What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?

Bloomberg2022-11-16

The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...

Source Link

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

147

Report

Comment（13）

MP88
·2022-11-16
Yup
Reply
Like
Report
pal22
·2022-11-16
👍
Reply
Like
Report
n86887
·2022-11-16
cool
Reply
2
Report
ZenInv
·2022-11-16
Then markets will crash
Reply
1
Report
Dragonbody
·2022-11-16
[Miser]
Reply
3
Report
Fold Replies
- Yao84:
  Ok
  2022-11-16
  Reply
  Report
Bodoh
·2022-11-16
Great
Reply
1
Report
Fold Replies
- Yappy:
  yes
  2022-11-16
  Reply
  Report
cctv1
·2022-11-16
Good
Reply
3
Report
Fold Replies
- cctv1:
  good
  2022-11-16
  Reply
  Report
kianhua84
·2022-11-16
Good
Reply
5
Report
Fold Replies
- kianhua84:
  ok
  2022-11-16
  Reply
  Report
Bobster
·2022-11-16
There will be a lot of blood
Reply
3
Report
Fold Replies
- Veldin:
  Ok
  2022-11-16
  Reply
  Report
- Kelvin_Qiu:
  [LOL] [Like]
  2022-11-16
  Reply
  Report
Arnoldy
·2022-11-16
L
Reply
3
Report
Fold Replies
- C1238:
  Ok
  2022-11-16
  Reply
  Report
EdwardKarchi
·2022-11-16
Like
Reply
7
Report
Fold Replies
- Desoupie:
  Ok
  2022-11-16
  Reply
  Report
- AndySZ:
  done.
  2022-11-16
  Reply
  Report
新加坡小新大漠孤烟直长河落日圆萧关逢候骑都护在燕然举头望明月低头思故乡渭城朝雨
·2022-11-16
[Miser] [Miser]
Reply
7
Report
Fold Replies
- 小虎投资123:
  hh
  2022-11-16
  Reply
  Report
- EdwardKarchi:
  Good
  2022-11-16
  Reply
  Report
ac1887
·2022-11-16
Good
Reply
2
Report

Most Discussed

7x24

All

Terms and Conditions·Privacy Policy

Company: TTMF Limited. Tech supported by Xiangshang Yixin.

