The Fed Searches For the Neutral Interest Rate, Where the Heck Is It?

Image clip from Bloomberg video interview.

Bloomberg reports Fed’s Evans Sees Rates Rising Above Neutral Level

Twelve Key Video Quotes

  • Interest rates are very low. They’ve been low for three years.
  • We need to position monetary policy much closer to neutral. 
  • Economy has a tremendous amount of momentum.
  • The economy should do well in a neutral setting.
  • I would say a neutral setting for monetary is somewhere in the 2.25 to 2.50 percent range. 
  • It would be good if we got there by the end of our next March meeting. 
  • If we accelerated that so we were there in December, that would be OK too. 
  • By the time we get to December we ought to see if there is rollover in the inflation data.
  • The optionality of not going too far too quickly is important. 
  • Fifty [basis points] is obviously worthy of consideration. 
  • If you want to get to neutral by December, that would probably require something like nine hikes this year and you’re not going to get there is you just do 25 at each meeting.
  • So I can certainly see the case [for 50 basis point hikes]

Those quotes are my transcription of the video. 

In Search of Neutral 

Serious Mistakes and Bubble Blowing Policy

Please note the severely asymmetric policy of the Fed. In response to every recession, they cut rates quickly and dramatically well below any neutral rate.

Then the Fed is slow to respond to the inflationary bubbles the Fed blows. 

Neutral right now could easily be 4%. In December it could easily be  1.5%. 

People confuse neutral with the CPI. Neutral most assuredly isn’t 10.5%. 

Fed Compounds the Problem Multiple Ways

  • Not counting the bubbles it blows as part of inflation
  • Asymmetric policy
  • Constantly chasing its tail 
  • Constantly promoting more debt and not debt writeoffs as the solution to downturns
  • Never letting a cycle finish naturally 
  • Viewing 2% CPI inflation as a good thing when the CPI is a very poor measure of inflation

Home Prices

Case-Shiller Home Price Index data from St. Louis Fed, chart by Mish

Those are obvious bubbles, no matter what anyone says. People justify the prices because of low interest rates. 

But now what?

Mortgage Rates   

30-year mortgage rates courtesy of Mortgage News Daily (MND)

In an effort to slowly get back to neutral, Evans hopes to get to neutral by March of 2023.

Inflation is raging now. But what happens to demand (and thus prices) in a housing bust? 

Key Mistake 

Instead of hiking into strength, once again the Fed is slowly hiking into weakness. The  key mistake by the Fed is promotion of 2% CPI or PCE inflation while ignoring obvious asset bubbles.

Some asset bubbles are hard to quantify, but given the Case-Shiller home price index measures resales of the same home, that makes for an easy measurement of home price inflation.

Case-Shiller National, Top 10 Metro Percent Change From Year Ago

Case-Shiller Home Price and CPI data from St. Louis Fed, chart by Mish

Home prices were up 19.17 percent from a year ago. The Fed did not ignore this bubble, it promoted this bubble.

Percent Change From Year Ago Notes (January 2022 is latest CS Data)

  • CPI: 7.48%
  • OER: 4.09%
  • Rent: 3.76%
  • Case-Shiller 10-City: 17.52%
  • Case-Shiller National: 19.17%

CPI Understated?

Yes, by a lot.

Owners’ Equivalent Rent (OER) is the mythical price one would pay to rent one’s own home from oneself, unfurnished and without utilities. 

I do not believe OER is only up 4.09%. Nor do I believe rent is only up 3.76%.

Moreover, home prices are not directly in the CPI, only OER and and Rent.

Real Interest Rates 

Real Interest rates a Mish Calculation

My Case-Shiller Adjusted CPI is calculated by substituting the year-over-year percentage rise in home prices for OER in the CPI.

By that measure real interest rates are negative 10.21 percent!

The chart is as of January because that is the latest Case-Shiller data. 

