 percent, which annualizes to 7.8 percent, and increased 6.7 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of China increased at 1.8 percent in IIIQ2016, which annualizes at 7.4 percent, and increased 6.7 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of China increased at 1.7 percent in IVQ2016, which annualizes at 7.0 percent, and increased 6.8 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of China increased at 1.4 percent in IQ2017, which annualizes at 5.7 percent and increased 6.9 percent relative to a year earlier. China’s GDP increased at 1.8 percent in IIQ2017, which annualizes at 7.4 percent, and increased 6.9 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of China increased 1.7 percent in IIIQ2017, which annualizes at 7.0 percent, and increased 6.8 percent relative to a year earlier. There was decennial change in leadership in China (http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/special/18cpcnc/index.htm). Xi Jinping initiated a second term of leadership in Oct 2017 (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-10/25/c_136705344.htm). Growth rates of GDP of China in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier have been declining from 2011 to 2017.

2. United States Economic Growth, Labor Markets and Budget/Debt Quagmire. (i) The US maintained growth at 3.0 percent on average over entire cycles with expansions at higher rates compensating for contractions. US economic growth has been at only 2.2 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 33 quarters from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2017. Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). There are new calculations using the revision of US GDP and personal income data since 1929 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) and the third estimate of GDP for IIIQ2017 (https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2017/pdf/gdp3q17_3rd.pdf). The average of 7.7 percent in the first four quarters of major cyclical expansions is in contrast with the rate of growth in the first four quarters of the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010 of only 2.7 percent obtained by dividing GDP of $14,745.9 billion in IIQ2010 by GDP of $14,355.6 billion in IIQ2009 {[($14,745.9/$14,355.6) -1]100 = 2.7%], or accumulating the quarter on quarter growth rates (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/mediocre-cyclical-united-states_23.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html). The expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 was at the average annual growth rate of 5.9 percent, 5.4 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1986, 5.2 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1986, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1987, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1987, 4.9 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1987, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1987, 4.9 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1988, 4.8 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1988, 4.8 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1988, 4.8 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1989, 4.7 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1989, 4.7 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1989, 4.5 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1989. 4.5 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1990, 4.4 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1990, 4.3 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1990, 4.0 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1990, 3.8 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1991 and at 7.8 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983 (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/mediocre-cyclical-united-states_23.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html). The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates a contraction of the US from IQ1990 (Jul) to IQ1991 (Mar) (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html). The expansion lasted until another contraction beginning in IQ2001 (Mar). US GDP contracted 1.3 percent from the pre-recession peak of $8983.9 billion of chained 2009 dollars in IIIQ1990 to the trough of $8865.6 billion in IQ1991 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). The US maintained growth at 3.0 percent on average over entire cycles with expansions at higher rates compensating for contractions. Growth at trend in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2017 would have accumulated to 33.4 percent. GDP in IIIQ2017 would be $19,999.1 billion (in constant dollars of 2009) if the US had grown at trend, which is higher by $2835.2 billion than actual $17,163.9 billion. There are about two trillion dollars of GDP less than at trend, explaining the 22.6 million unemployed or underemployed equivalent to actual unemployment/underemployment of 13.3 percent of the effective labor force (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2018/01/twenty-three-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/twenty-one-million-unemployed-or.html). US GDP in IIIQ2017 is 14.2 percent lower than at trend. US GDP grew from $14,991.8 billion in IVQ2007 in constant dollars to $17,163.9 billion in IIIQ2017 or 14.5 percent at the average annual equivalent rate of 1.4 percent. Professor John H. Cochrane (2014Jul2) estimates US GDP at more than 10 percent below trend. Cochrane (2016May02) measures GDP growth in the US at average 3.5 percent per year from 1950 to 2000 and only at 1.76 percent per year from 2000 to 2015 with only at 2.0 percent annual equivalent in the current expansion. Cochrane (2016May02) proposes drastic changes in regulation and legal obstacles to private economic activity. 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 of manufacturing at average 3.1 percent per year from Dec 1919 to Dec 2017. Growth at 3.1 percent per year would raise the NSA index of manufacturing output from 108.2393 in Dec 2007 to 146.8830 in Dec 2017. The actual index NSA in Dec 2017 is 103.381, which is 29.6 percent below trend. Manufacturing output grew at average 2.0 percent between Dec 1986 and Dec 2017. Using trend growth of 2.0 percent per year, the index would increase to 131.9431 in Dec 2017. The output of manufacturing at 103.381 in Dec 2017 is 21.6 percent below trend under this alternative calculation. In IQ2014, US GDP decreased 0.2 percent, increased 1.7 percent relative to a year earlier and fell 0.9 percent at SAAR. In IIQ2014, US GDP increased 1.1 percent at 4.6 percent SAAR and increased 2.7 percent relative to a year earlier. US GDP increased 1.3 percent in IVQ2014 at 5.2 percent SAAR and increased 3.2 percent relative to a year earlier. In IVQ2014, US GDP increased 0.5 percent at SAAR of 2.0 percent and increased 2.7 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.8 percent in IQ2015 at SAAR of 3.2 percent and grew 3.8 percent relative to a year earlier. US GDP grew at SAAR 2.7 percent in IIQ2015, increasing 0.7 percent in the quarter and 3.3 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.4 percent in IIIQ2015 at SAAR of 1.6 percent and grew 2.4 percent in IIIQ2015 relative to a year earlier. US GDP grew at SAAR of 0.1 percent in IVQ2015, increasing 0.5 percent in the quarter and 2.0 percent relative to a year earlier. In IQ2016, US GDP grew 0.1 percent at SAAR of 0.6 percent and increased 1.4 percent relative to a year earlier. US GDP grew at SAAR of 2.2 percent in IIQ2016, increasing 0.6 percent in the quarter and 1.2 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIIQ2016, US GDP grew 0.7 percent at SAAR of 2.8 percent and increased 1.5 percent relative to a year earlier. US GDP grew 0.4 percent in IVQ2016 at SAAR of 1.8 percent and increased 1.8 percent relative to a year earlier. In IQ2017, US GDP grew 0.3 percent at SAAR of 1.2 percent and increased 2.0 percent relative to a year earlier. US GDP grew 0.8 percent in IIQ2017 at SAAR of 3.1 percent and increased 2.2 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIIQ2017, US GDP grew 0.8 percent at SAAR of 3.2 percent and increased 2.3 percent relative to a year earlier (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/mediocre-cyclical-united-states_23.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html). Growth is not only mediocre but also sharply decelerating to a rhythm that is not consistent with reduction of unemployment and underemployment of 22.6 million people. (ii) The labor market continues fractured with 22.6 million unemployed or underemployed (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2018/01/twenty-three-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/twenty-one-million-unemployed-or.html). (iii) There is a difficult climb from the record federal deficit of 9.8 percent of GDP in 2009 and cumulative deficit of $5094 billion in four consecutive years of deficits exceeding one trillion dollars from 2009 to 2012, which is the worst fiscal performance since World War II (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/mediocre-cyclical-economic-growth-with.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/twenty-four-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/unresolved-us-balance-of-payments.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/proceeding-cautiously-in-reducing.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/weakening-equities-and-dollar.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/monetary-policy-designed-on-measurable.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/fluctuating-financial-asset-valuations.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/irrational-exuberance-mediocre-cyclical.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/patience-on-interest-rate-increases.html 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 http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/theory-and-reality-of-cyclical-slow.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/duration-dumping-and-peaking-valuations.html and earlier at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html and earlier Section IB at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/expanding-bank-cash-and-deposits-with.html). There is no subsequent jump of debt in US peacetime history as the one from 39.3 percent of GDP in 2008 to 65.9 percent of GDP in 2011, 70.4 percent in 2012, 72.6 percent in 2013, 74.2 percent in 2014, 73.3 percent in 2015 and 77.0 percent in 2017 (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/mediocre-cyclical-economic-growth-with.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/twenty-four-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/unresolved-us-balance-of-payments.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/proceeding-cautiously-in-reducing.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/weakening-equities-and-dollar.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/monetary-policy-designed-on-measurable.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/fluctuating-financial-asset-valuations.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/impatience-with-monetary-policy-of.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 and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/theory-and-reality-of-cyclical-slow.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/duration-dumping-and-peaking-valuations.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html). The US is facing an unsustainable debt/GDP path (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/mediocre-cyclical-economic-growth-with.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/twenty-four-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/unresolved-us-balance-of-payments.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/proceeding-cautiously-in-reducing.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/weakening-equities-and-dollar.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/monetary-policy-designed-on-measurable.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/11/live-possibility-of-interest-rates.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/labor-market-uncertainty-and-interest.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/fluctuating-financial-asset-valuations.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/irrational-exuberance-mediocre-cyclical.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/patience-on-interest-rate-increases.html 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 and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/theory-and-reality-of-cyclical-slow.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/duration-dumping-and-peaking-valuations.html and earlier at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html). 3. Economic Growth and Labor Markets in Advanced Economies. Advanced economies are growing slowly. The GDP of Japan increased 1.1 percent in IQ2012, 4.6 percent at SAAR (seasonally adjusted annual rate) and 3.1 percent relative to a year earlier but part of the jump could be the low level a year earlier because of the Tōhoku or Great East Earthquake and Tsunami of Mar 11, 2011. Japan is experiencing difficulties with the overvalued yen because of worldwide capital flight originating in zero interest rates with risk aversion in an environment of softer growth of world trade. Japan’s GDP fell 0.6 percent in IIQ2012 at the seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of minus 2.4 percent, which is much lower than 4.6 percent in IQ2012. Growth of 2.9 percent in IIQ2012 in Japan relative to IIQ2011 has effects of the low level of output because of Tōhoku or Great East Earthquake and Tsunami of Mar 11, 2011. Japan’s GDP contracted 0.4 percent in IIIQ2012 at the SAAR of minus 1.5 percent and decreased 0.1 percent relative to a year earlier. Japan’s GDP increased 0.2 percent in IVQ2012 at the SAAR of 0.9 percent and increased 0.2 percent relative to a year earlier. Japan grew 1.1 percent in IQ2013 at the SAAR of 4.5 percent and increased 0.5 percent relative to a year earlier. Japan’s GDP increased 0.9 percent in IIQ2013 at the SAAR of 3.8 percent and increased 1.8 percent relative to a year earlier. Japan’s GDP grew 0.8 percent in IIIQ2013 at the SAAR of 3.1 percent and increased 2.9 percent relative to a year earlier. In IVQ2013, Japan’s GDP changed 0.0 percent at the SAAR of 0.0 percent, increasing 2.7 percent relative to a year earlier. Japan’s GDP increased 0.8 percent in IQ2014 at the SAAR of 3.3 percent and increased 3.0 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIQ2014, Japan’s GDP fell 1.7 percent at the SAAR of minus 6.6 percent and fell 0.1 percent relative to a year earlier. Japan’s GDP changed 0.0 percent in IIIQ2014 at the SAAR of minus 0.2 percent and fell 1.0 percent relative to a year earlier. In IVQ2014, Japan’s GDP grew 0.7 percent, at the SAAR of 2.8 percent, decreasing 0.4 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of Japan increased 1.2 percent in IQ2015 at the SAAR of 5.1 percent and increased 0.2 percent relative to a year earlier. Japan’s GDP increased 0.1 percent in IIQ2015 at the SAAR of 0.5 percent and increased 2.1 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of Japan increased 0.1 percent in IIIQ2015 at the SAAR of 0.3 percent and increased 2.1 percent relative to a year earlier. Japan’s GDP contracted 0.2 percent in IVQ2015 at the SAAR of minus 0.9 percent and grew 1.1 percent relative to a year earlier. In IQ2016, the GDP of Japan increased 0.5 percent at the SAAR of 2.2 percent and increased 0.6 percent relative to a year earlier. Japan’s GDP increased 0.4 percent in IIQ2016 at the SAAR of 1.6 percent and increased 0.7 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIIQ2016, the GDP of Japan increased 0.2 percent at the SAAR of 0.9 percent and increased 0.9 percent relative to a year earlier. Japan’s GDP increased 0.3 percent in IVQ2016 at the SAAR of 1.4 percent and increased 1.5 percent relative to a year earlier. In IQ2017, the GDP of Japan increased 0.4 percent at the SAAR of 1.5 percent and increased 1.5 percent relative to a year earlier. Japan’s GDP increased 0.7 percent in IIQ2017 at the SAAR of 2.9 percent and increased 1.6 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIIQ2017, the GDP of Japan increased 0.6 percent at the SAAR of 2.5 percent and increased 1.7 percent relative to a year earlier.

The GDP of Germany increased 0.3 percent in IQ2012 and increased 1.6 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIQ2012, Germany’s GDP increased 0.1 percent and increased 0.4 percent relative to a year earlier but 0.9 percent relative to a year earlier when adjusted for calendar (CA) effects. In IIIQ2012, Germany’s GDP increased 0.2 percent and 0.2 percent relative to a year earlier. Germany’s GDP contracted 0.4 percent in IVQ2012 and decreased 0.1 percent relative to a year earlier. In IQ2013, Germany’s GDP decreased 0.2 percent and fell 1.5 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIQ2013, Germany’s GDP increased 0.9 percent and grew 0.9 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of Germany increased 0.5 percent in IIIQ2013 and grew 1.2 percent relative to a year earlier. In IVQ2013, Germany’s GDP increased 0.4 percent and increased 1.4 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of Germany increased 0.9 percent in IQ2014 and grew 3.0 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIQ2014, Germany’s GDP decreased 0.2 percent and increased 1.3 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of Germany increased 0.3 percent in IIIQ2014 and increased 1.5 percent relative to a year earlier. Germany’s GDP increased 0.9 percent in IVQ2014 and increased 2.0 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of Germany increased 0.1 percent in IQ2015 and increased 1.3 percent relative to a year earlier. Germany’s GDP increased 0.4 percent in IIQ2015 and grew 1.8 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of Germany increased 0.3 percent in IIIQ2015 and grew 1.8 percent relative to a year earlier. Germany’s GDP increased 0.4 percent in IVQ2015 and grew 2.1 percent relative to a year earlier. In IQ2016, the GDP of Germany increased 0.6 percent and grew 1.5 percent relative to a year earlier. Germany’s GDP increased 0.5 percent in IIQ2016 and increased 3.3 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIIQ2016, the GDP of Germany increased 0.3 percent and grew 1.7 percent relative to a year earlier. Germany’s GDP increased 0.4 percent in IVQ2016 and grew 1.3 percent relative to a year earlier. In IQ2017, the GDP of Germany increased 0.9 percent and grew 3.4 percent relative to a year earlier. Germany’s GDP increased 0.6 percent in IIQ2017 and grew 1.0 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIIQ2017, the GDP of Germany increased 0.8 percent and increased 2.3 percent relative to a year earlier.

In IQ2012, UK GDP increased 0.6 percent and increased 1.4 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIQ2012, GDP fell 0.1 percent relative to IQ2012 and increased 1.1 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIIQ2012, GDP increased 1.2 percent and increased 1.9 percent relative to the same quarter a year earlier. In IVQ2012, GDP fell 0.1 percent and increased 1.5 percent relative to a year earlier. Fiscal consolidation in an environment of weakening economic growth is much more challenging. GDP increased 1.5 percent in IQ2013 relative to a year earlier and 0.6 percent in IQ2013 relative to IVQ2012. In IIQ2013, GDP increased 0.5 percent and 2.2 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.9 percent in IIIQ2013 and 1.9 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.5 percent in IVQ2013 and 2.6 percent relative to a year earlier. In IQ2014, GDP increased 0.9 percent and 2.8 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.9 percent in IIQ2014 and 3.1 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.8 percent in IIIQ2014 and 3.0 percent relative to a year earlier. In IVQ2014, GDP increased 0.8 percent and 3.3 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.3 percent in IQ2015 and increased 2.7 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.6 percent in IIQ2015 and increased 2.5 percent relative to a year earlier. UK GDP increased 0.4 percent in IIIQ2015 and increased 2.1 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.7 percent in IVQ2015 and increased 2.1 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.2 percent in IQ2016 and increased 1.9 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.5 percent in IIQ2016 and grew 1.8 percent relative to a year earlier. UK GDP increased 0.5 percent in IIIQ2016 and increased 2.0 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.7 percent in IVQ2016 and increased 2.0 percent relative to a year earlier. UK GDP increased 0.3 percent in IQ2017 and increased 2.1 percent relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.3 percent in IIQ2017 and increased 1.9 percent relative to a year earlier. In IIIQ2017, GDP increased 0.4 percent and increased 1.7 percent relative to a year earlier.

A list of financial uncertainties includes:

1. Euro Area Survival Risk. The resilience of the euro to fiscal and financial doubts on larger member countries is still an unknown risk. Adjustment programs consist of immediate adoption of economic reforms that would increase future growth permitting fiscal consolidation, which would reduce risk spreads on sovereign debt. Fiscal consolidation is challenging in an environment of weak economic growth as analyzed by Blanchard (2011WEOSep) and consolidation can restrict growth as analyzed by Blanchard (2012WEOApr). Adjustment of countries such as Italy requires depreciation of the currency to parity, as proposed by Caballero and Giavazzi (2012Jan15), but it is not workable within the common currency and zero interest rates in the US. Stronger members at the risk of impairing their own sovereign debt credibility cannot permanently provide bailouts of member countries of the euro area with temporary liquidity challenges. There are complex economic, financial and political effects of the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union or BREXIT after the referendum on Jun 23, 2016 (https://next.ft.com/eu-referendum for extensive coverage by the Financial Times).

2. Foreign Exchange Wars. Exchange rate struggles continue as zero interest rates in advanced economies induce devaluation of their currencies. After deep global recession, regulation, trade and devaluation wars were to be expected (Pelaez and Pelaez, Government Intervention in Globalization: Regulation, Trade and Devaluation Wars (2008c), 181): “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”

3. Valuation of Risk Financial Assets. Valuations of risk financial assets have reached extremely high levels in markets with weak volumes. For example, the DJIA has increased 169.2 percent since the trough of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe on Jul 9, 2010 to

Jan 19, 2018, S&P 500 has gained 174.8 percent and DAX 136.9 percent. The overwhelming risk factor is the unsustainable Treasury deficit/debt of the United States (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/mediocre-cyclical-economic-growth-with.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/twenty-four-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/unresolved-us-balance-of-payments.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/proceeding-cautiously-in-reducing.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/weakening-equities-and-dollar.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/monetary-policy-designed-on-measurable.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/fluctuating-financial-asset-valuations.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/impatience-with-monetary-policy-of.html).

A competing event is the high level of valuations of risk financial assets (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2018/01/twenty-three-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/twenty-one-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/unconventional-monetary-policy-and.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/unconventional-monetary-policy-and.html and earlier 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 26,071.72 on Jan 19, 2018, which is higher by 84.1 percent than the value of 14,164.53 reached on Oct 9, 2007 and higher by 83.6 percent than the value of 14,198.10 reached on Oct 11, 2007. Values of risk financial assets have been 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).

The tool of analysis of Cochrane (2011Jan, 27, equation (16)) is the government debt valuation equation:

(M_t + B_t)/P_t = E_t∫(1/R_t_{, t+τ})s_t_+τdτ (1)

Equation (1) expresses the monetary, M_t, and debt, B_t, liabilities of the government, divided by the price level, P_t, in terms of the expected value discounted by the ex-post rate on government debt, R_t_{, t+τ}, of the future primary surpluses s_t_+τ, which are equal to T_t_+τ – G_t_+τ or difference between taxes, T, and government expenditures, G. Cochrane (2010A) provides the link to a web appendix demonstrating that it is possible to discount by the ex post R_t_{, t+τ}. The present value of the firm can also be expressed as the discounted future value of net cash flows. Equities can inflate beyond sound values if cash flows that depend on economic activity prove to be illusory in continuing mediocre growth

4. 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. Professor Ronald I. McKinnon (2013Oct27), writing on “Tapering without tears—how to end QE3,” on Oct 27, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304799404579153693500945608?KEYWORDS=Ronald+I+McKinnon), finds that the major central banks of the world have fallen into a “near-zero-interest-rate trap.” World economic conditions are weak such that exist from the zero interest rate trap could have adverse effects on production, investment and employment. The maintenance of interest rates near zero creates long-term near stagnation. The proposal of Professor McKinnon is credible, coordinated increase of policy interest rates toward 2 percent. Professor John B. Taylor at Stanford University, writing on “Economic failures cause political polarization,” on Oct 28, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303442004579121010753999086?KEYWORDS=John+B+Taylor), analyzes that excessive risks induced by near zero interest rates in 2003-2004 caused the financial crash. Monetary policy continued in similar paths during and after the global recession with resulting political polarization worldwide.

5. Credibility and Commitment of Central Bank Policy. There is a credibility issue of the commitment of monetary policy. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decided at its meeting on Dec 12, 2012 to implement the “6.5/2.5” approach (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20121212a.htm):

“To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends and the economic recovery strengthens. In particular, the Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored.”

The FOMC changed the policy guidance in the statement of Mar 19, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20140319a.htm):

“With the unemployment rate nearing 6-1/2 percent, the Committee has updated its forward guidance. The change in the Committee's guidance does not indicate any change in the Committee's policy intentions as set forth in its recent statements.”