Email：uservice@ttm.financial

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1123011603","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","media":"Bloomberg","content":"<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"lsy1584095487587","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":".SPX","symbol_name":"S&P 500 Index","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","article_id":"1123011603","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"lsy1584095487587","name":"Bloomberg"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"bloomberg.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"translate_title":"如果美联储不得不将利率提高到6%，该怎么办？","themeId":"","isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9},"content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","kind":null,"is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":9963381861,"gmtCreate":1668595092454,"gmtModify":1676538081874,"author":{"id":"3582798202671514","authorId":"3582798202671514","name":"MP88","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/98ab4cdb5a6f628d50eef8b5db5303aa","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3582798202671514","authorIdStr":"3582798202671514"},"htmlText":"Yup","listText":"Yup","text":"Yup","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963381861","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":9963380819,"gmtCreate":1668594030731,"gmtModify":1676538081685,"author":{"id":"3573639758582771","authorId":"3573639758582771","name":"pal22","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3573639758582771","authorIdStr":"3573639758582771"},"htmlText":"👍","listText":"👍","text":"👍","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963380819","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":9963334658,"gmtCreate":1668589755974,"gmtModify":1676538081019,"author":{"id":"4110119270548472","authorId":"4110119270548472","name":"n86887","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/c510165e512da25b8a7521d146874ef1","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"4110119270548472","authorIdStr":"4110119270548472"},"htmlText":"cool","listText":"cool","text":"cool","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963334658","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":9963334115,"gmtCreate":1668589744837,"gmtModify":1676538081013,"author":{"id":"4098783902581330","authorId":"4098783902581330","name":"ZenInv","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/033bd47e3df1977aaef462f53997e9f1","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"4098783902581330","authorIdStr":"4098783902581330"},"htmlText":"Then markets will crash","listText":"Then markets will crash","text":"Then markets will crash","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963334115","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":9963336061,"gmtCreate":1668588834754,"gmtModify":1676538080864,"author":{"id":"4109052217286120","authorId":"4109052217286120","name":"Dragonbody","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/8c619fa4bf1941f68f7764c4f6441991","vip":1,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"4109052217286120","authorIdStr":"4109052217286120"},"htmlText":"[Miser]&nbsp;","listText":"[Miser]&nbsp;","text":"[Miser]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963336061","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":104829859,"gmtCreate":1668598043454,"gmtModify":1668598056747,"authorId":3578997581123464,"author":{"id":3578997581123464,"idStr":"3578997581123464","authorId":3578997581123464,"name":"Yao84","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5e30432f9f4a2555514d757fdb9c4f0d","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493-1","templateUuid":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493","name":"Debut Tiger","description":"Join the tiger community for 500 days","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0e4d0ca1da0456dc7894c946d44bf9ab","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f2f65e8ce4cfaae8db2bea9b127f58b","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5948a31b6edf154422335b265235809","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.07.30","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":9963336061,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<span class=\"s1\">Ok</span>","text":"<span class=\"s1\">Ok</span>","html":"<span class=\"s1\">Ok</span>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":9963333999,"gmtCreate":1668588222812,"gmtModify":1676538080730,"author":{"id":"3559859558754319","authorId":"3559859558754319","name":"Bodoh","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/349218ea2852130ca86ce660b4aa2d59","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3559859558754319","authorIdStr":"3559859558754319"},"htmlText":"Great","listText":"Great","text":"Great","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963333999","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":104828198,"gmtCreate":1668588457883,"gmtModify":1668588470604,"authorId":3572077804076143,"author":{"id":3572077804076143,"idStr":"3572077804076143","authorId":3572077804076143,"name":"Yappy","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab4d89913ade03f15c782b99132ba22f","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03-2","templateUuid":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03","name":"Executive Tiger","description":"The transaction amount of the securities account reaches $300,000","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9d20b23f1b6335407f882bc5c2ad12c0","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ada3b4533518ace8404a3f6dd192bd29","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/177f283ba21d1c077054dac07f88f3bd","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.28","exceedPercentage":"80.19%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101},"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":9963333999,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<u>yes</u>","text":"<u>yes</u>","html":"<u>yes</u>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":9963396865,"gmtCreate":1668585554657,"gmtModify":1676538080339,"author":{"id":"4122358078997842","authorId":"4122358078997842","name":"cctv1","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/6c0d83746551578ac9624686119d76a1","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"4122358078997842","authorIdStr":"4122358078997842"},"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963396865","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":104827830,"gmtCreate":1668585562405,"gmtModify":1668