Common Misconceptions 

The BLS discusses Common Misconceptions about the Consumer Price Index

The CPI used to include the value of a house in calculating inflation and now they use an estimate of what each house would rent for — doesn’t this switch simply lower the official inflation rate?

No. Until 1983, the CPI measure of homeowner cost was based largely on house prices. The long-recognized flaw of that approach was that owner-occupied housing combines both consumption and investment elements, and the CPI is designed to exclude investment items. The approach now used in the CPI, called rental equivalence, measures the value of shelter to owner-occupants as the amount they forgo by not renting out their homes.

The rental equivalence approach is grounded in economic theory, receives broad support from academic economists and each of the prominent panels, and agencies that have reviewed the CPI, and is the most commonly used method by countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Critics often assume that the BLS adopted rental equivalence in order to lower the measured rate of inflation. 

The problem with the broad support for economic thinking is that it ignores obvious bubbles.

OK, housing is not a “consumer” expense. La dee da. Housing is a measure of inflation. 

Inflation, all of it, is what’s important, not just alleged consumer price inflation.

Spotlight on the Previous Housing Bust

Real Interest rates a Mish Calculation

Repeat Play Coming Up

  • Please pay close attention to the above chart because a repeat performance by the Fed is underway.
  • When the Greenspan Fed finally started hiking, I calculate real interest rates of -4.57 percent via home price substitution for the OER as described above.
  • Then a housing crash started that the Fed ignored. 
  • Real interest rates were already very positive by mid-2006 but rates looked negative as measured by the CPI. 
  • Nonetheless, and no doubt in search of “neutral” the Fed kept hiking.
  • The Greenspan Fed thought it found neutral and stopped hiking at 5.25%.
  • Meanwhile, real interest rates by my calculation kept rising to 4.07%. 
  • Nearly everyone then had a spotlight on oil which rose to $140. 
  • I repeated stated ignore oil because a very deflationary bust was in the cards. 

Where is neutral?

I have no idea. More importantly, neither does the Fed, nor anyone else. 

Only the free market, not a bunch of group-think wizards can possible understand.

St. Louis Fed President Says “Fed is Not Far Behind the Curve”

Please note St. Louis Fed President Says “Fed is Not Far Behind the Curve”

Curiously, the Fed is so far behind the curve that the curve is about to bite the Fed in the ass from behind. 

Neutral is Constantly Changing 

My message is the same today as it was in 2006. Another deflationary bust is coming. 

The Fed will not see it because it clueless not only about where neutral is, but also because the Fed is clueless about the asset bubble boom-bust cycles that it is perpetually blowing. 

Given the massive amount of debt and leverage, neutral is likely far lower than most presume. 

Meanwhile, the asymmetric policy of the Fed continually adds to the problem. Look again at my previous chart to see what’s happening.

If I am correct, betting on long-durations bonds at these prices will be a winning bet by the end of the year.

A housing bust is already underway. For discussion, please see Existing Home Sales Decline Again, But the Big Bust Starts Next Month

This post originated at MishTalk.Com.

Thanks for Tuning In!