At its meeting on Jan 25, 2012, the FOMC began to provide to the public the specific forecasts of interest rates and other economic variables by FOMC members. These forecasts are analyzed in Section IV Global Inflation. Thomas J. Sargent and William L. Silber, writing on “The challenges of the Fed’s bid for transparency,” on Mar 20, published in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/778eb1ce-7288-11e1-9c23-00144feab49a.html#axzz1pexRlsiQ), analyze the costs and benefits of transparency by the Fed. In the analysis of Sargent and Silber (2012Mar20), benefits of transparency by the Fed will exceed costs if the Fed is successful in conveying to the public what policies would be implemented and how forcibly in the presence of unforeseen economic events. History has been unkind to policy commitments. The risk in this case is if the Fed would postpone adjustment because of political pressures as has occurred in the past or because of errors of evaluation and forecasting of economic and financial conditions. Both political pressures and errors abounded in the unhappy stagflation of the 1970s also known as the US Great Inflation (see 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 and Appendix I The Great Inflation; see Taylor 1993, 1997, 1998LB, 1999, 2012FP, 2012Mar27, 2012Mar28, 2012JMCB http://www.johnbtaylor.com/ http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html). The challenge of the Fed, in the view of Sargent and Silber (2012Mar20), is to convey to the public the need to deviate from the commitment to interest rates of zero to ¼ percent because conditions have changed instead of unwarranted inaction or policy changes. Errors have abounded such as a critical cause of the global recession pointed by Sargent and Silber (2012Mar20): “While no president is known to have explicitly pressurized Mr. Bernanke’s predecessor, Alan Greenspan, he found it easy to maintain low interest rates for too long, fueling the credit boom and housing bubble that led to the financial crisis in 2008.” Sargent and Silber (2012Mar20) also find need of commitment of fiscal authorities to consolidation required to attain sustainable path of debt.

The analysis by Kydland and Prescott (1977, 447-80, equation 5) uses the “expectation augmented” Phillips curve with the natural rate of unemployment of Friedman (1968) and Phelps (1968), which in the notation of Barro and Gordon (1983, 592, equation 1) is:

U_t = Uⁿ_t – α(π_t – π^e) α > 0 (1)

Where U_t is the rate of unemployment at current time t, Uⁿ_t is the natural rate of unemployment, π_t is the current rate of inflation and π^e is the expected rate of inflation by economic agents based on current information. Equation (1) expresses unemployment net of the natural rate of unemployment as a decreasing function of the gap between actual and expected rates of inflation. The system is completed by a social objective function, W, depending on inflation, π, and unemployment, U:

W = W(π_t, U_t) (2)

The policymaker maximizes the preferences of the public, (2), subject to the constraint of the tradeoff of inflation and unemployment, (1). The total differential of W set equal to zero provides an indifference map in the Cartesian plane with ordered pairs (π_t, U_t- Uⁿ) such that the consistent equilibrium is found at the tangency of an indifference curve and the Phillips curve in (1). The indifference curves are concave to the origin. The consistent policy is not optimal. Policymakers without discretionary powers following a rule of price stability would attain equilibrium with unemployment not higher than with the consistent policy. The optimal outcome is obtained by the rule of price stability, or zero inflation, and no more unemployment than under the consistent policy with nonzero inflation and the same unemployment. Taylor (1998LB) attributes the sustained boom of the US economy after the stagflation of the 1970s to following a monetary policy rule instead of discretion (see Taylor 1993, 1999).

6. Carry Trades. Commodity prices driven by zero interest rates could resume their increasing path. Some analytical aspects of the carry trade are instructive (Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. I (2008a), 101-5, Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2008b), 202-4), Government Intervention in Globalization: Regulation, Trade and Devaluation Wars (2008c), 70-4). Consider the following symbols: R_t is the exchange rate of a country receiving carry trade denoted in units of domestic currency per dollars at time t of initiation of the carry trade; R_t_+τ is the exchange of the country receiving carry trade denoted in units of domestic currency per dollars at time t+τ when the carry trade is unwound; i_f is the domestic interest rate of the high-yielding country where investment will be made; i_usd is the interest rate on short-term dollar debt assumed to be 0.5 percent per year; i_f >i_usd, which expresses the fact that the interest rate on the foreign country is much higher than that in short-term USD (US dollars); S_t is the dollar value of the investment principal; and π is the dollar profit from the carry trade. The investment of the principal S_t in the local currency debt of the foreign country provides a profit of:

π = (1 + i_f)(R_tS_t)(1/R_t_+τ) – (1 + i_usd)S_t (3)

The profit from the carry trade, π, is nonnegative when:

(1 + i_f)/ (1 + i_usd) ≥ R_t_+τ/R_t (4)

In words, the difference in interest rate differentials, left-hand side of inequality (4), must exceed the percentage devaluation of the currency of the host country of the carry trade, right hand side of inequality (4). The carry trade must earn enough in the host-country interest rate to compensate for depreciation of the host-country at the time of return to USD. A simple example explains the vulnerability of the carry trade in fixed-income. Let i_f be 0.10 (10 percent), i_usd 0.005 (0.5 percent), S_t USD100 and R_t CUR 1.00/USD. Adopt the fixed-income rule of months of 30 days and years of 360 days. Consider a strategy of investing USD 100 at 10 percent for 30 days with borrowing of USD 100 at 0.5 percent for 30 days. At time t, the USD 100 are converted into CUR 100 and invested at [(30/360)10] equal to 0.833 percent for thirty days. At the end of the 30 days, assume that the rate R_t₊₃₀ is still CUR 1/USD such that the return amount from the carry trade is USD 0.833. There is still a loan to be paid [(0.005)(30/360)USD100] equal to USD 0.042. The investor receives the net amount of USD 0.833 minus USD 0.042 or US 0.791. The rate of return on the investment of the USD 100 is 0.791 percent, which is equivalent to the annual rate of return of 9.49 percent {(0.791)(360/30)}. This is incomparably better than earning 0.5 percent. There are alternatives of hedging by buying forward the exchange for conversion back into USD.

Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis finds that the dollar declined on average by 6.56 percent in the events of quantitative easing, ranging from depreciation of 10.8 percent relative to the Japanese yen to 3.6 percent relative to the pound sterling (http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2010/2010-018.pdf). A critical assumption of Rudiger Dornbusch (1976) in his celebrated analysis of overshooting (Rogoff 2002MF http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2001/kr/112901.pdf) is “that exchange rates and asset markets adjust fast relative to goods markets” (Rudiger Dornbusch 1976, 1162). The market response of a monetary expansion is “to induce an immediate depreciation in the exchange rate and accounts therefore for fluctuations in the exchange rate and the terms of trade. During the adjustment process, rising prices may be accompanied by an appreciating exchange rate so that the trend behavior of exchange rates stands potentially in strong contrast with the cyclical behavior of exchange rates and prices” (Dornbusch 1976, 1162). The volatility of the exchange rate “is needed to temporarily equilibrate the system in response to monetary shocks, because underlying national prices adjust so slowly” (Rogoff 2002MF http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2001/kr/112901.pdf 3). The exchange rate “is identified as a critical channel for the transmission of monetary policy to aggregate demand for domestic output” (Dornbusch 1976, 1162).

In a world of exchange wars, depreciation of the host-country currency can move even faster such that the profits from the carry trade may become major losses. Depreciation is the percentage change in instants against which the interest rate of a day is in the example [(10)(1/360)] or 0.03 percent. Exchange rates move much faster in the real world as in the overshooting model of Dornbusch (1976). Profits in carry trades have greater risks but equally greater returns when the short position in zero interest rates, or borrowing, and on the dollar, are matched with truly agile financial risk assets such as commodities and equities. A simplified analysis could consider the portfolio balance equations A_ij = f(r, x) where A_ij is the demand for i = 1,2,∙∙∙n assets from j = 1,2, ∙∙∙m sectors, r the 1xn vector of rates of return, r_i, of n assets and x a vector of other relevant variables. Tobin (1969) and Brunner and Meltzer (1973) assume imperfect substitution among capital assets such that the own first derivatives of A_ij are positive, demand for an asset increases if its rate of return (interest plus capital gains) is higher, and cross first derivatives are negative, demand for an asset decreases if the rate of return of alternative assets increases. Theoretical purity would require the estimation of the complete model with all rates of return. In practice, it may be impossible to observe all rates of return such as in the critique of Roll (1976). Policy proposals and measures by the Fed have been focused on the likely impact of withdrawals of stocks of securities in specific segments, that is, of effects of one or several specific rates of return among the n possible rates. In fact, the central bank cannot influence investors and arbitrageurs to allocate funds to assets of desired categories such as asset-backed securities that would lower the costs of borrowing for mortgages and consumer loans. Floods of cheap money may simply induce carry trades in arbitrage of opportunities in fast moving assets such as currencies, commodities and equities instead of much lower returns in fixed income securities (see 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).

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 ½ to ¾ 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.

In the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress on Feb 24, 2015, Chair Yellen analyzes the timing of interest rate increases (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20150224a.htm):

“The FOMC's assessment that it can be patient in beginning to normalize policy means that the Committee considers it unlikely that economic conditions will warrant an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate for at least the next couple of FOMC meetings. If economic conditions continue to improve, as the Committee anticipates, the Committee will at some point begin considering an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate on a meeting-by-meeting basis. Before then, the Committee will change its forward guidance. However, it is important to emphasize that a modification of the forward guidance should not be read as indicating that the Committee will necessarily increase the target range in a couple of meetings. Instead the modification should be understood as reflecting the Committee's judgment that conditions have improved to the point where it will soon be the case that a change in the target range could be warranted at any meeting. Provided that labor market conditions continue to improve and further improvement is expected, the Committee anticipates that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when, on the basis of incoming data, the Committee is reasonably confident that inflation will move back over the medium term toward our 2 percent objective.”

What is truly important is the fixing of the overnight fed funds at 1¼ to 1½ percent with gradual consideration of further rate increases with all measures depending on “incoming data” (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20171213a.htm): “In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to 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. The Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal. The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run. However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data” (emphasis added). The FOMC is initiating the “normalization” or reduction of the balance sheet of securities held outright for monetary policy.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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 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 (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

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.

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 (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2018/01/dollar-devaluation-and-rising.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/fomc-increases-interest-rates-with.html). This is merely another case of theory without reality with dubious policy proposals. The current reality is cyclical slow growth.

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/2017/01/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.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 (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2018/01/twenty-three-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/twenty-one-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/unconventional-monetary-policy-and.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/unconventional-monetary-policy-and.html and earlier 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 26,071.72 on Jan 19, 2018, which is higher by 84.1 percent than the value of 14,164.53 reached on Oct 9, 2007 and higher by 83.6 percent than the value of 14,198.10 reached on Oct 11, 2007. Values of risk financial assets have been 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):

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.

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.”

Professor Raguram G Rajan, former 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 2007, 2008Nov, 2009, 2012FP, 2012Mar27, 2012Mar28, 2012JMCB, 2015, 2012 Oct 25; 2013Oct28, 2014 Jan01, 2014Jan3, 2014Jun26, 2014Jul15, 2015, 2016Dec7, 2016Dec20 http://www.johnbtaylor.com/) 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/2017/01/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.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.

Dan Strumpf and Pedro Nicolaci da Costa, writing on “Fed’s Yellen: Stock Valuations ‘Generally are Quite High,’” on May 6, 2015, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/feds-yellen-cites-progress-on-bank-regulation-1430918155?tesla=y ), quote Chair Yellen at open conversation with Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, finding “equity-market valuations” as “quite high” with “potential dangers” in bond valuations. The DJIA fell 0.5 percent on May 6, 2015, after the comments and then increased 0.5 percent on May 7, 2015 and 1.5 percent on May 8, 2015.

Fri May 1

Mon 4

Tue 5

Wed 6

Thu 7

Fri 8

DJIA

18024.06

-0.3%

1.0%

18070.40

0.3%

17928.20

-0.5%

-0.8%

17841.98

-1.0%

-0.5%

17924.06

-0.6%

0.5%

18191.11

0.9%

1.5%

There are two approaches in theory considered by Bordo (2012Nov20) and Bordo and Lane (2013). The first approach is in the classical works of Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz (1963a, 1987) and Karl Brunner and Allan H. Meltzer (1973). There is a similar approach in Tobin (1969). Friedman and Schwartz (1963a, 66) trace the effects of expansionary monetary policy into increasing initially financial asset prices: “It seems plausible that both nonbank and bank holders of redundant balances will turn first to securities comparable to those they have sold, say, fixed-interest coupon, low-risk obligations. But as they seek to purchase these they will tend to bid up the prices of those issues. Hence they, and also other holders not involved in the initial central bank open-market transactions, will look farther afield: the banks, to their loans; the nonbank holders, to other categories of securities-higher risk fixed-coupon obligations, equities, real property, and so forth.”

The second approach is by the Austrian School arguing that increases in asset prices can become bubbles if monetary policy allows their financing with bank credit. Professor Michael D. Bordo provides clear thought and empirical evidence on the role of “expansionary monetary policy” in inflating asset prices (Bordo2012Nov20, Bordo and Lane 2013). Bordo and Lane (2013) provide revealing narrative of historical episodes of expansionary monetary policy. Bordo and Lane (2013) conclude that policies of depressing interest rates below the target rate or growth of money above the target influences higher asset prices, using a panel of 18 OECD countries from 1920 to 2011. Bordo (2012Nov20) concludes: “that expansionary money is a significant trigger” and “central banks should follow stable monetary policies…based on well understood and credible monetary rules.” Taylor (2007, 2009) explains the housing boom and financial crisis in terms of expansionary monetary policy. Professor Martin Feldstein (2016), at Harvard University, writing on “A Federal Reserve oblivious to its effects on financial markets,” on Jan 13, 2016, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-federal-reserve-oblivious-to-its-effect-on-financial-markets-1452729166), analyzes how unconventional monetary policy drove values of risk financial assets to high levels. Quantitative easing and zero interest rates distorted calculation of risks with resulting vulnerabilities in financial markets.

Another hurdle of exit from zero interest rates is “competitive easing” that Professor Raghuram Rajan, governor of the Reserve Bank of India, characterizes as disguised “competitive devaluation” (http://www.centralbanking.com/central-banking-journal/interview/2358995/raghuram-rajan-on-the-dangers-of-asset-prices-policy-spillovers-and-finance-in-india). The fed has been considering increasing interest rates. The European Central Bank (ECB) announced, on Mar 5, 2015, the beginning on Mar 9, 2015 of its quantitative easing program denominated as Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP), consisting of “combined monthly purchases of EUR 60 bn [billion] in public and private sector securities” (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/liq/html/pspp.en.html). Expectation of increasing interest rates in the US together with euro rates close to zero or negative cause revaluation of the dollar (or devaluation of the euro and of most currencies worldwide). US corporations suffer currency translation losses of their foreign transactions and investments (http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Pronouncement_C/SummaryPage&cid=900000010318) while the US becomes less competitive in world trade (Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. I (2008a), Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c)). The DJIA fell 1.5 percent on Mar 6, 2015 and the dollar revalued 2.2 percent from Mar 5 to Mar 6, 2015. The euro has devalued 30.1 percent relative to the dollar from the high on Jul 15, 2008 to Jan 19 , 2018.

Fri 27 Feb

Mon 3/2

Tue 3/3

Wed 3/4

Thu 3/5

Fri 3/6

USD/ EUR

1.1197

1.6%

0.0%

1.1185

0.1%

1.1176

0.2%

0.1%

1.1081

1.0%

0.9%

1.1030

1.5%

0.5%

1.0843

3.2%

1.7%

Chair Yellen explained the removal of the word “patience” from the advanced guidance at the press conference following the FOMC meeting on Mar 18, 2015 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20150318.pdf):

“In other words, just because we removed the word “patient” from the statement doesn’t mean we are going to be impatient. Moreover, even after the initial increase in the target funds rate, our policy is likely to remain highly accommodative to support continued progress toward our objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation.”

Exchange rate volatility is increasing in response of “impatience” in financial markets with monetary policy guidance and measures:

Fri Mar 6

Mon 9

Tue 10

Wed 11

Thu 12

Fri 13

USD/ EUR

1.0843

3.2%

1.7%

1.0853

-0.1%

1.0700

1.3%

1.4%

1.0548

2.7%

1.4%

1.0637

1.9%

-0.8%

1.0497

3.2%

1.3%

Fri Mar 13

Mon 16

Tue 17

Wed 18

Thu 19

Fri 20

USD/ EUR

1.0497

3.2%

1.3%

1.0570

-0.7%

1.0598

-1.0%

-0.3%

1.0864

-3.5%

-2.5%

1.0661

-1.6%

1.9%

1.0821

-3.1%

-1.5%

Fri Apr 24

Mon 27

Tue 28

Wed 29

Thu 30

May Fri 1

USD/ EUR

1.0874

-0.6%

-0.4%

1.0891

-0.2%

1.0983

-1.0%

-0.8%

1.1130

-2.4%

-1.3%

1.1223

-3.2%

-0.8%

1.1199

-3.0%

0.2%

In a speech at Brown University on May 22, 2015, Chair Yellen stated (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150522a.htm):

“For this reason, if the economy continues to improve as I expect, I think it will be appropriate at some point this year to take the initial step to raise the federal funds rate target and begin the process of normalizing monetary policy. To support taking this step, however, I will need to see continued improvement in labor market conditions, and I will need to be reasonably confident that inflation will move back to 2 percent over the medium term. After we begin raising the federal funds rate, I anticipate that the pace of normalization is likely to be gradual. The various headwinds that are still restraining the economy, as I said, will likely take some time to fully abate, and the pace of that improvement is highly uncertain.”

The US dollar appreciated 3.8 percent relative to the euro in the week of May 22, 2015:

Fri May 15

Mon 18

Tue 19

Wed 20

Thu 21

Fri 22

USD/ EUR

1.1449

-2.2%

-0.3%

1.1317

1.2%

1.1150

2.6%

1.5%

1.1096

3.1%

0.5%

1.1113

2.9%

-0.2%

1.1015

3.8%

0.9%

The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Christine Lagarde, warned on Jun 4, 2015, that: (http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2015/06/04/u-s-economy-returning-to-growth-but-pockets-of-vulnerability/):

“The Fed’s first rate increase in almost 9 years is being carefully prepared and telegraphed. Nevertheless, regardless of the timing, higher US policy rates could still result in significant market volatility with financial stability consequences that go well beyond US borders. I weighing these risks, we think there is a case for waiting to raise rates until there are more tangible signs of wage or price inflation than are currently evident. Even after the first rate increase, a gradual rise in the federal fund rates will likely be appropriate.”

The President of the European Central Bank (ECB), Mario Draghi, warned on Jun 3, 2015 that (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2015/html/is150603.en.html):

“But certainly one lesson is that we should get used to periods of higher volatility. At very low levels of interest rates, asset prices tend to show higher volatility…the Governing Council was unanimous in its assessment that we should look through these developments and maintain a steady monetary policy stance.”

The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Janet L. Yellen, stated on Jul 10, 2015 that (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150710a.htm):

“Based on my outlook, I expect that it will be appropriate at some point later this year to take the first step to raise the federal funds rate and thus begin normalizing monetary policy. But I want to emphasize that the course of the economy and inflation remains highly uncertain, and unanticipated developments could delay or accelerate this first step. I currently anticipate that the appropriate pace of normalization will be gradual, and that monetary policy will need to be highly supportive of economic activity for quite some time. The projections of most of my FOMC colleagues indicate that they have similar expectations for the likely path of the federal funds rate. But, again, both the course of the economy and inflation are uncertain. If progress toward our employment and inflation goals is more rapid than expected, it may be appropriate to remove monetary policy accommodation more quickly. However, if progress toward our goals is slower than anticipated, then the Committee may move more slowly in normalizing policy.”

At the press conference after the meeting of the FOMC on Sep 17, 2015, Chair Yellen states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20150917.pdf 4):

“The outlook abroad appears to have become more uncertain of late, and heightened concerns about growth in China and other emerging market economies have led to notable volatility in financial markets. Developments since our July meeting, including the drop in equity prices, the further appreciation of the dollar, and a widening in risk spreads, have tightened overall financial conditions to some extent. These developments may restrain U.S. economic activity somewhat and are likely to put further downward pressure on inflation in the near term. Given the significant economic and financial interconnections between the United States and the rest of the world, the situation abroad bears close watching.”

Some equity markets fell on Fri Sep 18, 2015:

Fri Sep 11

Mon 14

Tue 15

Wed 16

Thu 17

Fri 18

DJIA

16433.09

2.1%

0.6%

16370.96

-0.4%

16599.85

1.0%

1.4%

16739.95

1.9%

0.8%

16674.74

1.5%

-0.4%

16384.58

-0.3%

-1.7%

Nikkei 225

18264.22

2.7%

-0.2%

17965.70

-1.6%

18026.48

-1.3%

0.3%

18171.60

-0.5%

0.8%

18432.27

0.9%

1.4%

18070.21

-1.1%

-2.0%

DAX

10123.56

0.9%

-0.9%

10131.74

0.1%

10188.13

0.6%

10227.21

1.0%

0.4%

10229.58

1.0%

0.0%

9916.16

-2.0%

-3.1%

Frank H. Knight (1963, 233), in Risk, uncertainty and profit, distinguishes between measurable risk and unmeasurable uncertainty. Chair Yellen, in a lecture on “Inflation dynamics and monetary policy,” on Sep 24, 2015 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm), states that (emphasis added):

· “The economic outlook, of course, is highly uncertain”

· “Considerable uncertainties also surround the outlook for economic activity”

· “Given the highly uncertain nature of the outlook…”

Is there a “science” or even “art” of central banking under this extreme uncertainty in which policy does not generate higher volatility of money, income, prices and values of financial assets?