585575043,"authorId":4122358078997842,"author":{"id":4122358078997842,"idStr":"4122358078997842","authorId":4122358078997842,"name":"cctv1","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/6c0d83746551578ac9624686119d76a1","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":9963396865,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<u>good</u>","text":"<u>good</u>","html":"<u>good</u>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":9963398724,"gmtCreate":1668585365468,"gmtModify":1676538080324,"author":{"id":"3574055938126700","authorId":"3574055938126700","name":"kianhua84","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3574055938126700","authorIdStr":"3574055938126700"},"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963398724","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":104827802,"gmtCreate":1668585369649,"gmtModify":1668585384487,"authorId":3574055938126700,"author":{"id":3574055938126700,"idStr":"3574055938126700","authorId":3574055938126700,"name":"kianhua84","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":9963398724,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<u>ok</u>","text":"<u>ok</u>","html":"<u>ok</u>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":9963391510,"gmtCreate":1668584934930,"gmtModify":1676538080277,"author":{"id":"4098498544462920","authorId":"4098498544462920","name":"Bobster","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/afe602d51a0833dfac995196382a7e18","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"4098498544462920","authorIdStr":"4098498544462920"},"htmlText":"There will be a lot of blood","listText":"There will be a lot of blood","text":"There will be a lot of blood","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963391510","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":104828120,"gmtCreate":1668587716093,"gmtModify":1668587732385,"authorId":3581838843201713,"author":{"id":3581838843201713,"idStr":"3581838843201713","authorId":3581838843201713,"name":"Veldin","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1066c001ce0c01a3b97656619c989986","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03-1","templateUuid":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03","name":"Boss Tiger","description":"The transaction amount of the securities account reaches $100,000","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c8dfc27c1ee0e25db1c93e9d0b641101","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f43908c142f8a33c78f5bdf0e2897488","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/82165ff19cb8a786e8919f92acee5213","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.07.14","exceedPercentage":"60.17%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101},"crmLevel":7,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":9963391510,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<span class=\"s1\">Ok</span>","text":"<span class=\"s1\">Ok</span>","html":"<span class=\"s1\">Ok</span>"},{"id":104828020,"gmtCreate":1668586849005,"gmtModify":1668586862045,"authorId":3581638828642415,"author":{"id":3581638828642415,"idStr":"3581638828642415","authorId":3581638828642415,"name":"Kelvin_Qiu","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/58df4d9e030a9766be7d0b65f5e798af","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03-1","templateUuid":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03","name":"Boss Tiger","description":"The transaction amount of the securities account reaches $100,000","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c8dfc27c1ee0e25db1c93e9d0b641101","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f43908c142f8a33c78f5bdf0e2897488","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/82165ff19cb8a786e8919f92acee5213","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.04.15","exceedPercentage":"60.14%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101},"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":9963391510,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"[LOL] [Like]","text":"[LOL] [Like]","html":"[LOL] [Like]"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":9963393809,"gmtCreate":1668584226602,"gmtModify":1676538080205,"author":{"id":"3577504972179170","authorId":"3577504972179170","name":"Arnoldy","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3bfdb559c890249bf261380cb2bd5721","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a3dee1aa3a3a3c1814833a4d3f8a5669","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3577504972179170","authorIdStr":"3577504972179170"},"htmlText":"L","listText":"L","text":"L","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963393809","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":104828134,"gmtCreate":1668587971070,"gmtModify":1668587984029,"authorId":4088591126250580,"author":{"id":4088591126250580,"idStr":"4088591126250580","authorId":4088591126250580,"name":"C1238","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1c3415ee92c7e6c23d07e6173daae4d7","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-1","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Elite Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 30","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab0f87127c854ce3191a752d57b46edc","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9835ce48b8c8743566d344ac7a7ba8c","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76754b53ce7a90019f132c1d2fbc698f","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2024.04.25","exceedPercentage":"60.25%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":9963393809,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<span class=\"s1\">Ok</span>","text":"<span class=\"s1\">Ok</span>","html":"<span class=\"s1\">Ok</span>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":9963302180,"gmtCreate":1668582025840,"gmtModify":1676538079852,"author":{"id":"3578819428738173","authorId":"3578819428738173","name":"EdwardKarchi","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8393250f23521cbb5d95b0a87f3f846f","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"idStr":"3578819428738173","authorIdStr":"3578819428738173"},"htmlText":"Like","listText":"Like","text":"Like","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963302180","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":104828165,"gmtCreate":1668588287968,"gmtModify":1668588303648,"authorId":4088779006345160,"author":{"id":4088779006345160,"idStr":"4088779006345160","authorId":4088779006345160,"name":"Desoupie","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/61605302726ca838436e74d61cb437ae","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03-3","templateUuid":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03","name":"President