Fed Officials Worry Interest Rates Will Go Up, Only to Come Back Down (JON HILSENRATH)
More than half of economists polled predict federal-funds rate back near zero within next five years
Federal Reserve officials are likely to raise their benchmark short-term interest rate from near zero Wednesday, expecting to slowly ratchet it higher to above 3% in three years.
But that’s if all goes as planned. Their big worry is they’ll end up right back at zero.
Any number of factors could force the Fed to reverse course and cut rates all over again: a shock to the U.S. economy from abroad, persistently low inflation, some new financial bubble bursting and slamming the economy, or lost momentum in a business cycle which, at 78 months, is already longer than 29 of the 33 expansions the U.S. economy has experienced since 1854.
Among 65 economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal this month, not all of whom responded, more than half said it was somewhat or very likely the Fed’s benchmark federal-funds rate would be back near zero within the next five years. Ten said the Fed might even push rates into negative territory, as the European Central Bank and others in Europe have done—meaning financial institutions have to pay to park their money with the central banks.
Traders in futures markets see lower interest rates in coming years than the Fed projects in part because they attach some probability to a return to zero. In December 2016, for example, the Fed projects a 1.375% fed-funds rate. Futures markets put it at 0.76%.
Among the worries of private economists is that no other central bank in the advanced world that has raised rates since the 2007-09 crisis has been able to sustain them at a higher level. That includes central banks in the eurozone, Sweden, Israel, Canada, South Korea and Australia.
“They effectively have had to undo what they have done,” said Susan Sterne, president of Economic Analysis Associates, an advisory firm specializing in tracking consumer behavior.
The Fed has never started raising rates so late in a business cycle. It has held the fed-funds rate near zero for seven years and hasn’t raised it in nearly a decade. Its decision to keep rates so low for so long was likely a factor that helped the economy grow enough to bring the jobless rate down to 5% last month from a recent peak of 10% in 2009. At the same time, waiting so long might mean the Fed is starting to lift rates at a point when the expansion itself is nearer to an end.
Ms. Sterne said the U.S. expansion is now at an advanced stage and consumers have satisfied pent-up demand for cars and other durable goods. She’s worried it doesn’t have engines for sustained growth. “I call it late-cycle,” she said.
Several factors have conspired to keep rates low. Inflation has run below the Fed’s 2% target for more than three years. In normal times the Fed would push rates up as an expansion strengthens to slow growth and tame upward pressures on consumer prices. With no signs of inflation, officials haven’t felt a need to follow that old game plan.
Moreover, officials believe the economy, in the wake of a debilitating financial crisis and restrained by an aging population and slowing worker-productivity growth, can’t bear rates as high as before. Its equilibrium rate—a hypothetical rate at which unemployment and inflation can be kept low and stable—has sunk below old norms, the thinking goes.
That means rates will remain relatively low even if all goes as planned. If a shock hits the economy and sends it back into recession, the Fed won’t have much room to cut rates to cushion the blow.
Among the risks to the economy are financial booms that could turn to busts. One is in commercial real estate. Another in junk bonds is already fizzling. Each of the past three expansions was accompanied by an asset price bust—residential real estate in 2007, tech stocks in 2001 and commercial real estate in the early 1990s.
Normally in a recession the Fed cuts rates to stimulate spending and investment. Between September 2007 and December 2008 it cut rates 5.25 percentage points. Between January 2001 and June 2003 the cut was 5.5 percentage points, while from July 1990 to September 1992 it was 5 percentage points.
If the Fed wants to reduce rates in response to the next shock, it will be back at zero very quickly and will have to turn to other measures to boost growth.
Fed officials worry a great deal about the risk. The small gap between zero and where officials see rates going “might increase the frequency of episodes in which policy makers would not be able to reduce the federal-funds rate enough to promote a strong economic recovery…in the aftermath of negative shocks,” they concluded at their October policy meeting, according to minutes of the meeting.
In short, the age of unconventional monetary policy begun by the 2007-09 financial crisis might not be ending.