Lingling Wei, writing on Oct 23, 2015, on China’s central bank moves to spur economic growth,” published in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-central-bank-cuts-rates-1445601495), analyzes the reduction by the People’s Bank of China (http://www.pbc.gov.cn/ http://www.pbc.gov.cn/english/130437/index.html) of borrowing and lending rates of banks by 50 basis points and reserve requirements of banks by 50 basis points. Paul Vigna, writing on Oct 23, 2015, on “Stocks rally out of correction territory on latest central bank boost,” published in the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/10/23/stocks-rally-out-of-correction-territory-on-latest-central-bank-boost/), analyzes the rally in financial markets following the statement on Oct 22, 2015, by the President of the European Central Bank (ECB) Mario Draghi of consideration of new quantitative measures in Dec 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0814riKW25k&rel=0) and the reduction of bank lending/deposit rates and reserve requirements of banks by the People’s Bank of China on Oct 23, 2015. The dollar revalued 2.8 percent from Oct 21 to Oct 23, 2015, following the intended easing of the European Central Bank. The DJIA rose 2.8 percent from Oct 21 to Oct 23 and the DAX index of German equities rose 5.4 percent from Oct 21 to Oct 23, 2015.

Fri Oct 16

Mon 19

Tue 20

Wed 21

Thu 22

Fri 23

USD/ EUR

1.1350

0.1%

0.3%

1.1327

0.2%

1.1348

0.0%

-0.2%

1.1340

0.1%

1.1110

2.1%

2.0%

1.1018

2.9%

0.8%

DJIA

17215.97

0.8%

0.4%

17230.54

0.1%

17217.11

0.0%

-0.1%

17168.61

-0.3%

17489.16

1.6%

1.9%

17646.70

2.5%

0.9%

Dow Global

2421.58

0.3%

0.6%

2414.33

-0.3%

2411.03

-0.4%

-0.1%

2411.27

-0.4%

0.0%

2434.79

0.5%

1.0%

2458.13

1.5%

1.0%

DJ Asia Pacific

1402.31

1.1%

0.3%

1398.80

-0.3%

1395.06

-0.5%

-0.3%

1402.68

0.0%

0.5%

1396.03

-0.4%

-0.5%

1415.50

0.9%

1.4%

Nikkei 225

18291.80

-0.8%

1.1%

18131.23

-0.9%

18207.15

-0.5%

0.4%

18554.28

1.4%

1.9%

18435.87

0.8%

-0.6%

18825.30

2.9%

2.1%

Shanghai

3391.35

6.5%

1.6%

3386.70

-0.1%

3425.33

1.0%

1.1%

3320.68

-2.1%

-3.1%

3368.74

-0.7%

1.4%

3412.43

0.6%

1.3%

DAX

10104.43

0.1%

0.4%

10164.31

0.6%

10147.68

0.4%

-0.2%

10238.10

1.3%

0.9%

10491.97

3.8%

2.5%

10794.54

6.8%

2.9%

Ben Leubsdorf, writing on “Fed’s Yellen: December is “Live Possibility” for First Rate Increase,” on Nov 4, 2015, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/feds-yellen-december-is-live-possibility-for-first-rate-increase-1446654282) quotes Chair Yellen that a rate increase in “December would be a live possibility.” The remark of Chair Yellen was during a hearing on supervision and regulation before the Committee on Financial Services, US House of Representatives (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20151104a.htm) and a day before the release of the employment situation report for Oct 2015 (Section I). The dollar revalued 2.4 percent during the week. The euro has devalued 30.1 percent relative to the dollar from the high on Jul 15, 2008 to Jan 19, 2018.

Fri Oct 30

Mon 2

Tue 3

Wed 4

Thu 5

Fri 6

USD/ EUR

1.1007

0.1%

-0.3%

1.1016

-0.1%

1.0965

0.4%

0.5%

1.0867

1.3%

0.9%

1.0884

1.1%

-0.2%

1.0742

2.4%

1.3%

The release on Nov 18, 2015 of the minutes of the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) meeting held on Oct 28, 2015 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20151028.htm) states:

“Most participants anticipated that, based on their assessment of the current economic situation and their outlook for economic activity, the labor market, and inflation, these conditions [for interest rate increase] could well be met by the time of the next meeting. Nonetheless, they emphasized that the actual decision would depend on the implications for the medium-term economic outlook of the data received over the upcoming intermeeting period… It was noted that beginning the normalization process relatively soon would make it more likely that the policy trajectory after liftoff could be shallow.”

Markets could have interpreted a symbolic increase in the fed funds rate at the meeting of the FOMC on Dec 15-16, 2015 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm) followed by “shallow” increases, explaining the sharp increase in stock market values and appreciation of the dollar after the release of the minutes on Nov 18, 2015:

Fri Nov 13

Mon 16

Tue 17

Wed 18

Thu 19

Fri 20

USD/ EUR

1.0774

-0.3%

0.4%

1.0686

0.8%

1.0644

1.2%

0.4%

1.0660

1.1%

-0.2%

1.0735

0.4%

-0.7%

1.0647

1.2%

0.8%

DJIA

17245.24

-3.7%

-1.2%

17483.01

1.4%

17489.50

1.4%

0.0%

17737.16

2.9%

1.4%

17732.75

2.8%

0.0%

17823.81

3.4%

0.5%

DAX

10708.40

-2.5%

-0.7%

10713.23

0.0%

10971.04

2.5%

2.4%

10959.95

2.3%

-0.1%

11085.44

3.5%

1.1%

11119.83

3.8%

0.3%

In testimony before The Joint Economic Committee of Congress on Dec 3, 2015 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20151203a.htm), Chair Yellen reiterated that the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) “anticipates that even after employment and inflation are near mandate-consistent levels, economic condition may, for some time, warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below the Committee views as normal in the longer run.” Todd Buell and Katy Burne, writing on “Draghi says ECB could step up stimulus efforts if necessary,” on Dec 4, 2015, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/draghi-says-ecb-could-step-up-stimulus-efforts-if-necessary-1449252934), analyze that the President of the European Central Bank (ECB), Mario Draghi, reassured financial markets that the ECB will increase stimulus if required to raise inflation the euro area to targets. The USD depreciated 3.1 percent on Thu Dec 3, 2015 after weaker than expected measures by the European Central Bank. DJIA fell 1.4 percent on Dec 3 and increased 2.1 percent on Dec 4. DAX fell 3.6 percent on Dec 3.

Fri Nov 27

Mon 30

Tue 1

Wed 2

Thu 3

Fri 4

USD/ EUR

1.0594

0.5%

0.2%

1.0565

0.3%

1.0634

-0.4%

-0.7%

1.0616

-0.2%

0.2%

1.0941

-3.3%

-3.1%

1.0885

-2.7%

0.5%

DJIA

17798.49

-0.1%

17719.92

-0.4%

17888.35

0.5%

1.0%

17729.68

-0.4%

-0.9%

17477.67

-1.8%

-1.4%

17847.63

0.3%

2.1%

DAX

11293.76

1.6%

-0.2%

11382.23

0.8%

11261.24

-0.3%

-1.1%

11190.02

-0.9%

-0.6%

10789.24

-4.5%

-3.6%

10752.10

-4.8%

-0.3%

At the press conference following the meeting of the FOMC on Dec 16, 2015, Chair Yellen states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20151216.pdf page 8):

“And we recognize that monetary policy operates with lags. We would like to be able to move in a prudent, and as we've emphasized, gradual manner. It's been a long time since the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates, and I think it's prudent to be able to watch what the impact is on financial conditions and spending in the economy and moving in a timely fashion enables us to do this.”

The implication of this statement is that the state of the art is not accurate in analyzing the effects of monetary policy on financial markets and economic activity. The US dollar appreciated and equities fluctuated:

Fri Dec 11

Mon 14

Tue 15

Wed 16

Thu 17

Fri 18

USD/ EUR

1.0991

-1.0%

-0.4%

1.0993

0.0%

1.0932

0.5%

0.6%

1.0913

0.7%

0.2%

1.0827

1.5%

0.8%

1.0868

1.1%

-0.4%

DJIA

17265.21

-3.3%

-1.8%

17368.50

0.6%

17524.91

1.5%

0.9%

17749.09

2.8%

1.3%

17495.84

1.3%

-1.4%

17128.55

-0.8%

-2.1%

DAX

10340.06

-3.8%

-2.4%

10139.34

-1.9%

10450.38

-1.1%

3.1%

10469.26

1.2%

0.2%

10738.12

3.8%

2.6%

10608.19

2.6%

-1.2%

On January 29, 2016, the Policy Board of the Bank of Japan introduced a new policy to attain the “price stability target of 2 percent at the earliest possible time” (https://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2016/k160129a.pdf). The new framework consists of three dimensions: quantity, quality and interest rate. The interest rate dimension consists of rates paid to current accounts that financial institutions hold at the Bank of Japan of three tiers zero, positive and minus 0.1 percent. The quantitative dimension consists of increasing the monetary base at the annual rate of 80 trillion yen. The qualitative dimension consists of purchases by the Bank of Japan of Japanese government bonds (JGBs), exchange traded funds (ETFs) and Japan real estate investment trusts (J-REITS). The yen devalued sharply relative to the dollar and world equity markets soared after the new policy announced on Jan 29, 2016:

Fri 22

Mon 25

Tue 26

Wed 27

Thu 28

Fri 29

JPY/ USD

118.77

-1.5%

-0.9%

118.30

0.4%

118.42

0.3%

-0.1%

118.68

0.1%

-0.2%

118.82

0.0%

-0.1%

121.13

-2.0%

-1.9%

DJIA

16093.51

0.7%

1.3%

15885.22

-1.3%

16167.23

0.5%

1.8%

15944.46

-0.9%

-1.4%

16069.64

-0.1%

0.8%

16466.30

2.3%

2.5%

Nikkei

16958.53

-1.1%

5.9%

17110.91

0.9%

16708.90

-1.5%

-2.3%

17163.92

1.2%

2.7%

17041.45

0.5%

-0.7%

17518.30

3.3%

2.8%

Shanghai

2916.56

0.5%

1.3

2938.51

0.8%

2749.79

-5.7%

-6.4%

2735.56

-6.2%

-0.5%

2655.66

-8.9%

-2.9%

2737.60

-6.1%

3.1%

DAX

9764.88

2.3%

2.0%

9736.15

-0.3%

9822.75

0.6%

0.9%

9880.82

1.2%

0.6%

9639.59

-1.3%

-2.4%

9798.11

0.3%

1.6%

In testimony on the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress on Feb 10-11, 2016, Chair Yellen (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20160210a.htm) states: “U.S. real gross domestic product is estimated to have increased about 1-3/4 percent in 2015. Over the course of the year, subdued foreign growth and the appreciation of the dollar restrained net exports. In the fourth quarter of last year, growth in the gross domestic product is reported to have slowed more sharply, to an annual rate of just 3/4 percent; again, growth was held back by weak net exports as well as by a negative contribution from inventory investment.”

Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “Yellen Says Fed Should Be Prepared to Use Negative Rates if Needed,” on Feb 11, 2016, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/yellen-reiterates-concerns-about-risks-to-economy-in-senate-testimony-1455203865), analyzes the statement of Chair Yellen in Congress that the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) is considering negative interest rates on bank reserves. The Wall Street Journal provides yields of two and ten-year sovereign bonds with negative interest rates on shorter maturities where central banks pay negative interest rates on excess bank reserves:

Sovereign Yields 2/12/16	Japan	Germany	USA
2 Year	-0.168	-0.498	0.694
10 Year	0.076	0.262	1.744

On Mar 10, 2016, the European Central Bank (ECB) announced (1) reduction of the refinancing rate by 5 basis points to 0.00 percent; decrease the marginal lending rate to 0.25 percent; reduction of the deposit facility rate to 0,40 percent; increase of the monthly purchase of assets to €80 billion; include nonbank corporate bonds in assets eligible for purchases; and new long-term refinancing operations (https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2016/html/pr160310.en.html). The President of the ECB, Mario Draghi, stated in the press conference (https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2016/html/is160310.en.html): “How low can we go? Let me say that rates will stay low, very low, for a long period of time, and well past the horizon of our purchases…We don’t anticipate that it will be necessary to reduce rates further. Of course, new facts can change the situation and the outlook.”

The dollar devalued relative to the euro and open stock markets traded lower after the announcement on Mar 10, 2016, but stocks rebounded on Mar 11:

Fri 4

Mon 7

Tue 8

Wed 9

Thu10

Fri 11

USD/ EUR

1.1006

-0.7%

-0.4%

1.1012

-0.1%

1.1013

-0.1%

0.0%

1.0999

0.1%

1.1182

-1.6%

-1.7%

1.1151

-1.3%

0.3%

DJIA

17006.77

2.2%

0.4%

17073.95

0.4%

16964.10

-0.3%

-0.6%

17000.36

0.0%

0.2%

16995.13

-0.1%

0.0%

17213.31

1.2%

1.3%

DAX

9824.17

3.3%

0.7%

9778.93

-0.5%

0.5%

9692.82

-1.3%

-0.9%

9723.09

-1.0%

0.3%

9498.15

-3.3%

-2.3%

9831.13

0.1%

3.5%

At the press conference after the FOMC meeting on Sep 21, 2016, Chair Yellen states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20160921.pdf ): “However, the economic outlook is inherently uncertain.” In the address to the Jackson Hole symposium on Aug 26, 2016, Chair Yellen states: “I believe the case for an increase in in federal funds rate has strengthened in recent months…And, as ever, the economic outlook is uncertain, and so monetary policy is not on a preset course” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20160826a.htm). In a speech at the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, on Jun 6, 2016 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20160606a.htm), Chair Yellen finds that “there is considerable uncertainty about the economic outlook.” There are fifteen references to this uncertainty in the text of 18 pages double-spaced. In the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress on Jun 21, 2016, Chair Yellen states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20160621a.htm), “Of course, considerable uncertainty about the economic outlook remains.” Frank H. Knight (1963, 233), in Risk, uncertainty and profit, distinguishes between measurable risk and unmeasurable uncertainty. Is there a “science” or even “art” of central banking under this extreme uncertainty in which policy does not generate higher volatility of money, income, prices and values of financial assets?

The decisions of the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) depend on incoming data. There are unexpected swings in valuations of risk financial assets by “carry trades” from interest rates below inflation to exposures in stocks, commodities and their derivatives. Another issue is the unexpected “data surprises” such as the sharp decline in 12 months rates of increase of real disposable income, or what is left after taxes and inflation, and the price indicator of the FOMC, prices of personal consumption expenditures (PCE) excluding food and energy. There is no science or art of monetary policy that can deal with this uncertainty.

Real Disposable Personal Income	Real Personal Consumption Expenditures	Prices of Personal Consumption Expenditures	PCE Prices Excluding Food and Energy
∆%12M	∆%12M	∆%12M	∆%12M
6/2017	6/2017	6/2017	6/2017
1.2	2.4	1.4	1.5

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 169.2 percent since the trough of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe on Jul 16, 2010 to Jan 19, 2018; S&P 500 has gained 174.8 percent and DAX 136.9 percent. Before the current round of risk aversion, almost all assets in the column “∆% Trough to 01/19/18” in Table VI-4 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 46.4 percent above the trough. Japan’s Nikkei Average is 169.8 percent above the trough. Dow Global is 91.2 percent above the trough. STOXX 50 of 50 blue-chip European equities (http://www.stoxx.com/indices/index_information.html?symbol=sx5E) is 41.7 percent above the trough. NYSE Financial Index is 102.4 percent above the trough. DAX index of German equities (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/DAX:IND) is 136.9 percent above the trough. Japan’s Nikkei Average is 169.8 percent above the trough on Aug 31, 2010 and 109.0 percent above the peak on Apr 5, 2010. The Nikkei Average closed at 23,808.06 on Jan 19, 2018 (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata), which is 132.2 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 depreciated 2.5 percent relative to the euro. The dollar devalued before the new bout of sovereign risk issues in Europe. The column “∆% week to 01/19/18” in Table VI-4 shows

increase of 1.7 percent for China’s Shanghai Composite. The Nikkei increased 0.7 percent. NYSE Financial increased 1.1 percent in the week. Dow Global increased 1.0 percent in the week of Jan 19, 2018. The DJIA increased 1.0 percent and S&P 500 increased 0.9 percent. DAX of Germany increased 1.4 percent. STOXX 50 increased 0.3 percent. The USD depreciated 0.2 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 01/19/18” that provides the percentage change from the peak in Apr 2010 before the sovereign risk event to Jan 19, 2018. Most risk financial assets had gained not only relative to the trough as shown in column “∆% Trough to 01/19/18” but also relative to the peak in column “∆% Peak to 01/19/18.” There are now several equity indexes above the peak in Table VI-4: DJIA 132.7 percent, S&P 500 130.9 percent, DAX 112.2 percent, Dow Global 56.0 percent, NYSE Financial Index (http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/nykid.shtml) 61.2 percent, Nikkei Average 109.0 percent and STOXX 50 20.0 percent. Shanghai Composite is 10.2 percent above the peak. The Shanghai Composite increased 76.7 percent from March 12, 2014, to Jan 19, 2018. The US dollar strengthened 19.2 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, with recent oscillation of dollar devaluation, is affecting balance sheets of US corporations with foreign operations (http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Pronouncement_C/SummaryPage&cid=900000010318). Recently, the dollar is depreciating. 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). Kate Linebaugh, writing on “Corporate profits set to shrink for fourth consecutive quarter,” on Jul 17, 2016, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/corporate-profits-set-to-shrink-for-fourth-consecutive-quarter-1468799278), quotes forecasts of Thomson Reuters of 4.7 decline of adjusted earnings per share in the S&P 500 index in IIQ2016 relative to a year earlier. That would be the fourth consecutive quarterly decline. Theo Francis and Kate Linebaugh, writing on “US corporate profits on pace for third straight decline,” on Apr 28, 2016, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-corporate-profits-on-pace-for-third-straight-decline-1461872242), analyze three consecutive quarters of decline of corporate earnings and revenue in companies in S&P 500. They quote Thomson Reuters on expected decline of earnings of 6.1 percent in IQ2016 based on 55 percent of reporting companies. Weakness of economic activity shows in decline of revenues in IQ2016 of 1.4 percent, increasing 1.7 percent excluding energy, and contraction of profits of 0.5 percent. Justin Lahart, writing on “S&P 500 Earnings: far worse than advertised,” on Feb 24, 2016, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/s-p-500-earnings-far-worse-than-advertised-1456344483), analyzes S&P 500 earnings in 2015. Under data provided by companies, earnings increased 0.4 percent in 2015 relative to 2014 but under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), earnings fell 12.7 percent, which is the worst decrease since 2008. Theo Francis e Kate Linebaugh, writing on Oct 25, 2015, on “US Companies Warn of Slowing Economy, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-companies-warn-of-slowing-economy-1445818298) analyze the first contraction of earnings and revenue of big US companies. Production, sales and employment are slowing in a large variety of companies with some contracting. Corporate profits also suffer from revaluation of the dollar that constrains translation of foreign profits into dollar balance sheets. Francis and Linebaugh quote Thomson Reuters that analysts expect decline of earnings per share of 2.8 percent in IIIQ2015 relative to IIIQ2014 based on reports by one third of companies in the S&P 500. Sales would decline 4.0% in a third quarter for the first joint decline of earnings per share and revenue in the same quarter since IIIQ2009. Dollar revaluation also constrains corporate results.

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 $1,137.1 billion in IQ1991 or 19.5 percent. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates a contraction of the US from IQ1990 (Jul) to IQ1991 (Mar) (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html). The expansion lasted until another contraction beginning in IQ2001 (Mar). US GDP contracted 1.3 percent from the pre-recession peak of $8983.9 billion of chained 2009 dollars in IIIQ1990 to the trough of $8865.6 billion in IQ1991 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Real gross private domestic investment in the US increased 14.3 percent from $2605.2 billion in IVQ2007 to $2,976.5 billion in IIIQ2017. Real private fixed investment increased 12.7 percent from $2,586.3 billion of chained 2009 dollars in IVQ2007 to $2,915.8 billion in IIIQ2017. Private fixed investment fell relative to IVQ2007 in all quarters preceding IQ2014 and increased 0.4 percent in IIIQ2016, increasing 0.3 percent in IIQ2016 and falling 0.1 percent in IQ2016. Private fixed investment increased 0.4 percent in IVQ2016. Private fixed investment increased 2.0 percent in IQ2017 and increased 0.8 percent in IIQ2017. Private fixed investment increased 0.6 percent in IIIQ2017. Growth of real private investment is mediocre for all but four quarters from IIQ2011 to IQ2012. The investment decision of United States corporations is fractured in the current economic cycle in preference of cash.

There are three aspects. First, there is fluctuation in corporate profits. Corporate profits increased at $53.9 billion in IVQ2016. Corporate profits fell at $46.2 billion in IQ2017. Corporate profits increased at $14.4 billion in IIQ2017. Corporate profits increased $90.3 billion in IIIQ2017. Profits after tax with IVA and CCA increased at $71.6 billion in IVQ2016. Profits after tax with IVA and CCA fell at $43.0 billion in IQ2017. After tax profits increased at $1.1 billion in IIQ2017. Profits after tax with IVA and CCA increased at $94.4 billion in IIIQ2017. Net dividends increased at $2.8 billion in IVQ2016. Net dividends increased at $9.0 billion in IQ2017. Net dividends increased at $6.1 billion in IIQ2017. Net dividends increased at $4.4 billion in IIIQ2017. Undistributed corporate profits increased at $68.9 billion in IVQ2016. Undistributed profits fell at $52.0 billion in IQ2017. Undistributed profits decreased at $5.0 billion in IIQ2017. Undistributed profits increased at $90.0 billion in IIIQ2017. Undistributed corporate profits swelled 389.3 percent from $107.7 billion in IQ2007 to $527.0 billion in IIIQ2017 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. Second, sharp and continuing strengthening of the dollar, with recent depreciation at the margin, is affecting balance sheets of US corporations with foreign operations (http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Pronouncement_C/SummaryPage&cid=900000010318) and the overall US economy. The bottom part of Table IA1-9 provides the breakdown of corporate profits with IVA and CCA in domestic industries and the rest of the world. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA increased at $53.9 billion in IVQ2016. Profits from domestic industries increased at $6.7 billion and profits from nonfinancial business decreased at $20.5 billion. Profits from the rest of the world increased at $47.3 billion. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA decreased at $46.2 billion in IQ2017. Profits from domestic industries decreased at $36.9 billion and profits from nonfinancial business increased at $3.8 billion. Profits from the rest of the world decreased at $9.3 billion. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA increased at $14.4 billion in IIQ2017. Profits from domestic industries increased at $25.2 billion and profits from nonfinancial business increased at $59.1 billion. Profits from the rest of the world decreased at $10.8 billion. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA increased at $90.3 billion in IIIQ2017. Profits from domestic industries increased at $58.2 billion and profits from nonfinancial business increased at $10.4 billion. Profits from the rest of the world increased at $32.0 billion. Total corporate profits with IVA and CCA were $2213.7 billion in IIIQ2017 of which $1766.1 billion from domestic industries, or 79.8 percent of the total, and $447.5 billion, or 20.2 percent, from the rest of the world. Nonfinancial corporate profits of $1276.7 billion account for 57.7 percent of the total. Third, there is reduction in the use of corporate cash for investment. Vipal Monga, David Benoit and Theo Francis, writing on “Companies send more cash back to shareholders,” published on May 26, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-send-more-cash-back-to-shareholders-1432693805?tesla=y), use data of a study by Capital IQ conducted for the Wall Street Journal. This study shows that companies in the S&P 500 reduced investment in plant and equipment to median 29 percent of operating cash flow in 2013 from 33 percent in 2003 while increasing dividends and buybacks to median 36 percent in 2013 from 18 percent in 2003.

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 01/19/ /18	∆% Week 01/19/18	∆% Trough to 01/19/ 18
DJIA	4/26/ 10	7/2/10	-13.6	132.7	1.0	169.2
S&P 500	4/23/ 10	7/20/ 10	-16.0	130.9	0.9	174.8
NYSE Finance	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-20.3	61.2	1.1	102.4
Dow Global	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-18.4	56.0	1.0	91.2
Asia Pacific	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-12.5	NA	NA	NA
Japan Nikkei Aver.	4/05/ 10	8/31/ 10	-22.5	109.0	0.7	169.8
China Shang.	4/15/ 10	7/02 /10	-24.7	10.2	1.7	46.4
STOXX 50	4/15/10	7/2/10	-15.3	20.0	0.3	41.7
DAX	4/26/ 10	5/25/ 10	-10.5	112.2	1.4	136.9
Dollar Euro	11/25 2009	6/7 2010	21.2	19.2	-0.2	-2.5
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	2.638

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

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. Table VI-5 shows a gain by Apr 29, 2011 in the DJIA of 14.3 percent and of the S&P 500 of 12.5 percent since Apr 26, 2010, around the time when sovereign risk issues in Europe began to be acknowledged in financial risk asset valuations. The last row of Table VI-5 for Jan 19, 2019, shows that the S&P 500 is now 131.9 percent above the Apr 26, 2010 level and the DJIA is 132.7 percent above the level on Apr 26, 2010. Multiple rounds of risk aversion eroded earlier gains, showing that risk aversion can destroy market value even with zero interest rates. Relaxed risk aversion has contributed to recovery of valuations. Much the same as zero interest rates and quantitative easing have not had any effects in recovering economic activity while distorting financial markets and resource allocation.

Table VI-5, Percentage Changes of DJIA and S&P 500 in Selected Dates

	∆% DJIA from prior date	∆% DJIA from Apr 26 2010	∆% S&P 500 from prior date	∆% S&P 500 from Apr 26 2010
Apr 26, 2010
May 6/10	-6.1	-6.1	-6.9	-6.9
May 26/10	-5.2	-10.9	-5.4	-11.9
Jun 8/10	-1.2	-11.3	2.1	-12.4
Jul 2/10	-2.6	-13.6	-3.8	-15.7
Aug 9/10	10.5	-4.3	10.3	-7.0
Aug 31/10	-6.4	-10.6	-6.9	-13.4
Nov 5/10	14.2	2.1	16.8	1.0
Nov 30/10	-3.8	-3.8	-3.7	-2.6
Dec 17/10	4.4	2.5	5.3	2.6
Dec 23/10	0.7	3.3	1.0	3.7
Dec 31/10	0.03	3.3	0.07	3.8
Jan 7 2011	0.8	4.2	1.1	4.9
Jan 14/11	0.9	5.2	1.7	6.7
Jan 21/11	0.7	5.9	-0.8	5.9
Jan 28/11	-0.4	5.5	-0.5	5.3
Feb 4/11	2.3	7.9	2.7	8.1
Feb 11/11	1.5	9.5	1.4	9.7
Feb 18/11	0.9	10.6	1.0	10.8
Feb 25/11	-2.1	8.3	-1.7	8.9
Mar 4/11	0.3	8.6	0.1	9.0
Mar 11/11	-1.0	7.5	-1.3	7.6
Mar 18/11	-1.5	5.8	-1.9	5.5
Mar 25/11	3.1	9.1	2.7	8.4
Apr 1/11	1.3	10.5	1.4	9.9
Apr 8/11	0.03	10.5	-0.3	9.6
Apr 15/11	-0.3	10.1	-0.6	8.9
Apr 22/11	1.3	11.6	1.3	10.3
Apr 29/11	2.4	14.3	1.9	12.5
May 6/11	-1.3	12.8	-1.7	10.6
May 13/11	-0.3	12.4	-0.2	10.4
May 20/11	-0.7	11.7	-0.3	10.0
May 27/11	-0.6	11.0	-0.2	9.8
Jun 3/11	-2.3	8.4	-2.3	7.3
Jun 10/11	-1.6	6.7	-2.2	4.9
Jun 17/11	0.4	7.1	0.04	4.9
Jun 24/11	-0.6	6.5	-0.2	4.6
Jul 1/11	5.4	12.3	5.6	10.5
Jul 8/11	0.6	12.9	0.3	10.9
Jul 15/11	-1.4	11.4	-2.1	8.6
Jul 22/11	1.6	13.2	2.2	10.9
Jul 29/11	-4.2	8.4	-3.9	6.6
Aug 05/11	-5.8	2.1	-7.2	-1.0
Aug 12/11	-1.5	0.6	-1.7	-2.7
Aug 19/11	-4.0	-3.5	-4.7	-7.3
Aug 26/11	4.3	0.7	4.7	-2.9
Sep 02	-0.4	0.3	-0.2	-3.1
Sep 09/11	-2.2	-1.9	-1.7	-4.8
Sep 16/11	4.7	2.7	5.4	0.3
Sep 23/11	-6.4	-3.9	-6.5	-6.2
Sep 30/11	1.3	-2.6	-0.4	-6.7
Oct 7/11	1.7	-0.9	2.1	-4.7
Oct 14/11	4.9	3.9	5.9	1.0
Oct 21/11	1.4	5.4	1.1	2.2
Oct 28/11	3.6	9.2	3.8	6.0
Nov 04/11	-2.0	6.9	-2.5	3.4
Nov 11/11	1.4	8.5	0.8	4.3
Nov 18/11	-2.9	5.3	-3.8	0.3
Nov 25/11	-4.8	0.2	-4.7	-4.4
Dec 02/11	7.0	7.3	7.4	2.7
Dec 09/11	1.4	8.7	0.9	3.6
Dec 16/11	-2.6	5.9	-2.8	0.6
Dec 23/11	3.6	9.7	3.7	4.4
Dec 30/11	-0.6	9.0	-0.6	3.8
Jan 6 2012	1.2	10.3	1.6	5.4
Jan 13/12	0.5	10.9	0.9	6.4
Jan 20/12	2.4	13.5	2.0	8.5
Jan 27/12	-0.5	13.0	0.1	8.6
Feb 3/12	1.6	14.8	2.2	11.0
Feb 10/12	-0.5	14.2	-0.2	10.8
Feb 17/12	1.2	15.6	1.4	12.3
Feb 24/12	0.3	15.9	0.3	12.7
Mar 2/12	0.0	15.8	0.3	13.0
Mar 9/12	-0.4	15.3	0.1	13.1
Mar 16/12	2.4	18.1	2.4	15.9
Mar 23/12	-1.1	16.7	-0.5	15.3
Mar 30/12	1.0	17.9	0.8	16.2
Apr 6/12	-1.1	16.6	-0.7	15.3
Apr 13/12	-1.6	14.7	-2.0	13.1
Apr 20/12	1.4	16.3	0.6	13.7
Apr 27/12	1.5	18.1	1.8	15.8
May 4/12	-1.4	16.4	-2.3	12.9
May 11/12	-1.7	14.4	-1.1	11.7
May 18/12	-3.5	10.4	-4.3	6.4
May 25/12	0.7	11.2	1.7	8.7
Jun 1/12	-2.7	8.2	-3.0	5.4
Jun 8/12	3.6	12.0	3.7	9.4
Jun 15/12	1.7	13.9	1.3	10.8
Jun 22/12	-1.0	12.8	-0.6	10.1
Jun 29/12	1.9	14.9	2.0	12.4
Jul 6/12	-0.8	14.0	-0.5	11.8
Jul 13/12	0.0	14.0	0.2	11.9
Jul 20/12	0.4	14.4	0.4	12.4
Jul 27/12	2.0	16.7	1.7	14.3
Aug 3/12	0.2	16.9	0.4	14.8
Aug 10/12	0.9	17.9	1.1	16.0
Aug 17/12	0.5	18.5	0.9	17.0
Aug 24/12	-0.9	17.4	-0.5	16.4
Aug 31/12	-0.5	16.8	-0.3	16.0
Sep 7/12	1.6	18.8	2.2	18.6
Sep 14/12	2.2	21.3	1.90	20.9
Sep 21/12	-0.1	21.2	-0.4	20.5
Sep 28/12	-1.0	19.9	-1.3	18.9
Oct 5/12	1.3	21.5	1.4	20.5
Oct 12/12	-2.1	18.9	-2.2	17.9
Oct 19/12	0.1	19.1	0.3	18.3
Oct 26/12	-1.8	17.0	-1.5	16.5
Nov 2/12	-0.1	16.9	0.2	16.7
Nov 9/12	-2.1	14.4	-2.4	13.8
Nov 16/12	-1.8	12.3	-1.4	12.2
Nov 23/12	3.3	16.1	3.6	16.3
Nov 30/12	0.1	16.2	0.5	16.8
Dec 7/12	1.0	17.4	0.1	17.0
Dec 14/12	-0.2	17.2	-0.3	16.6
Dec 21/12	0.4	17.7	1.2	18.0
Dec 28/12	-1.9	15.5	-1.9	15.7
Jan 4 2013	3.8	19.9	4.6	21.0
Jan 11/13	0.4	20.4	0.4	21.5
Jan 18/13	1.2	21.8	0.9	22.6
Jan 25/13	1.8	24.0	1.1	24.0
Feb 1/13	0.8	25.0	0.7	24.8
Feb 8/13	-0.1	24.9	0.3	25.2
Feb 15/13	-0.1	24.8	0.1	25.4
Feb 22/13	0.1	24.9	-0.3	25.0
Mar 1/13	0.6	25.7	0.2	25.3
Mar 8/13	2.2	28.5	2.2	28.0
Mar 15/13	0.8	29.5	0.6	28.8
Mar 22/13	0.0	29.5	-0.2	28.5
Mar 29/13	0.5	30.1	0.8	29.5
Apr 5/13	-0.1	30.0	-1.0	28.2
Apr 12/13	2.1	32.7	2.3	31.1
Apr 19/13	-2.1	29.8	-2.1	28.3
Aug 26/13	1.1	31.3	1.7	30.5
May 3/13	1.8	33.6	2.0	33.2
May 10/13	1.0	34.9	1.2	34.8
May 17/13	1.6	37.0	2.1	37.6
May 24/13	-0.3	36.6	-1.1	36.1
May 31/13	-1.2	34.9	-1.1	34.5
Jun 7/13	0.9	36.1	0.8	35.6
Jun 14/13	-1.2	34.5	-0.9	34.4
Jun 21/13	-1.8	32.1	-2.2	31.4
Jun 28/13	0.7	33.1	0.9	32.5
Jul 5/13	1.5	35.1	1.6	34.6
Jul 12/13	2.2	38.0	3.0	38.6
Jul 19/13	0.5	38.7	0.7	39.6
Jul 26/13	0.1	38.9	0.0	39.6
Aug 2/13	0.6	39.7	1.1	41.1
Aug 9/13	-1.5	37.7	-1.1	39.6
Aug 16/13	-2.2	34.6	-2.1	36.6
Aug 23/13	-0.5	34.0	0.5	37.2
Aug 30/13	-1.3	32.2	-1.8	34.7
Sep 6/13	0.8	33.2	1.4	36.6
Sep 13/13	3.0	37.2	2.0	39.3
Sep 20/13	0.5	37.9	1.3	41.1
Sep 27/13	-1.2	36.2	-1.1	39.6
Oct 4/13	-1.2	34.5	-0.1	39.5
Oct 11/13	1.1	36.0	0.8	40.5
Oct 18/13	1.1	37.4	2.4	43.9
Oct 25/13	1.1	39.0	0.9	45.2
Nov 1/13	0.3	39.4	0.1	45.3
Nov 8/13	0.9	40.7	0.5	46.1
Nov 15/13	1.3	42.5	1.6	48.4
Nov 22/13	0.6	43.4	0.4	48.9
Nov 29/13	0.1	43.6	0.1	49.0
Dec 6/13	-0.4	43.0	0.0	48.9
Dec 13/13	-1.7	40.6	-1.6	46.5
Dec 20/13	3.0	44.8	2.4	50.0
Dec 27/13	1.6	47.1	1.3	51.9
Jan 3, 2014	-0.1	47.0	-0.5	79.1
Jan 10/14	-0.2	46.7	0.6	52.0
Jan 17/14	0.1	46.9	-0.2	51.7
Jan 24/14	-3.5	41.7	-2.6	47.7
Jan 31/14	-1.1	40.1	-0.4	47.1
Feb 7/14	0.6	41.0	0.8	48.3
Feb 14/14	2.3	44.2	2.3	51.7
Feb 21/14	-0.3	43.7	-0.1	51.5
Feb 28/14	1.4	45.7	1.3	53.4
Mar 7/14	0.8	46.8	1.0	54.9
Mar 14/14	-2.4	43.4	-2.0	51.9
Mar 21/14	1.5	45.5	1.4	54.0
Mar 28/14	0.1	45.7	-0.5	53.3
Apr 4/14	0.5	46.5	0.4	53.9
Apr 11/14	-2.4	43.0	-2.6	49.8
Apr 17/14	2.4	46.4	2.7	53.9
Apr 25/14	-0.3	46.0	-0.1	53.7
May 2/14	0.9	47.4	1.0	55.2
May 9/14	0.4	48.0	-0.1	55.0
May 16, 14	-0.6	47.2	0.0	54.9
May 23, 14	0.7	48.2	1.2	56.8
May 30, 14	0.7	49.2	1.2	58.7
Jun 6, 14	1.2	51.0	1.3	60.8
Jun 13, 14	-0.9	49.7	-0.7	59.7
Jun 20, 14	1.0	51.2	1.4	61.9
Jun 27, 14	-0.6	50.4	-0.1	61.8
Jul 4, 14	1.3	52.3	1.2	63.8
Jul 11, 14	-0.7	51.2	-0.9	62.3
Jul 18, 14	0.9	52.6	0.5	63.2
Jul 25, 14	-0.8	51.4	0.0	63.2
Aug 1, 14	-2.8	47.2	-2.7	58.8
Aug 8, 14	0.4	47.7	0.3	59.4
Aug 15, 14	0.7	48.7	1.2	61.3
Aug 22, 14	2.0	51.7	1.7	64.1
Aug 29, 14	0.6	52.6	0.8	65.3
Sep 5, 14	0.2	52.9	0.2	65.6
Sep 12, 14	-0.9	51.6	-1.1	63.8
Sep 19, 14	1.7	54.2	1.3	65.9
Sep 26,14	-1.0	52.7	-1.4	63.6
Oct 3, 14	-0.6	51.8	-0.8	62.4
Oct 10, 14	-2.7	47.6	-3.1	57.3
Oct 17, 14	-1.0	46.2	-1.0	55.7
Oct 24, 14	2.6	50.0	4.1	62.1
Oct 31, 14	3.5	55.2	2.7	66.5
Nov 7, 14	1.1	56.8	0.7	67.6
Nov 14, 14	0.3	57.4	0.4	68.3
Nov 21,14	1.0	58.9	1.2	70.2
Nov 28, 14	0.1	59.1	0.2	70.6
Dec 5, 14	0.7	60.3	0.4	71.2
Dec 12, 14	-3.8	54.2	-3.5	65.2
Dec 19, 14	3.0	58.9	3.4	70.8
Dec 26, 2014	1.4	61.1	0.9	72.3
Jan 2, 2015	-1.2	59.2	-1.5	69.8
Jan 9, 15	-0.5	58.3	-0.7	68.7
Jan 16, 15	-1.3	56.3	-1.2	66.6
Jan 23, 15	0.9	57.7	1.6	69.3
Jan 30, 15	-2.9	53.2	-2.8	64.6
Feb 6, 15	3.8	59.1	3.0	69.6
Feb 13, 15	1.1	60.8	2.0	73.0
Feb 20, 15	0.7	61.9	0.6	74.1
Feb 27, 15	0.0	61.8	-0.3	73.6
Feb 6, 2015	-1.5	59.4	-1.6	70.9
Feb 13, 2015	-0.6	58.4	-0.9	69.4
Feb 20, 2015	2.1	61.8	2.7	73.9
Feb 27, 2015	-2.3	58.1	-2.2	70.0
Apr 03,2015	0.3	58.5	0.3	70.5
Apr 10,2015	1.7	61.2	1.7	73.4
Apr 17, 2015	-1.3	59.1	-1.0	71.7
Apr 24, 2015	1.4	61.4	1.8	74.7
May 1, 2015	-0.3	60.9	-0.4	73.9
May 8, 2015	0.9	62.3	0.4	74.6
May 15, 2015	0.4	63.1	0.3	75.1
May 22, 2015	-0.2	62.7	0.2	75.4
May 29, 2015	-1.2	60.7	-0.9	73.9
Jun 5, 2015	-0.9	59.3	-0.7	72.7
Jun 12, 2015	0.3	59.7	0.1	72.8
Jun 19, 2015	0.7	60.8	0.8	74.1
Jun 26, 2015	-0.4	60.2	-0.4	73.4
Jul 3, 2015	-1.2	58.2	-1.2	71.3
Jul 10, 2015	0.2	58.5	0.0	71.3
Jul 17, 2015	1.8	61.4	2.4	75.5
Jul 24, 2015	-2.9	56.8	-2.2	71.6
Jul 31, 2015	0.7	57.9	1.2	73.6
Aug 7, 2015	-1.8	55.0	-1.2	71.4
Aug 14, 2015	0.6	56.0	0.7	72.6
Aug 21, 2015	-5.8	46.9	-5.8	62.6
Aug 28, 2015	1.1	48.5	0.9	64.1
Sep 4, 2015	-3.2	43.7	-3.4	58.5
Sep 11, 2015	2.1	46.7	2.1	61.8
Sep 18, 2015	-0.3	46.2	-0.2	61.5
Sep 25, 2015	-0.4	45.6	-1.4	59.3
Oct 2, 2015	1.0	47.0	1.0	70.1
Oct 9, 2015	3.7	52.5	3.3	66.2
Oct 16, 2015	0.8	53.6	0.9	67.7
Oct 23, 2015	2.5	57.5	2.1	71.2
Oct 30, 2015	0.1	57.6	0.2	71.6
Nov 6, 2015	0.4	59.8	1.0	73.2
Nov 13, 2015	-3.7	53.9	-3.6	66.9
Nov 20, 2015	3.4	59.1	3.3	72.4
Nov 27, 2015	-0.1	58.8	0.0	72.4
Dec 4, 2015	0.3	59.3	0.1	72.6
Dec 11, 2015	-3.3	54.1	-3.8	66.0
Dec 18, 2015	-0.8	52.9	-0.3	65.5
Dec 23, 2015	2.5	56.6	2.8	70.0
Dec 31, 2015	-0.7	55.5	-0.8	68.6
Jan 08, 2016	-6.2	45.9	-6.0	58.6
Jan 15, 2016	-2.2	42.7	-2.2	55.1
Jan 22, 2016	0.7	43.6	1.4	57.3
Jan 29, 2016	2.3	47.0	1.7	60.1
Feb 05, 2016	-1.6	44.6	-3.1	55.1
Feb 12, 2016	-1.4	42.6	-0.8	53.9
Feb 19, 2016	2.6	46.3	2.8	58.2
Feb 26, 2016	1.5	48.5	1.6	60.7
Mar 04, 2016	2.2	51.8	2.7	65.0
Mar 11, 2016	1.2	53.6	1.1	66.8
Mar 18, 2016	2.3	57.1	1.4	69.1
Mar 25, 2016	-0.5	56.3	-0.7	68.0
Apr 01, 2016	1.6	58.8	1.8	71.0
Apr 08, 2016	-1.2	56.9	-1.2	68.9
Apr 15, 2016	1.8	59.7	1.6	71.7
Apr 22, 2016	0.6	60.7	0.5	72.6
Apr 29, 2016	-1.3	58.6	-1.3	70.4
May 6, 2016	-0.2	58.3	-0.4	69.7
May 13, 2016	-1.2	56.5	-0.5	68.9
May 20, 2016	-0.2	56.2	0.3	69.3
May 27, 2016	2.1	59.5	2.3	73.2
Jun 03, 2016	-0.4	58.9	0.0	73.2
Jun 10, 2016	0.3	59.4	-0.1	72.9
Jun 17, 2016	-1.1	57.7	-1.2	70.9
Jun 24, 2016	-1.6	55.3	-1.6	68.1
Jul 01, 2016	3.2	60.2	3.2	73.5
Jul 08, 2016	1.1	62.0	1.3	75.7
Jul 15, 2016	2.0	65.3	1.5	78.4
Jul 22, 2016	0.3	65.7	0.6	79.5
Jul 29, 2016	-0.7	64.5	-0.1	79.3
Aug 05, 2016	0.6	65.5	0.4	80.1
Aug 12, 2016	0.2	65.8	0.1	80.2
Aug 19, 2016	-0.1	65.6	0.0	80.2
Aug 26, 2016	-0.8	64.2	-0.7	79.0
Sep 02, 2016	0.5	65.0	0.5	79.9
Sep 09, 2016	-2.2	61.4	-2.4	75.6
Sep 16, 2016	0.2	61.7	0.5	76.5
Sep 23, 2016	0.8	63.0	1.2	78.6
Sep 30, 2016	0.3	63.4	0.2	78.9
Oct 07, 2016	-0.4	62.8	-0.7	77.7
Oct 14, 2016	-0.6	61.9	-1.0	76.0
Oct 21, 2016	0.0	61.9	0.4	87.3
Oct 28, 2016	0.1	62.1	-0.7	75.4
Nov 04, 2016	-1.5	59.6	-1.9	72.0
Nov 11, 2016	5.4	68.2	3.8	78.6
Nov 18, 2016	0.1	68.4	0.8	94.8
Nov 25, 2016	1.5	70.9	1.4	82.6
Dec 02, 2016	0.1	71.1	-1.0	80.8
Dec 09, 2016	3.1	76.3	3.1	86.4
Dec 16, 2016	0.4	77.1	-0.1	86.3
Dec 23, 2016	0.5	77.9	0.3	86.8
Dec 30, 2016	-0.9	76.4	-1.1	84.7
Jan 06, 2017	1.0	78.2	1.7	87.9
Jan 13, 2017	-0.4	77.5	-0.1	87.7
Jan 20, 2017	-0.3	76.9	-0.1	122.1
Jan 27, 2017	1.3	79.3	1.0	89.3
Feb 03, 2017	-0.1	79.1	0.1	89.5
Feb 10, 2017	1.0	80.9	0.8	91.1
Feb 17, 2017	1.7	84.1	1.5	94.0
Feb 24, 2017	1.0	85.8	0.7	95.3
Mar 03, 2017	0.9	87.5	0.7	96.6
Mar 10, 2017	-0.5	86.5	-0.4	95.8
Mar 17, 2017	0.1	86.7	0.2	96.2
Mar 24, 2017	-1.5	83.8	-1.4	93.4
Mar 31, 2017	0.3	84.4	0.8	94.9
Apr 07, 2017	0.0	84.3	-0.3	94.3
Apr 14, 2017	-1.0	82.5	-1.1	92.1
Apr 21, 2017	0.5	83.4	0.8	93.8
Apr 28, 2017	1.9	86.9	1.5	96.7
May 05, 2017	0.3	87.5	0.6	98.0
May 12, 2017	-0.5	86.5	-0.3	97.3
Mar 19, 2017	-0.4	85.7	-0.4	96.5
Mar 26, 2017	1.3	88.1	1.4	99.3
Jun 02, 2017	0.6	89.3	1.0	101.2
Jun 09, 2017	0.3	89.8	-0.3	100.6
Jun 16, 2017	0.5	90.8	0.1	100.7
Jun 23, 2017	0.0	90.9	0.2	101.2
Jun 30, 2017	-0.2	90.5	-0.6	99.9
Jul 07, 2017	0.3	91.1	0.1	100.1
Jul 14, 2017	1.0	93.1	1.4	102.9
Jul 21, 2017	-0.3	92.6	0.5	104.0
Jul 28, 2017	1.2	94.8	0.0	104.0
Aug 04, 2017	1.2	97.2	0.2	104.4
Aug 11. 2017	-1.1	95.1	-1.4	101.4
Aug 18, 2017	-0.8	93.4	-0.6	100.1
Aug 25, 2017	0.6	94.7	0.7	101.6
Sep 01, 2017	0.8	96.2	1.4	104.3
Sep 08, 2017	-0.9	94.5	-0.6	103.1
Sep 15, 2017	2.2	98.7	1.6	106.3
Sep 22, 2017	0.4	99.5	0.1	106.4
Sep 29, 2017	0.2	100.0	0.7	107.9
Oct 06, 2017	1.6	103.2	1.2	110.3
Oct 13, 2017	0.4	104.1	0.2	110.6
Oct 20, 2017	2.0	108.2	0.9	112.5
Oct 27, 2017	0.5	109.1	0.2	113.0
Nov 03, 2017	0.4	110.1	0.3	113.5
Nov 10, 2017	-0.5	109.0	-0.2	113.1
Nov 17, 2017	-0.3	108.5	-0.1	112.8
Nov 24, 2017	0.9	110.2	0.9	114.7
Dec 01, 2017	2.9	116.3	1.5	118.0
Dec 08, 2017	0.4	117.1	0.4	118.8
Dec 15, 2017	1.3	120.0	0.9	120.8
Dec 22, 2017	0.4	120.9	0.3	121.4
Dec 29, 2017	-0.1	120.6	-0.4	120.6
Jan 05, 2018	2.3	125.8	2.6	126.3
Jan 12, 2018	2.0	130.3	1.6	129.9
Jan 19, 2018	1.0	132.7	0.9	131.9