Tiger","description":"The transaction amount of the securities account reaches $1,000,000","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fbeac6bb240db7da8b972e5183d050ba","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/436cdf80292b99f0a992e78750ac4e3a","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/506a259a7b456f037592c3b23c779599","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.07.14","exceedPercentage":"93.07%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101},"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":9963302180,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<span class=\"s1\">Ok</span>","text":"<span class=\"s1\">Ok</span>","html":"<span class=\"s1\">Ok</span>"},{"id":104827502,"gmtCreate":1668582904587,"gmtModify":1668582918029,"authorId":3586739662443740,"author":{"id":3586739662443740,"idStr":"3586739662443740","authorId":3586739662443740,"name":"AndySZ","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/21f8cfa3b223aa381663c33b95af0d93","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":9963302180,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"done.","text":"done.","html":"done."}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":9963306391,"gmtCreate":1668581762513,"gmtModify":1676538079821,"author":{"id":"4097228630086560","authorId":"4097228630086560","name":"新加坡小新大漠孤烟直长河落日圆萧关逢候骑都护在燕然举头望明月低头思故乡渭城朝雨","avatar":"https://static.itradeup.com/news/ba19d4f9a7de9d48deb4c676a968482a","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f84859c65fc2d7681e28f6b8e9b0535a","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"4097228630086560","authorIdStr":"4097228630086560"},"htmlText":"[Miser]&nbsp;[Miser]&nbsp;","listText":"[Miser]&nbsp;[Miser]&nbsp;","text":"[Miser] [Miser]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963306391","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":104827728,"gmtCreate":1668584675976,"gmtModify":1668584689548,"authorId":3572736965372170,"author":{"id":3572736965372170,"idStr":"3572736965372170","authorId":3572736965372170,"name":"小虎投资123","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/306219307a94107db11a1de008b9af5f","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":9963306391,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<span class=\"s1\">hh</span>","text":"<span class=\"s1\">hh</span>","html":"<span class=\"s1\">hh</span>"},{"id":104827404,"gmtCreate":1668582036799,"gmtModify":1668582049614,"authorId":3578819428738173,"author":{"id":3578819428738173,"idStr":"3578819428738173","authorId":3578819428738173,"name":"EdwardKarchi","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8393250f23521cbb5d95b0a87f3f846f","vip":1,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"f00de38e20574ad1abf55a15966547c8-1","templateUuid":"f00de38e20574ad1abf55a15966547c8","name":"Average winning trade","description":"Top 50%","bigImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/f53cdecfbff6499d133bad354ae10ff1","smallImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/2554f84686bbcccc035b93fe29308e43","grayImgUrl":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/84c66bc70ac1cf09f4e89b1d4ca9d017","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":"https://www.tigerbrokers.com.sg/activity/market/2023/stock-contest?adcode=StockContest2023","hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2024.04.19","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":5200},"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":9963306391,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"<span class=\"s1\">Good</span>","text":"<span class=\"s1\">Good</span>","html":"<span class=\"s1\">Good</span>"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":9963308196,"gmtCreate":1668581314316,"gmtModify":1676538079741,"author":{"id":"3585352116267703","authorId":"3585352116267703","name":"ac1887","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a4f5865f79452e7da123e88ff35959e5","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"idStr":"3585352116267703","authorIdStr":"3585352116267703"},"htmlText":"Good&nbsp;","listText":"Good&nbsp;","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/9963308196","repostId":1123011603,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1123011603","pubTimestamp":1668580886,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1123011603?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2022-11-16 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1123011603","media":"Bloomberg","summary":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of th","content":"<html><head></head><body><p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.</p><p>Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.</p><p>There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.</p><p>At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.</p><p>The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.</p><p>What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”</p><p>Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f910a71785646a1bed891acc064ee370\" tg-width=\"745\" tg-height=\"550\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>What Lower Productivity Growth Would Bring</p><p>Broader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.</p><p>Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:</p><p>High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.</p><p>On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.</p><p>Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.</p><p>All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.</p><p>To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.</p><p>Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.</p><p>The Effect of Major Market Shocks</p><p>Bloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.</p><p>Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.</p><p>Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5fe17d1fa3c2cd0949089e9da449739e\" tg-width=\"747\" tg-height=\"557\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"/></p><p>Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.</p></body></html>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>What If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhat If the Fed Has to Take Rates Up to 6%?