Economists explain why Fed's taper could spark market meltdown
WASHINGTON — Last summer, the markets went wild amid speculation that the Federal Reserve was planning to dial back purchases of Treasury bonds. Bond yields spiked, and stocks fell. But then things calmed down. And when the Fed ultimately did take action, the “taper” went off without a hitch.
Now a major paper by a quartet of top economists suggests that confidence in the Fed's ability to taper without causing market chaos may be misplaced.
The paper, presented on Friday at the Monetary Policy Forum in New York, argues that complex financial instruments, such as the ones during the 2008 crisis, are not what cause a panic. Rather, panics can occur when good ol' money managers get caught up in a herd mentality.
The economists — Michael Feroli, Anil Kashyap, Kermit Schoenholtz and Hyun Song Shin — say that as the Fed continues to taper and prepares to raise interest rates, probably in late 2015, the end of easy money could set off another panic.
“Stimulus is not a free lunch, and it comes with a potential for macroeconomic disruptions when the policy is lifted,” they write.
The paper uses the “taper tantrum” of 2013 as a case study. The Fed had been buying $85 billion in long-term bonds each month to stimulate the economy. But several top Fed officials said in public remarks that the central bank could soon begin to scale back the purchases, triggering fears that years of easy-money policies were coming to an end.
The bond market freaked, sending the yield on the 10-year Treasury spiking to 3 percent. That rippled into the economy as mortgage rates shot up, threatening the recovery in the housing market.
The Fed lurched into damage-control mode, reminding investors that reducing the quantity of monthly bond purchases was not like raising interest rates. The Fed quickly seemed to contain the situation, and ever since, conventional wisdom has been that the Fed and the markets were speaking the same language.
The new paper suggests that this may not be so.
During the “taper tantrum,” then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke blamed some of the sell-off on speculative, highly leveraged traders who had to rush to cover positions. And that was a good thing, he said, because it got rid of some of the “froth” in the markets.
But the study showed that much of the volatility came from vanilla fund managers scrambling for the exits. It wasn't just a small group of speculators who were out over their skis; it was the managers of pensions and mutual funds. No one wanted to be the last man standing in a big sell-off.
Feroli and the other economists think of market responses like this as being a potential problem as the Fed continues to taper and then prepares to increase interest rates in a few years.
The longer the Fed waits to exit, the economists say, the more risk there is. For example, the Fed is boosting the economy through guidance that interest rates will stay low for a long time. But officials can't control how the market will react when the central bank relaxes that commitment.
The trade-off is “between more stimulus today at the expense of a more challenging and disruptive policy exit in the future,” the authors conclude.
What is a central bank to do? The paper is short on policy prescriptions.
The authors say the Fed should consider the “taper tantrum” to be a warning that the road to normal policy could be rockier than expected.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Dusty Atlantic Ocean thwarts tropical storms
- Clintons hauled in $139M in past 8 years
- Planned Parenthood recordings release halted by judge
- Baltimore slayings climb to level unseen in decades
- Analysts expect French laboratory will be able to provide details from examination of jet part
- Amid 4-year drought, fears rise of trees dying, falling in California
- Fires’ fury unabated in California
- Despite U.S. dollars and bombs, effort failing to squash ISIS
- Suspect in South Carolina church shooting wants to plead guilty to hate crimes, attorney says
- Global lion population falling primarily because of loss of habitat, experts say
- Feds eye use of federal dollars for ads for for-profit colleges