Source:

http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/mdc_us_stocks.html?mod=mdc_topnav_2_3014

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

Table VI-6, updated with every blog comment, shows that exchange rate valuations affect a large variety of countries, in fact, almost the entire world, in magnitudes that cause major problems for domestic monetary policy and trade flows. Dollar devaluation/fluctuation is expected to continue because of zero fed funds rate, expectations of rising inflation, large budget deficit of the federal government (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703907004576279321350926848.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection) and now near zero interest rates indefinitely but with interruptions caused by risk aversion events. The euro has devalued 30.1 percent relative to the US dollar from the high on Jul 15, 2008 to Jan 19, 2018. There are complex economic, financial and political effects of the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union or BREXIT after the referendum on Jun 23, 2016 (https://next.ft.com/eu-referendum for extensive coverage by the Financial Times). The British pound (GBP) devalued 0.2 percent from the trough of USD/₤1.388 on Jan 2, 2009 to USD/₤1.3853 on Jan 19, 2018 and devalued 44.8 percent from the high of USD/₤2.006 on Sep 22, 2008, exchange rate changes measuring ₤/USD. Such similar event occurred in the week of Sep 23, 2011 reversing the devaluation of the dollar in the form of sharp appreciation of the dollar relative to other currencies from all over the world including the offshore Chinese yuan market. The Bank of England reduced the Bank Rate to 0.25 percent on Aug 4, 2016, and announced new measures of quantitative easing

(http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2016/008.aspx). Column “Peak” in Table VI-6 shows exchange rates during the crisis year of 2008. There was a flight to safety in dollar-denominated government assets because of the arguments in favor of TARP (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). This is evident in various exchange rates that depreciated sharply against the dollar such as the South African rand (ZAR) at the peak of depreciation of ZAR 11.578/USD on Oct 22, 2008. Subsequently, the ZAR appreciated to the trough of ZAR 7.238/USD by Aug 15, 2010 but now depreciating 68.2 percent to ZAR 12.1745/USD on Jan 19, 2018, which is depreciation of 5.2 percent relative to Oct 22, 2008. An example from Asia is the Singapore Dollar (SGD) that depreciated at the peak of SGD 1.553/USD on Mar 3, 2009. The SGD depreciated by 13.2 percent to the trough of SGD 1.348/USD on Aug 9, 2010 but is now appreciating 2.0 percent at SGD 1.3207/USD on Jan 19, 2018 relative to the trough of depreciation but still stronger by 15.0 percent relative to the peak of depreciation on Mar 3, 2009. Another example is the Brazilian real (BRL) that depreciated at the peak to BRL 2.43/USD on Dec 5, 2008. The BRL appreciated 28.5 percent to the trough at BRL 1.737/USD on Apr 30, 2010, showing depreciation of 84.0 percent relative to the trough to BRL 3.1960/USD on Jan 19, 2018 but depreciating by 31.5 percent relative to the peak on Dec 5, 2008. At one point in 2011, the Brazilian real traded at BRL 1.55/USD and in the week of Sep 23 surpassed BRL 1.90/USD in intraday trading for depreciation of more than 20 percent. The Banco Central do Brasil (BCB), Brazil’s central bank, decreased its policy rate SELIC for ten consecutive meetings (http://www.bcb.gov.br/?INTEREST) of its monetary policy committee, COPOM. Brazil’s central bank reduced the SELIC rate at its most recent meeting (http://www.bcb.gov.br/en/#!/c/news/1843):

“211^th Meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee (COPOM) of the Central Bank of Brazil Press Release

12/06/2017

The COPOM unanimously decided to reduce the Selic rate by 0.5 percentage point, to 7.00 percent, without bias” (http://www.bcb.gov.br/en/#!/c/news/1843). The Banco Central do Brasil is also engaging in FX auctions (http://www.bcb.gov.br/en/#!/c/news/1828):

“BC announces FX auctions program 22/08/2013 6:44:00 PM

With the aim of providing FX ‘hedge” (protection) to the economic agents and liquidity to the FX market, the Banco Central do Brasil informs that a program of FX swap auctions and US dollar sale auctions with repurchase program will begin, as of Friday, August 23. This program will last, at least, until December 31, 2013. The swap auctions will occur every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, when US$500 million will be offered per day. On Fridays, a credit line of US$1 billion will be offered to the market, through sale auctions with repurchase agreement. If it is considered appropriate, the Banco Central do Brasil will carry out additional operations.”

Jeffrey T. Lewis, writing on “Brazil steps up battle to curb real’s rise,” on Mar 1, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203986604577255793224099580.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), analyzes new measures by Brazil to prevent further appreciation of its currency, including the extension of the tax on foreign capital for three years terms, subsequently broadened to five years, and intervention in the foreign exchange market by the central bank. Jeff Fick, writing on “Brazil shifts tack to woo wary investors,” on Jun 5, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578527000680111188.html), analyzes the lifting in the week of Jun 7, 2013, of the tax on foreign transactions designed in Oct 2010 to contain the flood of foreign capital into Brazil that overvalued its currency. Jeffrey T. Lewis, writing on “Brazil’s real closes weaker,” on Jun 14, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323734304578545680335302180.html), analyzes measures to contain accelerated depreciation such as currency swaps and the lifting of the 1 percent tax on exchange derivatives on Jun 12, 2013. Unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and quantitative easing creates trends such as the depreciation of the dollar followed by Table VI-6 but with abrupt reversals during risk aversion. The main effects of unconventional monetary policy are on valuations of risk financial assets and not necessarily on consumption and investment or aggregate demand.

Table VI-6, Exchange Rates

	Peak	Trough	∆% P/T	Jan 19, 2018	∆% T Jan 19, 2018	∆% P Jan 19, 2018
EUR USD	7/15 2008	6/7 2010		01/19/2018
Rate	1.59	1.192		1.2220
∆%			-33.4		2.4	-30.1
JPY USD	8/18 2008	9/15 2010		01/19/2018
Rate	110.19	83.07		110.79
∆%			24.6		-33.4	-0.5
CHF USD	11/21 2008	12/8 2009		01/19/2018
Rate	1.225	1.025		0.9644
∆%			16.3		5.9	21.3
USD GBP	7/15 2008	1/2/ 2009		01/19/2018
Rate	2.006	1.388		1.3853
∆%			-44.5		-0.2	-44.8
USD AUD	7/15 2008	10/27 2008		01/19/2018
Rate	1.0215	1.6639		0.7990
∆%			-62.9		24.8	-22.5
ZAR USD	10/22 2008	8/15 2010		01/19/2018
Rate	11.578	7.238		12.1745
∆%			37.5		-68.2	-5.2
SGD USD	3/3 2009	8/9 2010		01/19/2018
Rate	1.553	1.348		1.3207
∆%			13.2		2.0	15.0
HKD USD	8/15 2008	12/14 2009		01/19/2018
Rate	7.813	7.752		7.8163
∆%			0.8		-0.8	0.0
BRL USD	12/5 2008	4/30 2010		01/19/2018
Rate	2.43	1.737		3.1960
∆%			28.5		-84.0	-31.5
CZK USD	2/13 2009	8/6 2010		01/19/2018
Rate	22.19	18.693		20.774
∆%			15.7		-11.1	6.4
SEK USD	3/4 2009	8/9 2010		01/19/2018
Rate	9.313	7.108		8.0490
∆%			23.7		-13.2	13.6
CNY USD	7/20 2005	7/15 2008		01/19/2018
Rate	8.2765	6.8211		6.4058	6.1	22.6
∆%			17.6

Symbols: USD: US dollar; EUR: euro; JPY: Japanese yen; CHF: Swiss franc; GBP: UK pound; AUD: Australian dollar; ZAR: South African rand; SGD: Singapore dollar; HKD: Hong Kong dollar; BRL: Brazil real; CZK: Czech koruna; SEK: Swedish krona; CNY: Chinese yuan; P: peak; T: trough

Note: percentages calculated with currencies expressed in units of domestic currency per dollar; negative sign means devaluation and no sign 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 Jan 12, 2018. 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 depreciated 1.4 percent to USD 1.2130/EUR on Jan 12, 2018, 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 Jan 12, 2018

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=h10

Chart VI-3 provides three indexes of the US Dollar (USD) from Jan 4, 1995 to Jan 12, 2018.

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 Jul 7, 2016. Chart VI-3B provides the overnight fed funds rate and yields of the three-month constant maturity Treasury bill and the ten-year constant maturity Treasury from Jan 5, 2001 to Jan 18, 2018. 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 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.”

Fri May 1

Mon 4

Tue 5

Wed 6

Thu 7

Fri 8

DJIA

18024.06

-0.3%

1.0%

18070.40

0.3%

17928.20

-0.5%

-0.8%

17841.98

-1.0%

-0.5%

17924.06

-0.6%

0.5%

18191.11

0.9%

1.5%

Another hurdle of exit from zero interest rates is “competitive easing” that Professor Raghuram Rajan, former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, characterizes as disguised “competitive devaluation” (http://www.centralbanking.com/central-banking-journal/interview/2358995/raghuram-rajan-on-the-dangers-of-asset-prices-policy-spillovers-and-finance-in-india). The fed has been considering increasing interest rates. The European Central Bank (ECB) announced, on Mar 5, 2015, the beginning on Mar 9, 2015 of its quantitative easing program denominated as Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP), consisting of “combined monthly purchases of EUR 60 bn [billion] in public and private sector securities” (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/liq/html/pspp.en.html). Expectation of increasing interest rates in the US together with euro rates close to zero or negative cause revaluation of the dollar (or devaluation of the euro and of most currencies worldwide). US corporations suffer currency translation losses of their foreign transactions and investments (http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Pronouncement_C/SummaryPage&cid=900000010318) while the US becomes less competitive in world trade (Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. I (2008a), Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c)). The DJIA fell 1.5 percent on Mar 6, 2015 and the dollar revalued 2.2 percent from Mar 5 to Mar 6, 2015. The euro has devalued 30.1 percent relative to the dollar from the high on Jul 15, 2008 to Jan 19, 2018.

Fri 27 Feb

Mon 3/2

Tue 3/3

Wed 3/4

Thu 3/5

Fri 3/6

USD/ EUR

1.1197

1.6%

0.0%

1.1185

0.1%

1.1176

0.2%

0.1%

1.1081

1.0%

0.9%

1.1030

1.5%

0.5%

1.0843

3.2%

1.7%

Exchange rate volatility is increasing in response of “impatience” in financial markets with monetary policy guidance and measures:

Fri Mar 6

Mon 9

Tue 10

Wed 11

Thu 12

Fri 13

USD/ EUR

1.0843

3.2%

1.7%

1.0853

-0.1%

1.0700

1.3%

1.4%

1.0548

2.7%

1.4%

1.0637

1.9%

-0.8%

1.0497

3.2%

1.3%

Fri Mar 13

Mon 16

Tue 17

Wed 18

Thu 19

Fri 20

USD/ EUR

1.0497

3.2%

1.3%

1.0570

-0.7%

1.0598

-1.0%

-0.3%

1.0864

-3.5%

-2.5%

1.0661

-1.6%

1.9%

1.0821

-3.1%

-1.5%

Fri Apr 24

Mon 27

Tue 28

Wed 29

Thu 30

May Fri 1

USD/ EUR

1.0874

-0.6%

-0.4%

1.0891

-0.2%

1.0983

-1.0%

-0.8%

1.1130

-2.4%

-1.3%

1.1223

-3.2%

-0.8%

1.1199

-3.0%

0.2%

In a speech at Brown University on May 22, 2015, Chair Yellen stated (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150522a.htm):

The US dollar appreciated 3.8 percent relative to the euro in the week of May 22, 2015:

Fri May 15

Mon 18

Tue 19

Wed 20

Thu 21

Fri 22

USD/ EUR

1.1449

-2.2%

-0.3%

1.1317

1.2%

1.1150

2.6%

1.5%

1.1096

3.1%

0.5%

1.1113

2.9%

-0.2%

1.1015

3.8%

0.9%

The President of the European Central Bank (ECB), Mario Draghi, warned on Jun 3, 2015 that (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2015/html/is150603.en.html):

The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Janet L. Yellen, stated on Jul 10, 2015 that (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150710a.htm):

At the press conference after the meeting of the FOMC on Sep 17, 2015, Chair Yellen states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20150917.pdf 4):

Some equity markets fell on Fri Sep 18, 2015:

Fri Sep 11

Mon 14

Tue 15

Wed 16

Thu 17

Fri 18

DJIA

16433.09

2.1%

0.6%

16370.96

-0.4%

16599.85

1.0%

1.4%

16739.95

1.9%

0.8%

16674.74

1.5%

-0.4%

16384.58

-0.3%

-1.7%

Nikkei 225

18264.22

2.7%

-0.2%

17965.70

-1.6%

18026.48

-1.3%

0.3%

18171.60

-0.5%

0.8%

18432.27

0.9%

1.4%

18070.21

-1.1%

-2.0%

DAX

10123.56

0.9%

-0.9%

10131.74

0.1%

10188.13

0.6%

10227.21

1.0%

0.4%

10229.58

1.0%

0.0%

9916.16

-2.0%

-3.1%

· “The economic outlook, of course, is highly uncertain”

· “Considerable uncertainties also surround the outlook for economic activity”

· “Given the highly uncertain nature of the outlook…”

Fri Oct 16

Mon 19

Tue 20

Wed 21

Thu 22

Fri 23

USD/ EUR

1.1350

0.1%

0.3%

1.1327

0.2%

1.1348

0.0%

-0.2%

1.1340

0.1%

1.1110

2.1%

2.0%

1.1018

2.9%

0.8%

DJIA

17215.97

0.8%

0.4%

17230.54

0.1%

17217.11

0.0%

-0.1%

17168.61

-0.3%

17489.16

1.6%

1.9%

17646.70

2.5%

0.9%

Dow Global

2421.58

0.3%

0.6%

2414.33

-0.3%

2411.03

-0.4%

-0.1%

2411.27

-0.4%

0.0%

2434.79

0.5%

1.0%

2458.13

1.5%

1.0%

DJ Asia Pacific

1402.31

1.1%

0.3%

1398.80

-0.3%

1395.06

-0.5%

-0.3%

1402.68

0.0%

0.5%

1396.03

-0.4%

-0.5%

1415.50

0.9%

1.4%

Nikkei 225

18291.80

-0.8%

1.1%

18131.23

-0.9%

18207.15

-0.5%

0.4%

18554.28

1.4%

1.9%

18435.87

0.8%

-0.6%

18825.30

2.9%

2.1%

Shanghai

3391.35

6.5%

1.6%

3386.70

-0.1%

3425.33

1.0%

1.1%

3320.68

-2.1%

-3.1%

3368.74

-0.7%

1.4%

3412.43

0.6%

1.3%

DAX

10104.43

0.1%

0.4%

10164.31

0.6%

10147.68

0.4%

-0.2%

10238.10

1.3%

0.9%

10491.97

3.8%

2.5%

10794.54

6.8%

2.9%

Fri Oct 30

Mon 2

Tue 3

Wed 4

Thu 5

Fri 6

USD/ EUR

1.1007

0.1%

-0.3%

1.1016

-0.1%

1.0965

0.4%

0.5%

1.0867

1.3%

0.9%

1.0884

1.1%

-0.2%

1.0742

2.4%

1.3%

The release on Nov 18, 2015 of the minutes of the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) meeting held on Oct 28, 2015 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20151028.htm) states:

