Question of the Day: What is the Fed’s Real Dual Mandate?

Should the Fed Reverse Direction?

Michael Lebowitz commented on San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly’s comment “High inflation numbers, in my opinion, do not indicate that the Fed should reverse direction.” 

San Francisco Fed’s Daly: Economy Doing Better Than Expected

I cannot find the precise quote listed above but I have no doubt Daly said that or something very close. 

I did find this: San Francisco Fed’s Daly Says Economy Doing Better Than Expected.

In an interview this week with The Associated Press, Mary Daly, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, offered up her own perspective.

“It is appropriate to consider tapering asset purchases later this year or early next year,” she said. “I really see the economy as being able to start functioning more and more on its own, which means we can withdraw a little bit of our accommodation.”

Yet she remains cautious about pulling back on the central bank’s support, noting that “we’re far from full employment,” one of the Fed’s central goals.

On Wednesday, Robert Kaplan, head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, told Bloomberg News that he favored starting to reduce those purchases “sooner rather than later.”

“If we take our foot off the accelerator gently now,” Kaplan said, “we’ll have more flexibility down the road to avoid more abrupt action or severe actions in the future.”

James Bullard, president of the St. Louis Fed, and Raphael Bostic, head of the Atlanta Fed, have expressed support for raising the Fed’s short-term rate next year — well before Fed policymakers as a whole have forecast that they will do so.

Since December, the Fed’s official stance has been that it needs to see “substantial further progress” toward its dual goals of full employment and annual inflation modestly above 2% before it would start reducing its bond buying.

Clever Shift in Wording

That’s quite a clever shift in wording. 

Please consider this definition of Dual Mandate by the Richmond Fed from December 2011 article the Federal Reserve’s “Dual Mandate”: The Evolution of an Idea

Since 1977, the Federal Reserve has operated under a mandate from Congress to “promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long term interest rates” — what is now commonly referred to as the Fed’s “dual mandate.” 

Evolution of an Idea

Congress never changed that mandate but somehow the mandate evolved to “full employment and annual inflation modestly above 2%

Further Evolution

Price stability does not mean stable, but rather “annual inflation modestly above 2%.”

This in turn involves an evolution in the meaning of the word “modestly”. 

Modestly vs Moderately

On August 4, Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida clarified his definition of modest, rather “moderate” in a speech on Outlooks, Outcomes, and Prospects for U.S. Monetary Policy.

  • The Fed projects “core PCE” to surge to 3 percent before falling back tp 2.1 % for the next two years.
  • “If, as projected, core PCE inflation this year does come in at, or certainly above, 3 percent, I will consider that much more than a ‘moderate‘ overshoot of our 2 percent longer-run inflation objective
  • “As always, there are risks to any outlook, and I believe that the risks to my outlook for inflation are to the upside.”

We cannot be certain what Clarida’s definition of “modestly” but his definition of “moderately” does not go above 3%.

We are already there!

A “Welcome” Rise in Inflation Comes Sooner than Expected!

I discussed “moderately” on August 4 in “Welcome” Rise in Inflation Comes Sooner than Expected, Now Rate Hikes?

CS National, Top 10, CPI, OER, Rent, PCE

Year-Over-Year Measures of Inflation

Holy Smokes Fedman

Whoa! 

PCE is already at 4.0% with the core at 3.5% vs Fed 2021 predictions of 3.4% and 3.0% respectively.

 Modest Observations

  • It appears the Fed moderately overshot its evolutionary goal of modest inflation. 
  • Alternatively, the Fed modestly overshot its evolutionary goal of moderate inflation.

“Inflation is Half Our Mandate” 

On August 3, Fed Chair Jerome Powell accidently stated the truth.

Inflation is Half Our Mandate” said Powell before quickly correcting himself. 

Click on the link for additional amusing quotes.

Expect More Evolution 

Expect further groundbreaking discussion on the evolution of mandates, the words modest and moderate, and of course the untold story of the meaning of “full employment“.

I propose we go straight to where we need to be. 

Dual Mandate Proposal 

  • Mandate #1: Enrich the banks, the wealthy, and the top political class at the expense of everyone else.
  • Mandate #2: Convince the American people that mandate #1 is for their own good.

Mandate #1 is a huge success already. Unfortunately, the Fed is struggling with Mandate #2.

Fed’s Preferred Measure of Inflation

  1. For discussion of my observations and various measures of inflation please see Fed’s Preferred Measure of Inflation is Only 4.0%, Anyone Believe That?
  2. For further discussion of the FOMC news conference, please see Fed Admits Inflation Might be Higher and More Persistent Than They Expect

Subscribe!

Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

30 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
numike
numike
2 years ago
Left and right have become increasingly convinced that the economy is doing well when their side is in power, regardless of objective economic indicators. link to twitter.com
amigator
amigator
2 years ago
We might need a history refresher course. Why was the Fed created?  It is to bail out the big banks. That is the sole reason for the Fed. All this other stuff is just fodder to keep the public un aware and in the dark as to its true mission.  How about a discussion on who owns the FED? Major shareholders?
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
2 years ago
Is it too difficult to say that lawlessness is the rule in the land(s), and noone in position of authority cares?
These clowns debate whether 2% or higher inflation is their mandated price stability, and not a beep.
Crookedness all around to let a bankrupt system live another day.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Well, Cuomo’s out. I thought his public statement was pretty good. You need to FF to 8:15 or so to get the start of it.
Intelligentyetidiot
Intelligentyetidiot
2 years ago
Fed doesnt have two mandates, it has three.
The third congressional  mandate is to keep interest rates moderate.
Why is this third mandate so conveniently ignored?
Zero to negative interest rates are extreme by any historical measure, not moderate.
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
The FED’s “mandates” are a political fraud.
The FED seldom achieves its mandate of full employment. It is as consistent as a stopped 24 hour clock. As the economy booms, the FED finally achieves “full” employment, at which time, the next recession is approaching, along with the next multi year crawl to the next era of “full” employment.
The FED’s fraudulent version of of stable prices, is the equivalent of dropping a frog into room temperature water and slowly turning up the heat, 2 degrees at a time.
Intelligentyetidiot
Intelligentyetidiot
2 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
No, the Fed mandates arent a political fraud, it is the Fed leaders that are outlaws.
“The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production”
– Federal Reserve Act, Section 2A
Look at monetary and credit growth and economy’s long run potential and try to figure out how far the Fed has moved forn the congressional mandate. 
thimk
thimk
2 years ago
“Inflation is Half Our Mandate” . well ya, in a debt based system one has to keep the pledged asset’s  value equal to or greater than the  nominal loan value . Hopefully I stated that correctly , but you get the idea. Mandate #1 is an unintended consequence of this effort . The  feds inability/unwillingness to properly respond to a potential bubbles , allows heavily capitalized entities to buy on the cheap once the bust occurs. 
     
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
The FED comes at a high price:
Negative real interest rates transfers wealth from savers to gamblers,
Creates vastly overpriced markets
Conceals risk
Eliminates responsibility for poor decisions
Enables out-of-control government sending
Sets up the US for a massive fail
Blurtman
Blurtman
2 years ago
1. Support asset prices.
2. Bail out the banks.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Blurtman
Simply put and completely correct, in terms of the Fed’s REAL mandate (not its stated mandate).
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
By Golly, is that a spherical cow I see at the top of Mish’s post?
Ziggy
Ziggy
2 years ago
Joe Manchin had the tenacity to call out the FED on its lack of fighting inflation.  Maybe he will go further and submit legislation to take away the FED’S dual mandate and replace it with a single mandate of price stability.  The legislation would also have to include a definition of price inflation that measures what people are spending rather than the phony hedonics, core manipulations etc.  The FED is clearly irresponsible and needs to have it’s wings clipped like a parent disciplines a child.
ed_retired_actuary
ed_retired_actuary
2 years ago
Mish,
You attribute the Fed’s current near indifference to inflation risk to dishonesty and corruption.  Although that may play some role, I think incompetence and arrogance may be at least equally important.  I spoke with a retired economics professor yesterday, who told me that the Fed Open Market committee members are mostly untrained in macro-economics, and very reluctant to admit mistakes as you have pointed out.  Although the Fed has a large and sophisticated economics staff, he believes that the Open Market Committee pays little attention to staff economists regarding monetary policy.  Hence, they are prone to make the seemingly obvious mistake of ignoring the long and highly variable lags in the impacts of their actions on the economy
Mish
Mish
2 years ago
I agree 100%
Indeed I have stated many times they act out of ignorance, not mallace
Karlmarx
Karlmarx
2 years ago
What caanit continue will stop.  All Ponzi schemes fail in the end. 
It took decades for Madoff to fall and the fed has more tools than he did.  
But one things all prospective Ponzis need is the ability to get the suckers to trust them.  I think its pretty obvious that the federal reserve is losing the trust of investors which is why it jas turned to market mainpulation big time.  
Inflation is their last remining tool
dbannist
dbannist
2 years ago
C’mon Mish…..we all know that the Fed’s dual mandate is to keep interest rates low so that the government can keep borrowing at an obscene rate and to enrich the elite so they can keep buying rapidly inflating assets.

So, I’d agree with you one one of their mandates.  

Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
“Mandate #1 is a huge success already. Unfortunately, the Fed is struggling with Mandate #2.”
I’d say they’e doing pretty well, considering the sheer size and duration of the swindle. Only a few curmudgeons ever complain. Most go quietly into poverty when they retire, if not before.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Just read a survey of why people take early retirement. Number one reason is that they want to retire while they’re still capable of enjoying life (56%)…but the number two reason, sadly, is that they need the money from social security.  So about 15% of 62 year-olds who take social security do so because the reduced benefit will still support them as well, or nearly as well, as their crappy job.
The break-even on working until 70 and then taking the substantially higher benefit is age 78, and 62 year-olds have a life expectation of living to 83 or so.  For people with little or no additional retirement benefit, they accept 20 years of poverty just to not have to show up for some job they hate, more or less.
dbannist
dbannist
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
I don’t plan on SS.  I know it will be there in some form but I’m pretending it doesn’t exist at all.  So many people plan on it being a major part of their income.  Personally, I plan on having so much income from other sources I can afford to give my SS check away and not miss it.  Still, for those who depend on it, they are likely to get a large increase in January of next year….too bad all that will be taken by rent increases and increased food costs.  Inflation isn’t a hidden tax like many say it is…it’s a tax on people who don’t understand math.  If more people understood what inflation does to their fixed income there would be more protests.  Instead?  People cheer when they get a raise not understanding they just got screwed over.  However, for those with rental properties with loans on them…inflation is something I cheer (even though I consider inflationary policies morally reprehensible).  I can’t prevent it so I may as well profit off of it.
QTPie
QTPie
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Just thought that it is worth mentioning that in the decade or so leading to the pandemic, the share of folks who take Social Security at 62 has gone down dramatically, down by almost one half(!) between 2005 and 2018. It will be interesting to see if the pandemic begins to reverse this trend.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Like today’s pensions, it is better to take social security asap, than delay–it won’t be there after the GREAT IMPLOSION.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
That’s probably wrong, for most of us. It depends on how bad inflation gets. As of now, there is no reason at all to assume  Social Security benefits won’t exist. The problems are (a) loss of buying power and (b) a likelihood of means testing in the future.
The notion that there is this huge funding shortfall and SS will fail to pay out at all is a fairly silly idea.
dbannist
dbannist
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
How does a person go their entire life and not manage to save even a dollar is beyond me.  I’m surrounded by retirees living off of social security alone, and renting because they do not own a home.  Even a dumpy trailer only costs like 3k and another 3k for the land to put it on here.  The cost to buy that is like saving a quarter a week.  C’mon, anyone can do that.  I do agree that those that live in poverty at retirement are getting screwed by the way the CPI is calculated, since almost all of them rent and rent inflation is a real thing.
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
“I don’t plan on Social Security.”
I didn’t either, when I was your age. But with two high earners, we stand to collect $7700/month at age 70. My wife is just over 2 years away, and it’s less than 5 for me.Who knows if that will buy anything when we’re 80 though. Your guess is as good as mine.
I’m looking now at possibly rolling my RE into one or more DST’s It’s a decent option imho for accredited investors with a lot of rentals. A way out of the active role in managing the asset, and one that pays reasonably well. It’s one option, anyway.
dbannist
dbannist
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
Why not just turn it over to a rental agency.  Sure, they take 8-10% off the top, but you get to keep everything else.  I think even with a rental agency you’d beat 15% returns, far above anything else you can invest in that is reasonably stable.  I won’t invest in anything that gets me less than 20% cash on cash back annually personally in real estate.

I’ve not studied up on the DST tax advantages though so maybe that would make it worth it.

Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
The tax advantage of DST is simply that DST’s qualify for the 1031 exchange….it amounts to (likely) a little less cash flow and a little less upside on equity (at least compared to the great markets you and I are in)…but they are big LLC’s that handle everything….no cash inputs beyond the initial investment….no active role at all in management. 
They invest in multi-family and medical offices and big self-storage projects. You get a payout of 5-9% and then also take profits when the project sells…typically in 5-7 years.
I use a management company already for most of my properties ( I’m down to one that I manage completely)…but I still have to make sure they’re not robbing me blind or wasting my money…..this year I’ve been pretty involved in the maintenance side……which I needed to do to cut costs.
The DST keeps you in RE and making fair returns without the headaches of coming up with large sums of cash for deferred maintenance items ( 2 roofs for me this year, a dead body clean-up and a downed tree that smashed a couple of fences……and a couple of really expensive make-readies. It can hit you all at once.)
Even landlords deserve to really retire at some point…if they want to.
dbannist
dbannist
2 years ago
Reply to  Eddie_T
True enough about landlords retiring.  For now, I refuse to hire anyone to do anything on my properties except the AC man, a trade I never learned.  In one sense that greatly increases my overall rate of return.  In practice though, I cannot scale that rate of return.  I have a limited number of hours.  In fact, I’m maxed out now at 80 hours a week every week since March.  That has to stop to spend time with family. 
I even replaced a roof this past summer, which saved me 7k in costs but cost me time with my kids.  I’m not sure I chose wisely honestly.  However, at 43 I can do much of the work.  Pretty sure I won’t be doing that at 70. 
I wouldn’t do a dead body clean up though…..shudder.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Reply to  dbannist
It is much ‘easier’ to save when the real interest rate is positive. When you lose 5% of every dollar every year (in real terms), what’s the point?
Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
I get it, but we have to deal with life as it is, not as we think it should be, The idea that the Fed might be reformed or eliminated is naive, in my view. That means hedging your dollars with some kind of asset that keeps up with or beats inflation.
RE, when bought with 30 year money, has beaten inflation,……at least it has since my first sophomore year of college.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.