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2022-11-16 14:41 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-15/what-if-the-fed-has-to-take-rates-up-to-6","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1123011603","content_text":"The wild ride for the global economy and markets this year is in no small part the consequence of the growing recognition of the scale of the US inflation challenge and the extreme measures the Federal Reserve will be forced to take to bring prices under control. When the Fed began raising rates in March, markets were pricing in a terminal rate of just 2.8%. As of mid-November, that expectation has risen to 5%—matching the forecast Bloomberg Economics set out in July.Could they be forced to do even more? Absolutely. If the Fed is underestimating the natural rate of unemployment, or if the pandemic has resulted in a significant deterioration in productivity, a terminal rate of 6% could come into view.There are also risks in the other direction, even if they’re less likely. It would take a lot more than the shocks to date, but a prolonged period of market mayhem—of the sort seen after the UK’s mini-budget fiscal fumble in September—might be enough to persuade the Fed to halt at a lower rate.At its September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee’s dot plot showed a higher trajectory of rate hikes, despite a deterioration in the growth outlook. A simple explanation for this anomaly is that the committee’s estimate of u*—alternatively called NAIRU, or the unemployment rate associated with price stability—has risen from the traditional 4%.The Bloomberg Economics rule—a modification of the classic Taylor rule that captures the relationship between unemployment, inflation, and Fed policy—can be used to work out an estimate of where the FOMC now puts u*. The u* values that best fit the September dot plot are 4.4% in 2022, 4.3% in 2023 and 2024, and 4.0% in 2025. That suggests the FOMC sees u* as temporarily elevated and expects it to gradually fall back to the pre-pandemic norm in 2025.What if u* is even higher? A recent estimate by Fed staff put it in the 5%-to-6% range. Given the wrenching dislocations in labor markets that have resulted from the pandemic—with both companies and workers rethinking their priorities—that’s entirely plausible. Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has said the natural rate of unemployment has “moved up materially.”Holding the committee’s inflation forecast constant, a u* estimate of 5% would mean a terminal rate of 6%.What Lower Productivity Growth Would BringBroader macroeconomic factors, such as a slowdown in productivity growth, could also push up u*. If workers demand faster wage growth than what companies can earn from their output—either to compensate for higher inflation or simply because they have the bargaining power—the result is higher unemployment. That’s what happened in the 1970s, when productivity gains fell below wage growth.Mainstream economists appear to believe the pandemic won’t result in a repeat performance. That assumption ignores some hard-learned lessons from the 1970s that linked high inflation to lower productivity:High inflation means a sharp shift in relative prices. Businesses that have optimized their production processes on the assumption of stable input costs may find their old approaches obsolete or inefficient.On their balance sheets, companies charge themselves for property, machinery, and other capital stock based on the equivalent rental price. High inflation raises the rental price, discouraging investment.Uncertainty about inflation and central bank rates—as well as factors like geopolitics—adds an additional hurdle for companies making costly long-term investments. A project that looks profitable today might not be tomorrow if borrowing costs continue to rise.All of those factors that weighed on productivity growth in the 1970s are also present today, suggesting a high risk that potential growth may be downshifting from its already low pace before the Covid-19 pandemic.To gauge the impact of slower growth, we conducted the following experiment using FRB/US, the Fed’s workhorse model of the US economy: What happens if total factor productivity growth from 2022-25 is 0.5 percentage points lower than currently expected? That would correspond to a slowdown in gross domestic product from the current 1.8% to 1.3% by 2025.Lower potential growth would mean a more overheated economy and higher inflation. Assuming the Fed recognizes that and responds appropriately, FRB/US shows the federal funds rate would peak higher than the FOMC’s current baseline and stay higher for much longer. Our exercise shows that the Fed’s anticipated terminal rate would increase to 5% in 2023—considerably higher than the 4.6% suggested by September’s dot plot.The Effect of Major Market ShocksBloomberg Economics’ view is that the market is overestimating the risk that a recession would stay the Fed’s hand. We think Powell has learned the lesson of the 1970s, when—aiming to support growth—the central bank prematurely paused its rate-hike cycle even though inflation remained uncomfortably high, with disastrous results. We expect the Fed to hold rates at our estimated 5% terminal rate through a US downturn in the second half of 2023.Still, it’s not hard to identify significant risks on the horizon, from a collapse in US house prices and spillovers from the UK market turmoil, to the drag from a looming recession in Europe, to a hard landing in China. The Fed has shown time and again it’s willing to pause rate increases if the data warrant. In the 2013 European debt crisis and the 2015 China market meltdown, for example, the Fed delayed tightening because of turmoil from abroad. That could happen again.Using SHOK—our in-house model of the US economy—we simulate a scenario where the US is hit by a combination of weaker global demand and increased financial turbulence, resulting in a spike in the VIX, wider credit spreads, a stronger dollar, and reduced exports. If that happens, that weaker demand will lower inflation and the Fed could get away with slightly less tightening than currently anticipated—with the fed funds rate at 4.1% in 2023 instead of 4.6%Officials at the central bank have recently shown a rare unanimity about the need to bring fed funds rates to the level indicated in the dot plot. Yet there’s growing criticism by analysts and market participants that the Fed’s preferred path is excessive. An alternative perspective is that the FOMC’s projection for fed funds rates is by no means excessively hawkish, and that various labor market characteristics suggest still more upside.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":147,"commentSize":13,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":4,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}