Fri Nov 13

Mon 16

Tue 17

Wed 18

Thu 19

Fri 20

USD/ EUR

1.0774

-0.3%

0.4%

1.0686

0.8%

1.0644

1.2%

0.4%

1.0660

1.1%

-0.2%

1.0735

0.4%

-0.7%

1.0647

1.2%

0.8%

DJIA

17245.24

-3.7%

-1.2%

17483.01

1.4%

17489.50

1.4%

0.0%

17737.16

2.9%

1.4%

17732.75

2.8%

0.0%

17823.81

3.4%

0.5%

DAX

10708.40

-2.5%

-0.7%

10713.23

0.0%

10971.04

2.5%

2.4%

10959.95

2.3%

-0.1%

11085.44

3.5%

1.1%

11119.83

3.8%

0.3%

Fri Nov 27

Mon 30

Tue 1

Wed 2

Thu 3

Fri 4

USD/ EUR

1.0594

0.5%

0.2%

1.0565

0.3%

1.0634

-0.4%

-0.7%

1.0616

-0.2%

0.2%

1.0941

-3.3%

-3.1%

1.0885

-2.7%

0.5%

DJIA

17798.49

-0.1%

17719.92

-0.4%

17888.35

0.5%

1.0%

17729.68

-0.4%

-0.9%

17477.67

-1.8%

-1.4%

17847.63

0.3%

2.1%

DAX

11293.76

1.6%

-0.2%

11382.23

0.8%

11261.24

-0.3%

-1.1%

11190.02

-0.9%

-0.6%

10789.24

-4.5%

-3.6%

10752.10

-4.8%

-0.3%

At the press conference following the meeting of the FOMC on Dec 16, 2015, Chair Yellen states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20151216.pdf page 8):

Fri Dec 11

Mon 14

Tue 15

Wed 16

Thu 17

Fri 18

USD/ EUR

1.0991

-1.0%

-0.4%

1.0993

0.0%

1.0932

0.5%

0.6%

1.0913

0.7%

0.2%

1.0827

1.5%

0.8%

1.0868

1.1%

-0.4%

DJIA

17265.21

-3.3%

-1.8%

17368.50

0.6%

17524.91

1.5%

0.9%

17749.09

2.8%

1.3%

17495.84

1.3%

-1.4%

17128.55

-0.8%

-2.1%

DAX

10340.06

-3.8%

-2.4%

10139.34

-1.9%

10450.38

-1.1%

3.1%

10469.26

1.2%

0.2%

10738.12

3.8%

2.6%

10608.19

2.6%

-1.2%

Fri 22

Mon 25

Tue 26

Wed 27

Thu 28

Fri 29

JPY/ USD

118.77

-1.5%

-0.9%

118.30

0.4%

118.42

0.3%

-0.1%

118.68

0.1%

-0.2%

118.82

0.0%

-0.1%

121.13

-2.0%

-1.9%

DJIA

16093.51

0.7%

1.3%

15885.22

-1.3%

16167.23

0.5%

1.8%

15944.46

-0.9%

-1.4%

16069.64

-0.1%

0.8%

16466.30

2.3%

2.5%

Nikkei

16958.53

-1.1%

5.9%

17110.91

0.9%

16708.90

-1.5%

-2.3%

17163.92

1.2%

2.7%

17041.45

0.5%

-0.7%

17518.30

3.3%

2.8%

Shanghai

2916.56

0.5%

1.3

2938.51

0.8%

2749.79

-5.7%

-6.4%

2735.56

-6.2%

-0.5%

2655.66

-8.9%

-2.9%

2737.60

-6.1%

3.1%

DAX

9764.88

2.3%

2.0%

9736.15

-0.3%

9822.75

0.6%

0.9%

9880.82

1.2%

0.6%

9639.59

-1.3%

-2.4%

9798.11

0.3%

1.6%

Sovereign Yields 2/12/16	Japan	Germany	USA
2 Year	-0.168	-0.498	0.694
10 Year	0.076	0.262	1.744

The dollar devalued relative to the euro and open stock markets traded lower after the announcement on Mar 10, 2016, but stocks rebounded on Mar 11:

Fri 4

Mon 7

Tue 8

Wed 9

Thu10

Fri 11

USD/ EUR

1.1006

-0.7%

-0.4%

1.1012

-0.1%

1.1013

-0.1%

0.0%

1.0999

0.1%

1.1182

-1.6%

-1.7%

1.1151

-1.3%

0.3%

DJIA

17006.77

2.2%

0.4%

17073.95

0.4%

16964.10

-0.3%

-0.6%

17000.36

0.0%

0.2%

16995.13

-0.1%

0.0%

17213.31

1.2%

1.3%

DAX

9824.17

3.3%

0.7%

9778.93

-0.5%

0.5%

9692.82

-1.3%

-0.9%

9723.09

-1.0%

0.3%

9498.15

-3.3%

-2.3%

9831.13

0.1%

3.5%

Real Disposable Personal Income	Real Personal Consumption Expenditures	Prices of Personal Consumption Expenditures	PCE Prices Excluding Food and Energy
∆%12M	∆%12M	∆%12M	∆%12M
6/2017	6/2017	6/2017	6/2017
1.2	2.4	1.4	1.5

Chart VI-3, US Dollar Currency Indexes, Jan 4, 1995- Jan 12, 2018

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=h10

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 Jul 7, 2016

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15

Chart VI-3B, US, Overnight Fed Funds Rate, Yield of Three-Month Treasury Constant Maturity and Yield of Ten-Year Treasury Constant Maturity, Jan 5, 2001 to Jan 18, 2017

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15

Chart VI-4 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the exchange rate of the US relative to the euro, or USD/EUR. During maintenance of the policy of zero fed funds rates the dollar appreciates in periods of significant risk aversion such as flight into US government obligations in late 2008 and early 2009 and in the various risks concerns generated by the European sovereign debt crisis.

Chart VI-4, US Dollars per Euro, 2014-2017

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/DataDownload/Chart.aspx?rel=H10&series=e85cfb140ce469e13bec458013262fa1&lastObs=780&from=&to=&filetype=csv&label=include&layout=seriescolumn&pp=Download&names=%7bH10/H10/RXI$US_N.B.EU%7d

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 Jan 12, 2018. 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 19.0535/USD on Jan 12, 2018.

Chart VI-4A, Mexican Peso (MXN) per US Dollar (USD), Nov 8, 1993 to Jan 12, 2018

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=h10

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 former 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 Jan 12, 2018. 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 63.6100/USD on Jan 12, 2018.

Chart VI-4B, Indian Rupee (INR) per US Dollar (USD), Jan 2, 1973 to Jan 12, 2018

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=h10

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 14, 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 111.2300/USD on Jan 12, 2018 for appreciation of 10.4 percent relative to JPY 124.0900/USD on Jun 29, 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- Jan 12, 2018

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=h10

The causes of the financial crisis and global recession were 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 3.2162/USD on Jan 12, 2018. 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 3.2162/USD on Jan 12, 2018 for depreciation of 109.2 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 Jan 12, 2018

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=h10

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 0.8400/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 on Sep 21, 2001 relative to Mar 3, 1999.

Chart VI-7, Brazilian Real (BRL) per US Dollar (USD), Jan 2, 1995 to Jan 12, 2018

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=h10

Table VI-7, updated with every blog comment, provides in the second column the yield at the close of market of the 10-year Treasury note on the date in the first column. The price in the third column is calculated with the coupon of 2.625 percent of the 10-year note current at the time of the second round of quantitative easing after Nov 3, 2010 and the final column “∆% 11/04/10” calculates the percentage change of the price on the date relative to that of 101.2573 at the close of market on Nov 4, 2010, one day after the decision on quantitative easing by the Fed on Nov 3, 2010. Prices with new coupons such as 2.0 percent in recent auctions (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/RI/OFAuctions?form=extended&cusip=912828RR3) are not comparable to prices in Table VI-7. The highest yield in the decade was 5.510 percent on May 1, 2001 that would result in a loss of principal of 22.9 percent relative to the price on Nov 4. Monetary policy has created a “duration trap” of bond prices. Duration is the percentage change in bond price resulting from a percentage change in yield or what economists call the yield elasticity of bond price. Duration is higher the lower the bond coupon and yield, all other things constant. This means that the price loss in a yield rise from low coupons and yields is much higher than with high coupons and yields. Intuitively, the higher coupon payments offset part of the price loss. Prices/yields of Treasury securities were affected by the combination of Fed purchases for its program of quantitative easing and by the flight to dollar-denominated assets because of geopolitical risks in the Middle East, subsequently by the tragic Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami and now again by the sovereign risk doubts in Europe and the growth recession in the US and the world. The yield of 2.638 percent at the close of market on Fri Jan 19, 2018 would be equivalent to price of 99.8864 in a hypothetical bond maturing in 10 years with coupon of 2.625 percent for price decrease of 1.4 percent relative to the price on Nov 4, 2010, one day after the decision on the second program of quantitative easing, as shown in the last row of Table VI-7. The price loss between Sep 7, 2012 and Sep 14, 2012 would have been 1.7 percent in just five trading days. The price loss between Jun 1, 2012 and Jun 8, 2012 would have been 1.6 percent, in just a week, and much higher with leverage of 10:1 as typical in Treasury positions. The price loss between Mar 9, 2012 and Mar 16, 2012 is 2.3 percent but much higher when using common leverage of 10:1. The price loss between Dec 28, 2012 and Jan 4, 2013 would have been 1.7 percent. These losses defy annualizing. If inflation accelerates, yields of Treasury securities may rise sharply. Yields are not observed without special yield-lowering effects such as the flight into dollars caused by the events in the Middle East, continuing purchases of Treasury securities by the Fed, the tragic Tōhoku or Great East Earthquake and Tsunami of Mar 11, 2011 affecting Japan, recurring fears on European sovereign credit issues and worldwide risk aversion in the week of Sep 30 caused by “let’s twist again” monetary policy. There is a difficult climb from the record federal deficit of 9.8 percent of GDP in 2009 and cumulative deficit of $5090 billion in four consecutive years of deficits exceeding one trillion dollars from 2009 to 2012, which is the worst fiscal performance since World War II (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/mediocre-cyclical-economic-growth-with.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/twenty-four-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/unresolved-us-balance-of-payments.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/proceeding-cautiously-in-reducing.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/monetary-policy-designed-on-measurable.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/fluctuating-financial-asset-valuations.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/irrational-exuberance-mediocre-cyclical.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/patience-on-interest-rate-increases.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/theory-and-reality-of-cyclical-slow.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/duration-dumping-and-peaking-valuations.html and earlier at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html and earlier Section IB at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/expanding-bank-cash-and-deposits-with.html). There is no subsequent jump of debt in US peacetime history as the one from 39.3 percent of GDP in 2008 to 65.9 percent of GDP in 2011, 70.4 percent in 2012, 72.6 percent in 2013, 74.2 percent in 2014, 73.3 percent in 2015 and 77.0 percent in 2016 (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/mediocre-cyclical-economic-growth-with.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/twenty-four-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/unresolved-us-balance-of-payments.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/proceeding-cautiously-in-reducing.html and earlier (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/weakening-equities-and-dollar.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/fluctuating-financial-asset-valuations.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/irrational-exuberance-mediocre-cyclical.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/patience-on-interest-rate-increases.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

On Jan 17, 2018, the line “Reserve Bank credit” in the Fed balance sheet stood at $4399 billion, or $4.4 trillion. The portfolio of long-term securities (“securities held outright”) for monetary policy of $4202 billion, or $4.2 trillion, consists of $2320 billion Treasury nominal notes and bonds, $108 billion of notes and bonds inflation-indexed, $4 billion Federal agency debt securities and $1770 billion mortgage-backed securities. Reserve balances deposited with Federal Reserve Banks reached $2252 billion or $2.3 trillion (https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab1). There is no simple exit of this trap created by the highest monetary policy accommodation in US history together with the highest deficits and debt in percent of GDP since World War II. Risk aversion from various sources, discussed in section III World Financial Turbulence, has been affecting financial markets for several months. The risk is that in a reversal of exposures because of increasing risk aversion that has been typical in this cyclical expansion of the economy yields of Treasury securities may back up sharply.

Table VI-7, Yield, Price and Percentage Change to November 4, 2010 of Ten-Year Treasury Note

Date	Yield	Price	∆% 11/04/10
05/01/01	5.510	78.0582	-22.9
06/10/03	3.112	95.8452	-5.3
06/12/07	5.297	79.4747	-21.5
12/19/08	2.213	104.4981	3.2
12/31/08	2.240	103.4295	2.1
03/19/09	2.605	100.1748	-1.1
06/09/09	3.862	89.8257	-11.3
10/07/09	3.182	95.2643	-5.9
11/27/09	3.197	95.1403	-6.0
12/31/09	3.835	90.0347	-11.1
02/09/10	3.646	91.5239	-9.6
03/04/10	3.605	91.8384	-9.3
04/05/10	3.986	88.8726	-12.2
08/31/10	2.473	101.3338	0.08
10/07/10	2.385	102.1224	0.8
10/28/10	2.658	99.7119	-1.5
11/04/10	2.481	101.2573	-
11/15/10	2.964	97.0867	-4.1
11/26/10	2.869	97.8932	-3.3
12/03/10	3.007	96.7241	-4.5
12/10/10	3.324	94.0982	-7.1
12/15/10	3.517	92.5427	-8.6
12/17/10	3.338	93.9842	-7.2
12/23/10	3.397	93.5051	-7.7
12/31/10	3.228	94.3923	-6.7
01/07/11	3.322	94.1146	-7.1
01/14/11	3.323	94.1064	-7.1
01/21/11	3.414	93.4687	-7.7
01/28/11	3.323	94.1064	-7.1
02/04/11	3.640	91.750	-9.4
02/11/11	3.643	91.5319	-9.6
02/18/11	3.582	92.0157	-9.1
02/25/11	3.414	93.3676	-7.8
03/04/11	3.494	92.7235	-8.4
03/11/11	3.401	93.4727	-7.7
03/18/11	3.273	94.5115	-6.7
03/25/11	3.435	93.1935	-7.9
04/01/11	3.445	93.1129	-8.0
04/08/11	3.576	92.0635	-9.1
04/15/11	3.411	93.3874	-7.8
04/22/11	3.402	93.4646	-7.7
04/29/11	3.290	94.3759	-6.8
05/06/11	3.147	95.5542	-5.6
05/13/11	3.173	95.3387	-5.8
05/20/11	3.146	95.5625	-5.6
05/27/11	3.068	96.2089	-4.9
06/03/11	2.990	96.8672	-4.3
06/10/11	2.973	97.0106	-4.2
06/17/11	2.937	97.3134	-3.9
06/24/11	2.872	97.8662	-3.3
07/01/11	3.186	95.2281	-5.9
07/08/11	3.022	96.5957	-4.6
07/15/11	2.905	97.5851	-3.6
07/22/11	2.964	97.0847	-4.1
07/29/11	2.795	98.5258	-2.7
08/05/11	2.566	100.5175	-0.7
08/12/11	2.249	103.3504	2.1
08/19/11	2.066	105.270	3.7
08/26/11	2.202	103.7781	2.5
09/02/11	1.992	105.7137	4.4
09/09/11	1.918	106.4055	5.1
09/16/11	2.053	101.5434	0.3
09/23/11	1.826	107.2727	5.9
09/30/11	1.912	106.4602	5.1
10/07/11	2.078	104.9161	3.6
10/14/11	2.251	103.3323	2.0
10/21/11	2.220	103.6141	2.3
10/28/11	2.326	102.6540	1.4
11/04/11	2.066	105.0270	3.7
11/11/11	2.057	105.1103	3.8
11/18/11	2.003	105.6113	4.3
11/25/11	1.964	105.9749	4.7
12/02/11	2.042	105.2492	3.9
12/09/11	2.065	105.0363	3.7
12/16/11	1.847	107.0741	5.7
12/23/11	2.027	105.3883	4.1
12/30/11	1.871	106.8476	5.5
01/06/12	1.957	106.0403	4.7
01/13/12	1.869	106.8664	5.5
01/20/12	2.026	105.3976	4.1
01/27/12	1.893	106.6404	5.3
02/03/12	1.923	106.3586	5.0
02/10/12	1.974	105.8815	4.6
02/17/12	2.000	105.6392	4.3
02/24/12	1.977	105.8535	4.5
03/02/12	1.977	105.8535	4.5
03/09/12	2.031	105.3512	4.0
03/16/12	2.294	102.9428	1.7
03/23/12	2.234	103.4867	2.2
03/30/12	2.214	103.6687	2.4
04/06/12	2.058	105.1010	3.8
04/13/12	1.987	105.7603	4.4
04/20/12	1.959	106.0216	4.7
04/27/12	1.931	106.2836	5.0
05/04/12	1.876	106.8004	5.5
05/11/12	1.845	107.0930	5.8
05/18/12	1.714	108.3393	7.0
05/25/12	1.738	108.1098	6.8
06/01/12	1.454	110.8618	9.5
06/08/12	1.635	109.0989	7.7
06/15/12	1.584	109.5924	8.2
06/22/12	1.676	108.7039	7.4
06/29/12	1.648	108.9734	7.6
07/06/12	1.548	109.9423	8.6
07/13/12	1.49	110.5086	9.1
07/20/12	1.459	110.8127	9.4
07/27/12	1.544	109.9812	8.6
08/03/12	1.569	109.7380	8.4
08/10/12	1.658	108.8771	7.5
08/17/12	1.814	107.3864	6.1
08/24/12	1.684	108.6270	7.3
08/31/12	1.543	109.9910	8.6
9/7/12	1.668	108.7808	7.4
9/14/12	1.863	106.9230	5.6
9/21/12	1.753	107.9666	6.6
9/28/12	1.631	109.1375	7.8
10/05/12	1.737	108.1193	6.8
10/12/12	1.663	108.8290	7.5
10/19/12	1.766	107.8426	6.5
10/26/12	1.748	108.0143	6.7
11/02/12	1.715	108.3297	7.0
11/09/12	1.614	109.3018	7.9
11/16/12	1.584	109.5924	8.2
11/23/12	1.691	108.5598	7.2
11/30/12	1.612	109.3211	7.9
12/7/12	1.625	109.1954	7.8
12/14/12	1.704	108.4351	7.1
12/21/12	1.770	107.8045	6.5
12/28/12	1.699	108.4831	7.1
1/4/13	1.898	106.5934	5.3
1/11/13	1.862	106.9324	5.6
1/18/13	1.840	107.1403	5.8
1/25/13	1.947	106.1338	4.8
2/1/13	2.024	105.4161	4.1
2/8/13	1.949	106.1151	4.8
2/15/13	2.007	105.5741	4.3
2/22/13	1.967	105.9469	4.6
3/1/13	1.842	107.1213	5.8
3/8/13	2.056	105.1195	3.8
3/15/13	1.992	105.7137	4.4
03/22/13	1.931	106.2836	5.0
03/29/13	1.847	107.0741	5.7
04/05/13	1.706	108.4160	7.1
04/12/13	1.719	108.2914	6.9
04/19/13	1.702	108.4543	7.1
04/26/13	1.663	108.8290	7.5
05/3/13	1.742	108.2436	6.9
05/10/13	1.896	106.6122	5.3
05/17/13	1.952	106.0870	4.8
05/24/13	2.009	105.5555	4.2
05/31/13	2.132	104.5015	3.2
06/07/13	2.174	104.0338	2.7
06/14/13	2.125	104.4831	3.2
06/21/13	2.542	100.7288	-0.5
06/28/13	2.486	101.2240	0.0
07/5/13	2.734	99.0519	-2.2
07/12/13	2.585	100.3505	-0.9
07/19/13	2.480	101.2772	0.0
07/26/13	2.565	100.5263	-0.7
08/2/13	2.597	100.2452	-1.0
8/9/13	2.579	100.4032	-0.8
8/16/13	2.829	98.2339	-3.0
8/23/13	2.818	98.3283	-2.9
8/30/13	2.784	98.6205	-2.6
9/6/13	2.941	97.2795	-3.9
9/13/13	2.890	97.7128	-3.5
9/20/13	2.734	99.0519	-2.2
9/27/13	2.626	99.9913	-1.3
10/4/13	2.645	99.8253	-1.4
10/11/13	2.688	99.4508	-1.8
10/18/13	2.588	100.3242	-0.9
10/25/13	2.507	101.0380	-0.2
11/1/13	2.622	100.0262	-1.2
11/8/13	2.750	98.9136	-2.3
11/15/13	2.704	99.3118	-1.9
11/22/13	2.746	98.9482	-2.3
11/29/13	2.743	98.9741	-2.3
12/6/13	2.858	97.9858	-3.2
12/13/13	2.865	97.9260	-3.3
12/20/13	2.891	97.7043	-3.5
12/27/13	3.004	96.7472	-4.5
1/3/2014	2.999	96.7893	-4.4
1/10/14	2.858	97.9858	-3.2
1/17/14	2.818	98.3283	-2.9
1/24/14	2.720	99.1731	-2.1
1/31/14	2.645	99.8253	-1.4
2/7/14	2.681	99.5116	-1.7
2/14/14	2.743	98.9741	-2.3
2/21/14	2.730	99.0865	-2.1
2/28/14	2.655	99.7380	-1.5
3/7/14	2.792	98.5516	-2.7
3/14/14	2.654	99.7468	-1.5
3/21/14	2.743	98.9741	-2.3
3/28/14	2.721	99.1645	-2.1
4/4/14	2.724	99.1385	-2.1
4/11/14	2.628	99.9738	-1.3
4/18/14	2.724	99.1385	-2.1
4/25/14	2.668	99.6248	-1.6
5/2/14	2.583	100.3681	-0.9
5/9/14	2.624	100.0088	-1.2
5/16/14	2.520	100.9320	-0.3
5/23/14	2.532	100.8171	-0.4
5/30/14	2.473	101.3394	0.1
6/6/2014	2.598	100.2364	-1.0
6/13/14	2.605	100.1751	-1.1
6/20/14	2.609	00.1400	-1.1
6/27/14	2.536	100.7818	-0.05
7/4/14	2.641	99.8602	-1.4
7/11/14	2.516	100.9584	-0.3
7/18/14	2.484	101.2417	0.0
7/25/14	2.464	101.4193	0.2
8/1/14	2.497	101.1265	-0.1
8/8/14	2.420	101.8111	0.5
8/15/14	2.341	102.5190	1.2
8/22/14	2.399	101.9988	0.7
8/29/14	2.342	102.5100	1.2
9/5/14	2.457	101.4815	0.2
9/12/14	2.606	10.1663	-1.1
9/19/14	2.576	100.4296	-0.8
9/26/14	2.527	100.8612	-0.4
10/03/14	2.437	101.6595	0.4
10/10/14	2.292	102.9609	1.7
10/17/14	2.197	103.8237	2.5
10/24/14	2.263	103.2234	1.9
10/31/14	2.332	102.6000	1.3
11/07/14	2.302	102.8705	1.6
11/14/14	2.319	102.7171	1.4
11/21/14	2.307	102.8254	1.5
11/28/14	2.165	104.1162	2.8
12/5/14	2.306	102.8344	1.6
12/12/14	2.086	104.8423	3.5
12/19/14	2.185	103.9333	2.6
12/26/14	2.248	103.3595	2.1
01/02/15	2.126	104.4739	3.2
01/09/15	1.973	105.8909	4.6
01/16/15	1.826	107.2727	5.9
01/23/15	1.804	107.4813	6.1
01/30/15	1.683	108.6367	7.3
02/06/15	1.941	106.1899	4.9
02/13/15	2.043	105.2399	3.9
02/20/15	2.119	104.5383	3.2
02/27/15	2.016	105.4905	4.2
03/06/15	2.238	103.4503	2.2
03/13/15	2.103	104.6856	3.4
03/20/15	1.927	106.3211	5.0
03/27/15	1.951	106.0964	4.8
04/02/15	1.911	106.4712	5.1
04/10/15	1.950	106.1057	4.8
04/17/15	1.864	106.9136	5.6
04/24/15	1.917	106.4149	5.1
05/01/15	2.118	104.5475	3.2
05/08/15	2.153	104.2261	2.9
05/15/15	2.136	104.3821	3.1
05/22/15	2.211	103.6961	2.4
05/29/15	2.092	104.7869	3.5
06/05/15	2.400	101.9898	0.7
06/12/15	2.388	102.0972	0.8
06/19/15	2.270	103.1599	1.9
06/26/15	2.473	101.3394	0.1
07/03/15	2.383	102.1420	0.9
07/10/15	2.414	101.8647	0.6
07/17/15	2.346	102.4740	1.2
07/24/15	2.268	103.1781	1.9
07/31/15	2.207	103.7325	2.4
08/07/15	2.164	104.1254	2.8
08/14/15	2.196	103.8328	2.5
08/21/15	2.052	105.1565	3.9
08/28/15	2.182	103.9607	2.7
09/04/15	2.127	104.4647	3.2
09/11/15	2.181	103.9698	2.7
09/18/15	2.131	104.4280	3.1
09/25/15	2.168	104.0887	2.8
10/02/15	1.988	105.7510	4.4
10/09/15	2.096	104.7501	3.4
10/16/15	2.024	105.4161	4.1
10/23/15	2.083	104.8700	3.6
10/30/15	2.150	104.2536	3.0
11/06/15	2.332	102.6000	1.3
11/13/15	2.278	103.0875	1.8
11/20/15	2.260	103.2506	2.0
11/27/15	2.223	103.5868	2.3
12/04/15	2.276	103.1056	1.8
12/11/15	2.134	104.4004	3.1
12/18/15	2.197	103.8237	2.5
12/25/15	2.242	103.4140	2.1
01/01/16	2.269	103.1690	1.9
01/08/16	2.135	104.3913	3.1
01/15/16	2.036	105.3048	4.0
01/22/15	2.048	105.1936	3.9
01/29/16	1.923	106.3586	5.0
02/05/16	1.848	107.0646	5.7
02/12/16	1.744	108.0525	6.7
02/19/16	1.748	108.0143	6.7
02/26/16	1.766	107.8426	6.5
03/04/16	1.884	106.7251	5.4
03/11/16	1.977	105.8535	4.5
03/18/16	1.871	106.8476	5.5
03/25/16	1.900	106.5746	5.3
04/01/16	1.795	107.5667	6.2
04/08/16	1.722	108.2627	6.9
04/15/16	1.752	107.9761	6.6
04/22/16	1.886	106.7063	5.4
04/29/16	1.820	107.3296	6.0
05/06/16	1.780	107.7094	6.4
05/13/16	1.706	108.4160	7.1
05/20/16	1.849	107.0552	5.7
05/27/16	1.851	107.0363	5.7
06/03/16	1.704	108.4351	7.1
06/10/16	1.638	109.0699	7.7
06/17/16	1.618	109.2631	7.9
06/24/16	1.575	109.6797	8.3
07/01/16	1.443	110.9700	9.6
07/08/16	1.366	111.7306	10.3
07/15/16	1.595	109.4857	8.1
07/22/16	1.567	109.7575	8.4
07/29/16	1.458	110.8225	9.4
08/05/16	1.583	109.6021	8.2
08/12/16	1.514	110.2739	8.9
08/19/16	1.580	109.6312	8.3
08/26/16	1.635	109.0989	7.7
09/02/16	1.597	109.4663	8.1
09/09/16	1.675	108.7135	7.4
09/16/16	1.699	108.4831	7.1
09/23/16	1.614	109.3018	7.9
09/30/16	1.602	109.4179	8.1
10/07/16	1.732	108.1671	6.8
10/14/16	1.791	107.6048	6.3
10/21/16	1.738	108.1098	6.8
10/28/16	1.843	107.1119	5.8
11/04/16	1.784	107.6173	6.3
11/11/16	2.152	104.2353	2.9
11/18/16	2.340	102.5280	1.3
11/25/16	2.358	102.3662	1.1
12/01/16	2.389	102.0883	0.8
12/09/16	2.466	101.4015	0.1
12/16/16	2.597	100.2452	-1.0
12/23/16	2.542	100.7289	-0.5
12/30/16	2.447	101.5705	0.3
01/06/17	2.416	101.8469	0.6
01/13/17	2.381	102.1599	0.9
01/20/17	2.466	101.4015	0.1
01/27/17	2.479	101.2861	0.0
02/03/17	2.488	101.2063	-0.1
02/10/17	2.408	101.9183	0.7
02/17/17	2.425	101.7665	0.5
02/24/17	2.314	102.7622	1.5
03/03/17	2.492	101.1708	-0.1
03/10/17	2.584	100.3593	-0.9
03/17/17	2.502	101.0823	-0.2
03/24/17	2.399	101.9888	0.7
03/31/17	2.396	102.0256	0.8
04/07/17	2.373	102.2316	1.0
04/14/17	2.234	103.4867	2.2
04/21/17	2.233	103.4958	2.2
04/28/17	2.286	103.0151	1.7
05/05/17	2.352	102.4201	1.1
05/12/17	2.333	102.5910	1.3
05/19/17	2.243	103.4049	2.1
05/26/17	2.247	103.3686	2.1
06/02/17	2.161	104.1528	2.9
06/09/17	2.199	103.8055	2.5
06/16/17	2.154	104.2170	2.9
06/23/17	2.144	104.3087	3.0
06/30/17	2.304	102.8525	1.6
07/07/17	2.393	102.0524	0.8
07/14/17	2.323	102.6811	1.4
07/21/17	2.233	103.4985	2.2
07/28/17	2.288	102.9970	1.7
08/04/17	2.268	103.1781	1.9
08/11/17	2.189	103.8968	2.6
08/18/17	2.196	103.8328	2.5
08/25/17	2.171	104.0613	2.8
09/01/17	2.157	101.2573	2.9
09/08/17	2.061	105.0733	3.8
09/15/17	2.201	103.7872	2.5
09/22/17	2.263	103.2234	1.9
09/29/17	2.327	102.6450	1.4
10/06/17	2.368	102.2765	1.0
10/13/17	2.278	103.0875	1.8
10/20/17	2.379	102.1778	0.9
10/27/17	2.423	101.7844	0.5
11/03/17	2.343	102.5010	1.2
11/10/17	2.404	101.9541	0.7
11/17/17	2.354	102.4021	1.1
11/24/17	3.343	102.5010	1.2
12/01/17	2.361	102.3393	1.1
12/08/17	2.383	102.1420	0.9
12/15/17	2.355	102.3932	1.1
12/22/17	2.487	101.2151	0.0
12/29/17	2.411	101.8915	0.6
01/05/18	2.475	101.3216	0.1
01/12/18	2.550	100.6583	-0.6
01/19/18	2.638	99.8864	-1.4

