The Fed’s decision to delay raising interest rates at its September
meeting, tied in part to concerns over China, unsettled investors,
leading some to conclude that not only was the world’s most powerful
rate setter hard to predict but that it was far less able to counter
changes in market sentiment.
In past years the Fed, whatever its other struggles in balancing
employment and inflation, has been a reliable power, dampening down
anxiety when markets become jumpy.
That reputation, won by its heroic efforts during and after the 2008
financial crisis, was predicated on the faith of investors that,
though economies are messy and don’t always respond directly to
policy, markets on the other hand will more or less do the Fed’s
bidding.
That was probably always naive, though as it proved time and again
to be a profitable strategy, the axiom among market participants was
“don’t fight the Fed”.
By acknowledging that it is being steered by opaque and often
bizarre events in China, the central bank tipped the weakness of its
own hand.
“We reckon that the Fed has lost control of risk sentiment,”
analysts at bank Societe Generale led by Vincent Chaigneau wrote in
a note to clients.
“Indeed, we argue that risk sentiment now has a strong impact on Fed
expectations, but the Fed itself has a limited impact on risk."
If true, and market prices appear to bear it out, this will mark not
only a significant change in global markets, but one which is, by
definition, self perpetuating.
Credit, at the bank or in the stock exchange, is no more than
belief. Once investors stop believing the Fed can inspire optimism,
the tendency will be towards pessimism. As the rest of the world is
a lot scarier and harder to predict than the U.S. central bank, the
implication may be higher risk premia and lower market prices.
Societe Generale notes that previous stress in the market has been
self-correcting, in part due to expectations that the Fed would keep
policy more generous for longer. That helped to support asset prices
when stress ensued, and also short-circuited that stress.
IT'S DIFFERENT THIS TIME
Yet the Fed’s decision to leave interest rates unchanged on
September 17 led to a selloff in global stock markets.
Similarly, when Fed chair Janet Yellen sounded more ready to raise
rates last week there was only a very temporary respite for
financial markets. So while it was upsetting to learn that they
wouldn’t, we didn’t feel much better when they said they probably
would after all.
[to top of second column] |
New York Federal Reserve President William Dudley, who usually has
quite a good touch with markets, illustrated the issue well when on
Monday this week he said that if the economy keeps to its current
trajectory there is a strong case for hiking before the end of 2015.
Stock markets sold off strongly on Monday, with the S&P 500 index
losing 2.5 percent, but it did not appear to be because people
suddenly became convinced that the Fed would indeed raise interest
rates.
Fed funds futures, derivatives which allow betting on policy rate
changes, fell on Monday and now predict only a 37 percent chance of
an increase by year’s end.
The market, therefore, is not listening to what the Fed is saying
but drawing its own conclusions based on what is happening
elsewhere. Dudley and Yellen may wish to appear that they are on
course, and in control, but that is now increasingly hard to square
with past policy decisions.
Far more likely that the stock market sold off not because it fears
a Fed hike but because it sees a growing threat to global economic
growth from China.
Chinese industrial company profits fell by 8.8 percent in August
compared to a year ago, the most since records began in 2011, as
demand dropped and prices fell, data showed on Monday. That news in
turn helped to fuel another 2.0 percent fall in the price of oil,
adding to unease on global markets.
China is the price maker and the Fed, facing diminished power is
more of a price taker, more acted upon than acting, and less
powerful than we’ve believed. Perhaps its policies are achieving
diminishing results. That will take some getting used to.
(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct
investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an
owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. You can email him at
jamessaft@jamessaft.com and find more columns at http://blogs.reuters.com/james-saft)
(James Saft)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |