|
So much
disappointment in so many quarters over something so
expected. Go figure.
The
Federal Reserve ratified consensus expectations
yesterday when it lowered both its benchmark overnight
rate and discount rate by 25 basis points to 4.25
percent and 4.75 percent, respectively.
There
was an instantaneous outpouring of disappointment.
The
stock market was disappointed.
The TV
commentators were disappointed.
Economists were disappointed.
Money
managers were disappointed.
Even
money markets were disappointed with the cut.
And
yours truly was disappointed at the wave of
disappointment.
The only
people who weren’t disappointed but were surprised,
nonetheless, were bond investors, who sent Treasuries
soaring.
Almost
all of the 124 economists in a Bloomberg News survey had
anticipated a quarter-point cut. The futures markets
were on the same page.
Yet, the
Fed’s execution of this deed sparked a huge selloff in
the stock market and panoply of criticism from the
peanut gallery.
How to
explain the reaction?
“The
market was looking for ‘we feel your pain,’” says Jim
Bianco, president of Bianco Research, an independent
research firm in Chicago. “They were expecting something
else: something big on the discount rate, a special Y2K
facility” for those who can’t borrow from the Fed.
Creative
solutions
Bianco
says press stories in the last two weeks had heightened
expectations that “something else was coming,” that the
Fed would try to address elevated Libor rates, or the
rate at which banks borrow from one another overseas.
Libor (for London interbank-offered rate) serves as a
benchmark for many short-term loans, including
adjustable-rate mortgages.
The Fed
can pretty much put the overnight rate where it wants,
and Libor generally follows.
Not in
recent months. The funds rate is 100 basis points lower
than it was in September, yet three-month Libor has
fallen by only 25 basis points, reflecting a generalized
unwillingness to lend. At 86 basis points, the spread
between the two rates is the highest in seven years.
The TV
commentators said the Fed could have been more creative.
They didn’t say exactly what form that creativity would
take. Brandeis University economics professor Steve
Cecchetti, who admitted to being “a little
disappointed,” told Bloomberg TV the Fed should “try to
figure out how to get the funds to the banks that need
them the most.” (Maybe ask them?)
No
‘visibility’
Earlier
he had offered a concrete creative solution, suggesting
the Fed extend the term of discount-rate loans from 30
days to 90.
In all,
the sense was that the Fed should have done “something
big.” The 25/25 rate reductions didn’t cut the mustard.
The
other disappointment, based on what I heard on TV, was
the lack of “guidance.” This came from an equity guy,
who should know better. How can you provide guidance
when there’s no “visibility”?
Travel
back to early 2001 when that other bubble was going bust
and chief executives of technology companies talked
about the lack of visibility.
It’s not
that they couldn’t see clearly. It’s that what they saw
wasn’t so hot.
The Fed
is now releasing three-year forecasts for economic
growth, inflation and unemployment. Maybe investors
wanted a little more clarity of what lurks around the
next corner and less of a guess on how economic events
will unfold in 2010.
Open-door policy
The Fed
left the door open to further rate cuts, saying the
central bank would “act as needed” in light of the
“deterioration in financial-market conditions.”
That
door is always open, even when it was closed at the
conclusion of the last meeting on October 31 with a
statement saying the risks to the economy were balanced.
Maybe
all the disappointment was just a dose of reality
creeping in. Investors are looking for the magic bullet
that would make everything OK, encourage banks to lend
(a lower rate would help), heal the wounds in the
home-loan market, wipe away the accumulated debt of
consumers and put the economy back on track.
Alas,
there is no such tool in the Fed’s arsenal. My two cents
in the shoulda-woulda-coulda department is the Fed
should have been more aggressive, getting ahead of the
easing curve, and cut the funds rate by 50 basis points
and the discount rate by 75 to narrow the spread and
lessen the stigma (or increase the incentive of being
stigmatized).
Policymakers “could have put an end to this recession
discussion, which is a psychological thing right now,”
says Jim Glassman, senior US economist at JPMorgan Chase
& Co.
Credit
events tend to be a “slow grind,” he says, unlike an
old-fashioned inventory correction that is over when the
shelves are bare. The process is slow, painful and can
affect all sectors of the economy.
Financial markets are clearly anticipating more pain. |