Note: price is calculated for an artificial 10-year note paying semi-annual coupon and maturing in ten years using the actual yields traded on the dates and the coupon of 2.625% on 11/04/10

Source:

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

Table VI-7B provides the maturity distribution and average length in months of marketable interest-bearing debt held by private investors from 2007 to Sep 2017. Total debt held by investors increased from $3635 billion in 2007 to $11,184 billion in fiscal year 2016 or by 207.7 percent and to $11,643 billion in Sep 2017 (fiscal year 2017) or increase by 220.3 percent. There are two concerns with the maturity distribution of US debt. (1) Growth of debt is moving total debt to the point of saturation in investors’ portfolio. In a new environment of risk appetite and nonzero fed funds rates with economic growth at historical trend of around 3 percent, yields on risk financial assets are likely to increase. Placement of new debt may require increasing interest rates in an environment of continuing placement of debt by the US Treasury without strong fiscal constraints. (2) Refinancing of maturing debt is likely to occur in an environment of higher interest rates, exerting pressure on future fiscal budgets. In Sep 2017 (fiscal year 2017), $3263 billion or 28.0 percent of outstanding debt held by investors matures in less than a year and $4746 billion or 40.8 percent of total debt matures in one to five years. Debt maturing in five years or less adds to $8009 billion or 68.8 percent of total outstanding debt held by investors of $11,643 billion. This historical episode may be remembered as one in which the US managed its government debt with short-dated instruments during record low long-dated yields and on the verge of fiscal pressures on all interest rates. This strategy maximizes over time interest payments on government debt by taxpayers that is precisely the opposite of the objective of sound debt management and taxpayer welfare.

Table VI-7B, Maturity Distribution and Average Length in Months of Marketable Interest-Bearing Public Debt Held by Private Investors, Billions of Dollars

End of Fiscal Year or Month	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Total*	3635	4745	6229	7676	7951	9040
<1 Year	1176	2042	2605	2480	2504	2897
1-5 Years	1310	1468	2075	2956	3085	3852
5-10 Years	678	719	995	1529	1544	1488
10-20 Years	292	352	351	341	309	271
>20 Years	178	163	204	371	510	533
Average Months	58	49	49	57	60	55

End of Fiscal Year or Month	2013	2014	2015	2016	Sep 2017 FY 2007
Total*	9518	9829	10379	11184	11643
<1 Year	2940	2932	2923	3321	3263
1-5 Years	4135	4217	4356	4478	4746
5-10 Years	1648	1814	2084	2219	2321
10-20 Years	231	223	184	168	152
>20 Years	565	644	832	998	1161
Average Months	55	56	61	63	66

*Amount Outstanding Privately Held

Source: United States Treasury. 2017 Dec. Treasury Bulletin. Washington, Dec

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/treasBulletin/current.htm

Table VI-7C provides additional information required for understanding the deficit/debt situation of the United States. The table is divided into four parts: Treasury budget in the 2018 fiscal year beginning on Oct 1, 2017 and ending on Sep 30, 2018; federal fiscal data for the years from 2009 to 2017; federal fiscal data for the years from 2005 to 2008; and Treasury debt held by the public from 2005 to 2016. Receipts increased 3.9 percent in the cumulative fiscal year 2018 ending in Dec 2017 relative to the cumulative in fiscal year 2017. Individual income taxes increased 10.8 percent relative to the same fiscal period a year earlier. Outlays increased 4.6 percent relative to a year earlier. There are also receipts, outlays, deficit and debt for fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. In fiscal year 2017, the deficit reached $666 billion or 3.5 percent of GDP. Outlays of 3,981 billion were 20.7 percent of GDP and receipts of $3,315 were 17.3 percent of GDP. It is quite difficult for the US to raise receipts above 18 percent of GDP. Total revenues of the US from 2009 to 2012 accumulate to $9021 billion, or $9.0 trillion, while expenditures or outlays accumulate to $14,115 billion, or $14.1 trillion, with the deficit accumulating to $5094 billion, or $5.1 trillion. Revenues decreased 6.5 percent from $9653 billion in the four years from 2005 to 2008 to $9021 billion in the years from 2009 to 2012. Decreasing revenues were caused by the global recession from IVQ2007 (Dec) to IIQ2009 (Jun) and by growth of only 2.2 percent on average in the cyclical expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2017. In contrast, the expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1991 was at the average annual growth rate of 3.8 percent and at 7.8 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983 (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/mediocre-cyclical-united-states_23.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html). Because of mediocre GDP growth, there are 22.6 million unemployed or underemployed in the United States for an effective unemployment/underemployment rate of 13.3 percent (Section I and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/twenty-one-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/11/unchanged-fomc-policy-rate-gradual.html). Weakness of growth and employment creation is analyzed in II Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation (Section II and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-lost-economic-cycle-of-global_25.html). In contrast with the decline of revenue, outlays or expenditures increased 30.2 percent from $10,839 billion, or $10.8 trillion, in the four years from 2005 to 2008, to $14,115 billion, or $14.1 trillion, in the four years from 2009 to 2012. Increase in expenditures by 30.2 percent while revenue declined by 6.5 percent caused the increase in the federal deficit from $1186 billion in 2005-2008 to $5094 billion in 2009-2012. Federal revenue was 14.9 percent of GDP on average in the years from 2009 to 2012, which is well below 17.4 percent of GDP on average from 1966 to 2016. Federal outlays were 23.3 percent of GDP on average from 2009 to 2012, which is well above 20.2 percent of GDP on average from 1966 to 2016. The lower part of Table VI-7C shows that debt held by the public swelled from $5803 billion in 2008 to $13,117 billion in 2015, by $7314 billion or 126.0 percent. Debt held by the public as percent of GDP or economic activity jumped from 39.3 percent in 2008 to 77.0 percent in 2016, which is well above the average of 39.0 percent from 1966 to 2016. The United States faces tough adjustment because growth is unlikely to recover, creating limits on what can be obtained by increasing revenues, while continuing stress of social programs restricts what can be obtained by reducing expenditures.

Table VI-7C, US, Treasury Budget in Fiscal Year to Date Million Dollars

Dec	Fiscal Year 2018	Fiscal Year 2017	∆%
Receipts	769,512	740,771	3.9
Outlays	994,467	950,607	4.6
Deficit	-224,955	-209,836
Individual Income Tax	390,847	352,837	10.8
Corporation Income Tax	62,052	75,371	-18.1
Social Insurance	186,318	181,010	2.9
	Receipts	Outlays	Deficit (-), Surplus (+)
$ Billions
Fiscal Year 2017	3,315	3,981	-666
% GDP	17.3	20.7	3.5
Fiscal Year 2016	3,267	3,852	-586
% GDP	17.7	20.9	3.2
Fiscal Year 2015	3,249	3,688	-439
% GDP	18.2	20.6	2.4
Fiscal Year 2014	3,021	3,506	-485
% GDP	17.5	20.4	2.8
Fiscal Year 2013	2,775	3,455	-680
% GDP	16.8	20.9	-4.1
Fiscal Year 2012	2,450	3,537	-1,087
% GDP	15.3	22.1	-6.8
Fiscal Year 2011	2,303	3,603	-1,300
% GDP	15.0	23.4	-8.5
Fiscal Year 2010	2,163	3,457	-1,294
% GDP	14.6	23.4	-8.7
Fiscal Year 2009	2,105	3,518	-1,413
% GDP	14.6	24.4	-9.8
Total 2009-2012	9,021	14,115	-5,094
Average % GDP 2009-2012	14.9	23.3	-8.5
Fiscal Year 2008	2,524	2,983	-459
% GDP	17.1	20.2	-3.1
Fiscal Year 2007	2,568	2,729	-161
% GDP	17.9	19.1	-1.1
Fiscal Year 2006	2,407	2,655	-248
% GDP	17.6	19.4	-1.8
Fiscal Year 2005	2,154	2,472	-318
% GDP	16.7	19.2	-2.5
Total 2005-2008	9,653	10,839	-1,186
Average % GDP 2005-2008	17.3	19.5	-2.1
Debt Held by the Public	Billions of Dollars	Percent of GDP
2005	4,592	35.6
2006	4,829	35.3
2007	5,035	35.2
2008	5,803	39.3
2009	7,545	52.3
2010	9,019	60.9
2011	10,128	65.9
2012	11,281	70.4
2013	11,983	72.6
2014	12,780	74.2
2015	13,117	73.3
2016	14,168.4	77.0

Source: http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mthTreasStmt_home.htm

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/sm0184.aspx

CBO, The budget and economic outlook: 2017-2027. Washington, DC, Jan 24, 2017 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52370 CBO, An update to the budget and economic outlook: 2016 to 2026. Washington, DC, Aug 23, 2016.

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#6

CBO (2012NovMBR). CBO (2011AugBEO); Office of Management and Budget 2011. Historical Tables. Budget of the US Government Fiscal Year 2011. Washington, DC: OMB; CBO. 2011JanBEO. Budget and Economic Outlook. Washington, DC, Jan. CBO. 2012AugBEO. Budget and Economic Outlook. Washington, DC, Aug 22. CBO. 2012Jan31. Historical budget data. Washington, DC, Jan 31. CBO. 2012NovCDR. Choices for deficit reduction. Washington, DC. Nov. CBO. 2013HBDFeb5. Historical budget data—February 2013 baseline projections. Washington, DC, Congressional Budget Office, Feb 5. CBO. 2013HBDFeb5. Historical budget data—February 2013 baseline projections. Washington, DC, Congressional Budget Office, Feb 5. CBO (2013Aug12). 2013AugHBD. Historical budget data—August 2013. Washington, DC, Congressional Budget Office, Aug. CBO, Historical Budget Data—February 2014, Washington, DC, Congressional Budget Office, Feb. CBO, Historical budget data—April 2014 release. Washington, DC, Congressional Budget Office, Apr. Congressional Budget Office, August 2014 baseline: an update to the budget and economic outlook: 2014 to 2024. Washington, DC, CBO, Aug 27, 2014. CBO, Monthly budget review: summary of fiscal year 2014. Washington, DC, Congressional Budget Office, Nov 10, 2014. CBO, The budget and economic outlook: 2015 to 2025. Washington, DC, Congressional Budget Office, Jan 26, 2015.

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#6

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget_economic_data#3 https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget_economic_data#2

Table VI-7E of the US, Congressional Budget Office, provides 40-Year averages of revenues and outlays before and after revision of the US National Income Accounts by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Table VI-7E, US, Congressional Budget Office, 40-Year Averages of Revenues and Outlays Before and After Update of the US National Income Accounts by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, % of GDP

	Before Update	After Update
Revenues
Individual Income Taxes	8.2	7.9
Social Insurance Taxes	6.2	6.0
Corporate Income Taxes	1.9	1.9
Other	1.6	1.6
Total Revenues	17.9	17.4
Outlays
Mandatory	10.2	9.9
Discretionary	8.6	8.4
Net Interest	2.2	2.2
Total Outlays	21.0	20.4
Deficit	-3.1	-3.0
Debt Held by the Public	39.2	38.0

Source: CBO (2013Aug12Av). Kim Kowaleski and Amber Marcellino.

Table VI-7F provides the long-term budget outlook of the CBO for 2017, 2027 and 2047. Revenues increase from 17.8 percent of GDP in 2017 to 19.6 percent in 2047. The growing stock of debt raises net interest spending from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2017 to 2.7 percent in 2027 and 6.2 percent 2047. Total spending increases from 20.7 percent of GDP in 2017 to 23.4 percent in 2027 and 29.4 percent in 2047. Federal debt held by the public rises to 150.0 percent of GDP in 2047. US fiscal in an unsustainable path with tough rigidities in spending and revenues.

Table IIA1-9, Congressional Budget Office, Long-term Budget Outlook, % of GDP

	2017	2027	2047
Revenues	17.8	18.4	19.6
Total Noninterest Spending	19.3	20.7	23.2
Social Security	4.9	6.0	6.3
Medicare	3.1	4.2	6.1
Medicaid, CHIP and Exchange Subsidies	2.4	2.7	3.2
Other	8.9	7.8	7.6
Net Interest	1.4	2.7	6.2
Total Spending	20.7	23.4	29.4
Revenues Minus Total Noninterest Spending	-1.5	-2.3	-3.6
Revenues Minus Total Spending	-2.9	-5.0	-9.8
Federal Debt Held by the Public	77.0	89.0	150.0

Source: CBO, The 2017 Long-term Budget Outlook. Washington, DC, Mar 30, 2017 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52480 https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#1

Recovery of growth rates of the US economy is critical to resolving fiscal sustainability. The revealing Chart VI-7LTBO of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provides alternative paths of the debt/GDP ratio according to assumptions on the growth of productivity, federal borrowing rates and rates of excess cost growth for federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid. The extended baseline projects debt/GDP of 150.0 percent in 2047. With lower rate of growth of productivity, the debt/GDP ratio would increase to 244 percent in 2047. The debt/GDP ratio would be much lower at 85 percent in 2047 with higher rate of productivity growth.

Chart VI-LTBO, Congressional Budget Office, Paths of Federal Debt under Alternative Rates of Productivity Growth, Labor Force Participation and Other Assumptions

Source: Congressional Budget Office, The 2016 long-term budget outlook. Washington, DC, Jul 12 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51580

Table VI-7G of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provides the data in Chart VI-LTBO. Economy policy must focus intensively on stimulating productivity growth that would recover the high rates of economic growth of the US over the long-term.

Table VI-7G, Congressional Budget Office, Long-term Budget Outlook, % of GDP, Alternative Paths of Federal Debt According to the Rate of Productivity Growth

		Given Different Labor Force Participation Rates, Productivity Growth Rates, Federal Borrowing Rates, and Rates of Excess Cost Growth for Federal Spending on Medicare and Medicaid^a
	Extended Baseline	Given Rates That Lower Projected Deficits	Given Rates That Raise Projected Deficits
2000	34
2001	31
2002	33
2003	35
2004	36
2005	36
2006	35
2007	35
2008	39
2009	52
2010	61
2011	66
2012	70
2013	73
2014	74
2015	73
2016	77
2017	77	77	77
2018	77	76	79
2019	78	76	80
2020	79	76	82
2021	80	76	84
2022	81	77	86
2023	83	77	89
2024	84	77	91
2025	85	77	94
2026	87	78	97
2027	89	78	101
2028	91	78	105
2029	93	79	108
2030	95	79	113
2031	97	79	117
2032	99	80	122
2033	102	80	127
2034	105	81	133
2035	107	81	138
2036	110	82	145
2037	113	82	151
2038	116	83	158
2039	120	83	165
2040	123	84	173
2041	127	84	182
2042	130	84	190
2043	134	85	200
2044	138	85	210
2045	142	85	220
2046	146	85	232
2047	150	85	244

Source: CBO, The 2017 Long-term Budget Outlook. Washington, DC, Mar 30, 2017 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52480 https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#1

Chart VI-8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the yield of the ten-year constant maturity Treasury and the overnight fed funds rate from Jan 2, 1962 to Jan 18, 2018. The yield of the ten-year constant maturity Treasury stood at 7.67 percent on Feb 16, 1977. A peak was reached at 15.21 percent on Oct 26, 1981 during the inflation control effort by the Fed. There is a second local peak in Chart VI-8 on May 3, 1984 at 13.94 percent followed by another local peak at 8.14 percent on Nov 21, 1994 during another inflation control effort (see Appendix I The Great Inflation). There was sharp reduction of the yields from 5.44 percent on Apr 1, 2002 until they reached a low point of 3.13 percent on Jun 13, 2003. The fed funds rate was 1.18 percent on Jun 23, 2003 and the ten-year yield 3.36 percent. Yields rose again to 4.89 percent on Jun 14, 2004 with the fed funds rate at 1.02 percent and the ten-year yield stood at 5.23 percent on Jul 5, 2006. At the onset of the financial crisis on Sep 17, 2007, the fed funds rate was 5.33 percent and the ten-year yield 4.48 percent. On Dec 26, 2008, the fed funds rate was 0.09 percent and the ten-year yield 2.16 percent. Yields declined sharply during the financial crisis, reaching 2.08 percent on Dec 18, 2008, lowered by higher prices originating in sharply increasing demand in the flight to the US dollar and obligations of the US government. Yields rose again to 4.01 percent on Apr 5, 2010 but collapsed to 2.41 percent on Oct 8, 2010 because of higher demand originating in the flight from the European sovereign risk event. During higher risk appetite, yields rose to 3.75 percent on Feb 8, 2011 and reached 2.62 percent on Jan 18, 2018 with the fed funds rate at 1.42 percent. Chart VI-8A provides the fed funds rate and the yield of the ten-year constant maturity Treasury from Jan 2, 2001 to Jan 18, 2018. The final data point for Jan 18, 2018, shows the fed funds rate at 1.42 percent and the yield of the ten-year constant maturity Treasury at 2.62 percent. There has been a trend of decline of yields with oscillations. During periods of risk aversion investors seek protection in obligations of the US government, causing decline in their yields. In an eventual resolution of international financial risks with higher economic growth, there could be the trauma of rising yields with significant capital losses in portfolios of government securities. The data in Table VI-7 in the text 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-8, US, Overnight Federal Funds Rate and Ten-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Yield, Jan 2, 1962 to Jan 18, 2018

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15

Chart VI-8A provides the fed funds rate and the yield of the ten-year constant maturity Treasury from Jan 2, 2001 to Jan 18, 2018. The final data point for Jan 18, 2018, shows the fed funds rate at 1.42 percent and the yield of the ten-year constant maturity Treasury at 2.62 percent. There has been a trend of decline of yields with oscillations. During periods of risk aversion investors seek protection in obligations of the US government, causing decline in their yields. In an eventual resolution of international financial risks with higher economic growth, there could be the trauma of rising yields with significant capital losses in portfolios of government securities. The data in Table VI-7 in the text 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-8A, US, Overnight Federal Funds Rate and Ten-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Yield, Jan 2, 2001 to Jan 18, 2018

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15

Chart VI-9 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides securities held outright by Federal Reserve banks from 2002 to 2017. The first data point in Chart VI-9 is the level for Dec 18, 2002 of $629,407 million and the final data point in Chart VI-9 is level of $4,221,749 million on Jan 17, 2018.

Chart VI-9, US, Securities Held Outright by Federal Reserve Banks, Wednesday Level, Dec 18, 2002 to Jan 17, 2018, USD Millions

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_fedsbalancesheet.htm

Chart VI-10 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the overnight Fed funds rate on business days from Jul 1, 1954 at 1.13 percent through Jan 10, 1979, at 9.91 percent per year, to Jan 18, 2018, at 1.42 percent per year. US recessions are in shaded areas according to the reference dates of the NBER (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html). In the Fed effort to control the “Great Inflation” of the 1970s (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 and Appendix I The Great Inflation; see Taylor 1993, 1997, 1998LB, 1999, 2012FP, 2012Mar27, 2012Mar28, 2012JMCB and http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html), the fed funds rate increased from 8.34 percent on Jan 3, 1979 to a high in Chart VI-10 of 22.36 percent per year on Jul 22, 1981 with collateral adverse effects in the form of impaired savings and loans associations in the United States, emerging market debt and money-center banks (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 72-7; Pelaez 1986, 1987). Another episode in Chart VI-10 is the increase in the fed funds rate from 3.15 percent on Jan 3, 1994, to 6.56 percent on Dec 21, 1994, which also had collateral effects in impairing emerging market debt in Mexico and Argentina and bank balance sheets in a world bust of fixed income markets during pursuit by central banks of non-existing inflation (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 113-5). Another interesting policy impulse is the reduction of the fed funds rate from 7.03 percent on Jul 3, 2000, to 1.00 percent on Jun 22, 2004, in pursuit of equally non-existing deflation (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 18-28, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 83-85), followed by increments of 25 basis points from Jun 2004 to Jun 2006, raising the fed funds rate to 5.25 percent on Jul 3, 2006 in Chart VI-10. 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 but 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 because of the penalty in the form of low interest rates and unsound credit decisions because 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). A final episode in Chart VI-10 is the reduction of the fed funds rate from 5.41 percent on Aug 9, 2007, to 2.97 percent on October 7, 2008, to 0.12 percent on Dec 5, 2008 and close to zero throughout a long period with the final point at 1.42 percent on Jan 18, 2018. Evidently, this behavior of policy would not have occurred had there been theory, measurements and forecasts to avoid these violent oscillations that are clearly detrimental to economic growth and prosperity without inflation. The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Janet L. Yellen, stated on Jul 10, 2015 that (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150710a.htm):

There is essentially the same view in the Testimony of Chair Yellen in delivering the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress on Jul 15, 2015 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20150715a.htm). The FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) raised the fed funds rate to ¼ to ½ percent at its meeting on Dec 16, 2015 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20151216a.htm).

It is a forecast mandate because of the lags in effect of monetary policy impulses on income and prices (Romer and Romer 2004). The intention is to reduce unemployment close to the “natural rate” (Friedman 1968, Phelps 1968) of around 5 percent and inflation at or below 2.0 percent. If forecasts were reasonably accurate, there would not be policy errors. A commonly analyzed risk of zero interest rates is the occurrence of unintended inflation that could precipitate an increase in interest rates similar to the Himalayan rise of the fed funds rate from 9.91 percent on Jan 10, 1979, at the beginning in Chart VI-10, to 22.36 percent on Jul 22, 1981. There is a less commonly analyzed risk of the development of a risk premium on Treasury securities because of the unsustainable Treasury deficit/debt of the United States (https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/mediocre-cyclical-economic-growth-with.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/twenty-four-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/12/rising-yields-and-dollar-revaluation.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/unresolved-us-balance-of-payments.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/proceeding-cautiously-in-reducing.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/weakening-equities-and-dollar.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/monetary-policy-designed-on-measurable.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/fluctuating-financial-asset-valuations.html and earlier (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/irrational-exuberance-mediocre-cyclical.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/patience-on-interest-rate-increases.html

and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html and earlier (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/theory-and-reality-of-cyclical-slow.html and earlier (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html). There is not a fiscal cliff or debt limit issue ahead but rather free fall into a fiscal abyss. The combination of the fiscal abyss with zero interest rates could trigger the risk premium on Treasury debt or Himalayan hike in interest rates.

Chart VI-10, US, Fed Funds Rate, Business Days, Jul 1, 1954 to Jan 18, 2018, Percent per Year

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15

Chart VI-11 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the fed funds rate and the prime bank loan rate in business days from Aug 4, 1955 to Jan 18, 2018. The overnight fed funds rate was 2.0 percent on Aug 4, 1955 and the bank prime rate 3.25 percent. The fed funds overnight rate is the rate charged by a depository institution with idle reserves deposited at a federal reserve bank to exchange its deposits overnight to another depository institution in need of reserves. In a sense, it is the marginal cost of funding for a bank in the United States, or the cost of a unit of additional funding. The fed funds rate is the rate charged by a bank to another bank in an uncollateralized overnight loan. The fed funds rate is the traditional policy rate or rate used to implement policy directives of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Thus, there should be an association between the fed funds rate or cost of funding of a bank and its prime lending rate. Such an association is verified in Chart VI-11 with the rates moving quite closely over time. On January 10, 1979, the fed funds rate was set at 9.91 percent and banks set their prime lending rate at 11.75 percent. 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 ¼ percent.” On Dec 14, 2016 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20161214a.htm), “the Committee decided to raise the target level for the federal funds rate to ½ to ¾ percent.” On Mar 15, 2017, “the Committee decided to raise the federal funds rate to ¾ to 1 percent (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20170315a.htm). The FOMC raised the fed funds rate to 1 to 1 ¼ percent at its meeting on Jun 14, 2017 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20170201a.htm). The FOM increased the fed funds rate to ¼ to 1½ percent on Dec 13, 2017 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20171213a.htm). The final segment of Chart VI-11 shows similar movement of the fed funds rate and the prime bank loan rate following the fixing of the fed funds rate to approximately zero. In the final data point of Chart VI-11 on Jan 18, 2018, the fed funds rate is 1.42 percent and the prime rate 4.50 percent.

Chart VI-11, US, Fed Funds Rate and Prime Bank Loan Rate, Business Days, Aug 4, 1955 to Jan 18, 2018, Percent per Year

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15

Lending has become more complex over time. The critical fact of current world financial markets is the combination of “unconventional” monetary policy with intermittent shocks of financial risk aversion. There are two interrelated unconventional monetary policies. First, unconventional monetary policy consists of (1) reducing short-term policy interest rates toward the “zero bound” such as fixing the fed funds rate at 0 to ¼ percent by decision of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) since Dec 16, 2008 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081216b.htm). Second, unconventional monetary policy also includes a battery of measures to also reduce long-term interest rates of government securities and asset-backed securities such as mortgage-backed securities. When inflation is low, the central bank lowers interest rates to stimulate aggregate demand in the economy, which consists of consumption and investment. When inflation is subdued and unemployment high, monetary policy would lower interest rates to stimulate aggregate demand, reducing unemployment. When interest rates decline to zero, unconventional monetary policy would consist of policies such as large-scale purchases of long-term securities to lower their yields. A major portion of credit in the economy is financed with long-term asset-backed securities. Loans for purchasing houses, automobiles and other consumer products are bundled in securities that in turn are sold to investors. Corporations borrow funds for investment by issuing corporate bonds. Loans to small businesses are also financed by bundling them in long-term bonds. Securities markets bridge the needs of higher returns by investors obtaining funds from savers that are channeled to consumers and business for consumption and investment. Lowering the yields of these long-term bonds could lower costs of financing purchases of consumer durables and investment by business. The essential mechanism of transmission from lower interest rates to increases in aggregate demand is portfolio rebalancing. Withdrawal of bonds in a specific maturity segment or directly in a bond category such as currently mortgage-backed securities causes reductions in yield that are equivalent to increases in the prices of the bonds. There can be secondary increases in purchases of those bonds in private portfolios in pursuit of their increasing prices. Lower yields translate into lower costs of buying homes and consumer durables such as automobiles and also lower costs of investment for business.

Monetary policy can lower short-term interest rates quite effectively. Lowering long-term yields is somewhat more difficult. The critical issue is that monetary policy cannot ensure that increasing credit at low interest cost increases consumption and investment. There is a large variety of possible allocation of funds at low interest rates from consumption and investment to multiple risk financial assets. Monetary policy does not control how investors will allocate asset categories. A critical financial practice is to borrow at low short-term interest rates to invest in high-risk, leveraged financial assets. Investors may increase in their portfolios asset categories such as equities, emerging market equities, high-yield bonds, currencies, commodity futures and options and multiple other risk financial assets including structured products. If there is risk appetite, the carry trade from zero interest rates to risk financial assets will consist of short positions at short-term interest rates (or borrowing) and short dollar assets with simultaneous long positions in high-risk, leveraged financial assets such as equities, commodities and high-yield bonds. Low interest rates may induce increases in valuations of risk financial assets that may fluctuate in accordance with perceptions of risk aversion by investors and the public. During periods of muted risk aversion, carry trades from zero interest rates to exposures in risk financial assets cause temporary waves of inflation that may foster instead of preventing financial instability (Section I and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/fomc-interest-rate-increase-planned.html and earlier https://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/dollar-devaluation-world-inflation.html). During periods of risk aversion such as fears of disruption of world financial markets and the global economy resulting from collapse of the European Monetary Union, carry trades are unwound with sharp deterioration of valuations of risk financial assets. More technical discussion is in IA Appendix: Transmission of Unconventional Monetary Policy at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html.

Chart VI-12 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the fed funds rate, prime bank loan rate and the yield of a corporate bond rated Baa by Moody’s. On Jan 10, 1979, the fed funds rate was fixed at 9.91 percent and banks fixed the prime loan rate at 11.75 percent. Reflecting differences in risk, the fed funds rate was 8.76 percent on Jan 2, 1986, the prime rate 9.50 percent and the Baa Corporate bond yield 11.38 percent. The yield of the Baa corporate bond collapsed toward the bank prime loan rate after the end of extreme risk aversion in the beginning of 2009. The final data point in Chart VI-12 is for Jul 7, 2016, with the fed funds rate at 0.40 percent, the bank prime rate at 3.50 percent and the yield of the Baa corporate bond at 4.19 percent. Empirical tests of the transmission of unconventional monetary policy to actual increases in consumption and investment or aggregate demand find major hurdles (see IA Appendix: Transmission of Unconventional Monetary Policy at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html).

Chart VI-12, US, Fed Funds Rate, Prime Bank Loan Rate and Yield of Moody’s Baa Corporate Bond, Business Days, Aug 4, 1955 to Jul 7, 2016, Percent per Year

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15

Chart VI-12A of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the overnight fed funds rate and the bank prime rate on business days from Jan 5, 2007 to Jan 18, 2018. There is a jump in the rates and yield with the increase in fed funds rates target range from 0 to ½ percent to ¼ to ½ percent on Dec 16, 2015 by the Federal Open Market Committee (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20151216a.htm), ½ to ¾ percent on Dec 14, 2016 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20161214a.htm) and ¾ to 1 percent on Mar 15, 2017 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20170315a.htm). The FOMC raised the fed funds rate to 1 to 1 ¼ percent at its meeting on Jun 14, 2017 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20170201a.htm). The FOM increased the fed funds rate to ¼ to 1½ percent on Dec 13, 2017 (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20171213a.htm). The prime rate stabilized together with the fed funds rate. The final data point on Jan 18, 2018 is 1.42 percent for the fed funds rate and 4.50 percent for the bank prime rate.

Chart VI-12A, US, Fed Funds Rate and Prime Bank Loan Rate, Business Days, Jan 5, 2007 to Jan 18, 2018, Percent per Year

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15

Chart VI-12B of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the fed funds rate and prime bank loan rate on business days from Jan 2, 2001 to Jan 18, 2018. The behavior over time is that of controlled interest rates. 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 final segment shows the repetition of this policy with minute increases in interest rates.

Chart VI-12B, US, Fed Funds Rate and Prime Bank Loan Rate, Business Days, Jan 2, 2001 to Jan 18, 2018, Percent per Year

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15

Interest rate risk is increasing in the US with amplifying fluctuations. Chart VI-13 of the Board of Governors provides the conventional mortgage rate for a fixed-rate 30-year mortgage. The rate stood at 5.87 percent on Jan 8, 2004, increasing to 6.79 percent on Jul 6, 2006. The rate bottomed at 3.35 percent on May 2, 2013. Fear of duration risk in longer maturities such as mortgage-backed securities caused continuing increases in the conventional mortgage rate that rose to 4.51 percent on Jul 11, 2013, 4.58 percent on Aug 22, 2013 and 3.42 percent on Oct 6, 2016, which is the last data point in Chart VI-13. The thirty-year mortgage rate was 3.99 percent on Jan 11, 2018 (http://www.freddiemac.com/finance/ http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/index.html). The current decline of yields is encouraging a surge in mortgage applications that could be reversed in a new increase. Shayndi Raice and Nick Timiraos, writing on “Banks cut as mortgage boom ends,” on Jan 16, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303754404579310940019239208), analyze the drop in mortgage applications to a 13-year low, as measured by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Nick Timiraos, writing on “Demand for home loans plunges,” on Apr 24, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304788404579522051733228402?mg=reno64-wsj), analyzes data in Inside Mortgage Finance that mortgage lending of $235 billion in IQ2014 is 58 percent lower than a year earlier and 23 percent below IVQ2013. Mortgage lending collapsed to the lowest level in 14 years. 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): “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.”

Chart VI-13, US, Conventional Mortgage Rate, Jan 8, 2004 to Oct 6, 2016

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15

Table IIB-8, US, Fed Funds Rate, Thirty Year Treasury Bond and Conventional Mortgage Rate, Monthly, Percent per Year, Dec 2012 to Jul 2017

	Fed Funds Rate	Yield of Thirty Year Constant Maturity	Conventional Mortgage Rate
2012-12	0.16	2.88	3.35
2013-01	0.14	3.08	3.41
2013-02	0.15	3.17	3.53
2013-03	0.14	3.16	3.57
2013-04	0.15	2.93	3.45
2013-05	0.11	3.11	3.54
2013-06	0.09	3.40	4.07
2013-07	0.09	3.61	4.37
2013-08	0.08	3.76	4.46
2013-09	0.08	3.79	4.49
2013-10	0.09	3.68	4.19
2013-11	0.08	3.80	4.26
2013-12	0.09	3.89	4.46
2014-01	0.07	3.77	4.43
2014-02	0.07	3.66	4.30
2014-03	0.08	3.62	4.34
2014-04	0.09	3.52	4.34
2014-05	0.09	3.39	4.19
2014-06	0.10	3.42	4.16
2014-07	0.09	3.33	4.13
2014-08	0.09	3.2	4.12
2014-09	0.09	3.26	4.16
2014-10	0.09	3.04	4.04
2014-11	0.09	3.04	4.00
2014-12	0.12	2.83	3.86
2015-01	0.11	2.46	3.67
2015-02	0.11	2.57	3.71
2015-03	0.11	2.63	3.77
2015-04	0.12	2.59	3.67
2015-05	0.12	2.96	3.84
2015-06	0.13	3.11	3.98
2015-07	0.13	3.07	4.05
2015-08	0.14	2.86	3.91
2015-09	0.14	2.95	3.89
2015-10	0.12	2.89	3.80
2015-11	0.12	3.03	3.94
2015-12	0.24	2.97	3.96
2016-01	0.34	2.86	3.87
2016-02	0.38	2.62	3.66
2016-03	0.36	2.68	3.69
2016-04	0.37	2.62	3.61
2016-05	0.37	2.63	3.60
2016-06	0.38	2.45	3.57
2016-07	0.39	2.23	3.44
2016-08	0.40	2.26	3.44
2016-09	0.40	2.35	3.46
2016-10	0.40	2.50	3.47
2016-11	0.41	2.86	3.77
2016-12	0.54	3.11	4.20
2017-01	0.65	3.02	4.15
2017-02	0.66	3.03	4.17
2017-03	0.79	3.08	4.20
2017-04	0.90	2.94	4.05
2017-05	0.91	2.96	4.01
2017-06	1.04	2.80	3.90
2017-07	1.15	2.88	3.97
2017-08	1.16	2.80	3.88
2017-09	1.15	2.78	3.81
2017-10	1.15	2.88	3.90
2017-11	1.16	2.80	3.92
2017-12	1.30	2,77	3.95

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/default.htm

http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.htm

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

CMP Associates Regulation Blog

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

Saturday, January 20, 2018

No comments:

Post a Comment