|
Forget about the secrecy, the mystery, the intrigue...since last
summer, the Fed has been letting it all hang out. In fact, the Fed has told us
exactly what they were going to do. Get to a neutral policy on rates before the
Greenspan era ends in January of 2006.
So what's a neutral policy, you ask?
That is where the Fed Funds Rate equals the rate of inflation, plus 1.5%.
With inflation presently around 2.5%, the Fed Funds Rate (FFR) should be around
4% for the Fed to get to neutral. Right now, the FFR is at 3%, a full 2% above
where it was in June of 2004. So the Fed will continue to raise rates at a
self-proclaimed "measured pace" until the FFR is around 4%. The term "measured
pace" tells us to look for these hikes in ¼% increments, and for them to happen
at the Fed meetings, not as surprise moves.
Then what's the deal with home loan rates?
The Fed has hiked 8 times and tripled the FFR since June of 2004, but home
loan rates have dropped by 3/4% during the same period. This clearly
demonstrates that the Fed does not control long-term or home loan rates. The Fed
controls overnight or very short-term rates that banks charge each other for
funds. And the banks do use this FFR to determine their Prime Lending Rate,
often used to base auto loans, credit lines and Home Equity loans upon.
On the other hand, longer-term investors that hold fixed return Bonds such as
fixed rate home loans, are interested in how the value or buying power of the
fixed payment return will hold up over time. So if inflation is moving higher,
the Bonds fixed return erodes. Why? Simply because inflation means it will cost
more down the road to buy the very same things they could today for less. This
will cause the investor to require a higher rate on future transactions to
compensate them for the erosion in buying power caused by inflation. If
inflation moves higher, so will long-term rates.
And when the pace of inflation declines, long-term rates tend to decline as
well. This is because the buying power of the fixed payment stays stronger
longer. Now here's where it gets interesting...a Fed hike can slow inflation,
which can actually help reduce long-term rates. This is exactly what has
happened since June of '04.
So why is this being referred to as a "conundrum"...don't they know
this stuff?
Sure, but because there is no historical precedent for what is currently
taking place with interest rates, many are left scratching their heads. But the
discussion above should clear things up. And as for the lack of historical
precedent, the answer is also clear. In the past, the Fed raised rates to react
to inflation, but this time the Fed is raising rates in anticipation of
inflation.
But why? With no real inflation problem, why the rush to juice rates
higher?
Yet another simple and logical explanation...the Fed is "reloading". The
primary way the Fed can heat up or cool down the economy is with changes to the
Fed Funds Rate. When the US economy went into a decline in 2001, the Fed cut the
FFR 11 times in 11 months, from 6.5% to 1.75%, with 8 of the cuts by ½%. The
swift move by the Fed made the recession one of the shortest in history. They
were able to quickly repair the US economy because they had the ammunition to do
it. If the US economy were to stumble when the FFR is already very low, the Fed
would have a far more difficult time stimulating the economy, as there is
nowhere to cut lower to.
The Fed is very smart. A 3.5 to 4% FFR gives the Fed some firepower to
jump-start the economy if it slows or if an unfortunate event were to take
place. This target rate is also a good level to keep inflation at bay if the
economy were to pick up steam. The Fed is trying to find a "Goldilocks-approved"
level for the FFR...and so far appear to be doing a good
job. |