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

18 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sebmurray
Sebmurray
1 year ago
It seems to me that true neutral could only be determined in the free market once all the mal-invested capital has been freed up and those resources are once more available to the economy.
The Fed is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent that happening though. What’s more, the Fed has so distorted the financial markets that it could never see true neutral, like looking at an object below water, it’s apparent position is rather different from its actual position.
killben
killben
1 year ago
“The problem with the broad support for economic thinking is that it ignores obvious bubbles.”
Not ignore obvious bubbles but actively promote it. The thing is while the bubble is on, it makes the clowns (the politiicans and the Fed) look good. Both can crow about it and get re-elected!!
It is all vested interest. Who the hell is interested in the doing the right thing and has foresight? If there are some like Thomas Hoenig, they will not be re-elected or promoted. Can you think of Thomas Hoenig of being the Fed Chief? You can’t – why? He may not go along and blow bubbles to your liking, he may do the right thing and may not be keen in making them look good.
Capitalism as is being practiced is anything but that!
Sunriver
Sunriver
1 year ago
We live in an Inflationary economy which is fundamentally deflationary.
Bubble this time is larger than 2007. Fed balance sheet at $15 trillion and Federal deficit at $40 trillion by 2025?
Highly Possible.
Dean_70
Dean_70
1 year ago
Housing would have gone sideways if mortgage rate stabilized around 4%-4.5% but now that we’re in the mid 5% range housing will crash. Current prices are not sustainable at the current rates. Inventory should explode by the end of summer as investors stop buying and start dumping. HUGE price cuts in early fall.
prumbly
prumbly
1 year ago
“… owner-occupied housing combines both consumption and investment elements, and the CPI is designed to exclude investment items”
If people invested in FOOD (as well as just eating the stuff), would that mean that food should be left out of the CPI?
How about energy? The price of oil is clearly largely the result of investors speculating in futures, so should energy be left out of the CPI?
Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear
1 year ago
The FED is trying to justify their existence by making it their business to reach and maintain certain financial metrics. Mathematically the number of inputs needs to be at least as many as the number of outputs to be controlled. The other aspect of a control system is it needs to measure and execute corrective actions at a rate at least 2x (preferably 10x) as fast as the highest frequency in the system to be controlled.
Rene_FPV
Rene_FPV
1 year ago
Reply to  Six000mileyear
You must be a controls engineer. I would love to see economics discussed in engineering terms or in terms of thermodynamics or heat transfer.
Speaking of high frequency corrective actions, I’ve wondered what would happen if rates were adjusted every hour. Unfortunately I don’t know what variable they would be measuring for feedback or what the end result would be. It just seems intuitive that they should be adjusting very quickly on the fly if they want better control.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Mish, an observation regarding this… “If I am correct, betting on long-durations bonds at these prices will be a winning bet by the end of the year.”
You expect deflation, and so do I, eventually, but only after a massive stampede for the exits which sends prices plummeting, and yields to rational-investor levels. I believe the Fed has created market irrationality of an order never seen before, over-priced and under-yielded, relative to risk, inflation, and a reasonable duration-adjusted real rate of 2% +/- (the ‘rational’ view).

That said, the only (simple) way I know to get a long-duration bond (say 20-30 years) as a winning bet, is when yields are decreasing, not increasing. When current yields are so far below the ‘rational’ level, the only way they can decrease is a continuing Fed cluster-fudge.

Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Let’s call this out for the sheer stupidity that it is, which is why Keynesian economics is a load of cra p.
First, a definition of the neutral interest rate:
There are several. Let’s use this one:
“…. the neutral rate of interest is defined as the rate at which the demand for physical loan capital coincides with the supply of savings expressed in physical magnitudes.”
Note: we are NOT restricting loan capital to home-mortgages ONLY. It is ALL LOAN CAPITAL, including loans to the US government. similarly, savings can’t be defined simply as bank savings, So what, exactly, qualifies for these harebrained statements by the Fed?
It goes back to that geni-a$$, Keynes, who still drives the Fed’s economic models: Income = consumption + savings,
That is savings equals income minus what is consumed.
Note this is the basic Keynes equation rearranged and simplified by leaving out marginal propensities to consume, blah blah blah, consumption functions, savings functions, etc….
Even a financial halfwit (not Powell, Yellen, and others) knows that the demand for physical loan capital DOES NOT COINCIDE with the supply of savings, and has NOT for many years because of the Fed’s intervention.
WHY? The Fed ‘thinks’ it is the provider of loan capital of FIRST RESORT, and artificially sets rates to effect demand for capital.
The supply of savings is also part of the Fed’s massive cluster fudge purporting to be…. blah blah blah….)
So, to get to a market-determined demand for loan capital, we need a market-determined interest rate both underlying laon demand, and attracting savings, whether to banks, credit unions, home purchases, stock and bond investments etc.–essentially anything NOT CONSUMED FROM INCOME.
About now it gets very messy.
What needs to happen?
1) The market must determine the long term equilibrium rate, based on a) inflation rate, b) a real riskfree rate reflecting expected overall economic growth over time ie 1 month is not the same as 10 years, and c) a risk premium. The demand and supply conditions for investment and saving (and consumption) will then ADJUST.
Eg. Inflation rate 8% + riskfree real rate 2% + risk premium 0% for T-bills T-BIlls should yield 10%.
Carl_R
Carl_R
1 year ago
It probably won’t take too long before we know how much impact higher mortgage rates will make. At 5.3% instead of 3%, payments for the same house will be 32% higher on a 30 year mortgage. Will people just pay it? Will the elect not to buy at this time? Will they offer less for the home? What about sellers? Will they elect not to sell at this time? Accept less?
My guess is that some sellers will elect not to sell, and to continue paying 3% on their existing home, rather than moving and paying 5.3%. Even more buyers will either not buy, or will offer less. The first thing that I think we will see is s drop in the number of sales of existing homes, and prices may follow.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  Carl_R
You missed the elephant! What is the value of the home effectively ‘lost’ when interest rates go from 3% to 5.3%? It’s a simple PV issue. That is houses are suddenly worth less. That $550K house with $50K equity and a $500K mortgage at 3% fixed, won’t cost any more at 5.3%, however, the house is worth less. EQUITY is sucked away. With negative equity, why keep paying?
IT”S TIME FOR JINGLE MAIL.
Carl_R
Carl_R
1 year ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
I’m not sure your point here. Are you saying that if houses fall 30%, and people are underwater by 20%, they will walk away? Keep in mind that if they have other assets, those will be taken, too, so bankruptcy will be needed. Also, ask yourself where they will live? Obviously they won’t be able to buy another home, but even if they could, at 5.3%, a home that cost 30% less than the former value of their home would have the same payment. If they choose to rent, the rent may not be a bargain . There aren’t a lot of rentals on the market anyway, and if a bunch of people were to walk away from homes and become renters, rentals would become even more scarce.
If they lose their job, and have no way to make the payment, yes, they will walk away, but so long as they are able to make the payment, the alternative of walking away may not be very attractive.
LostNOregon
LostNOregon
1 year ago
I am in the middle of reading “The Lords of Easy Money” by Christopher Leonard. Great book for understanding the mindset of the Fed groupthinkers.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
1 year ago
Like all else in Fed land, the so-called “neutral rate” (no such thing which of course make even theoretical sense) is strange and mysterious and not really defined. It just, like, moves around from time time time. All by itself. Mysteriously.
But, of course, the fact that it is so mysterious that they don’t understand what it is; will never, ever, be recognized as a reason to perhaps NOT rob people, redistribute wealth and otherwise cause all manners of mayhem to economic actors. All on account of this mysterious rate-in-the-sky-of-diamonds which noone ever knows what is.
There really never, in all of history and geography, was ever a rain dancing medicine man nearly as hopelessly clueless about the world, as the morons heading up modern central banks. It would make so much more economic sense, and be so much better for the economies of America and the world, if Powell and his moron brigade simply went on TV and danced inflation and unemployment dances, instead of what they are currently doing.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
1 year ago
Curiously, the Fed is so far behind the curve that the curve is about to bite the Fed in the a$$ from behind.
Honesty and clarity is why I come here.
dbannist
dbannist
1 year ago
If they think neutral is 2.5-3% why not just go there?

It would shock the system much more than a gradual rise. It may even accomplish what they want, as it would completely shock everyone into thinking they are serious about inflation.

Sorry, they aren’t serious if they are raising at .25% when inflation is known to be at least 8.5. They need to pull a Russia and raise them all at once. It seems to have worked, honestly.

StukiMoi
StukiMoi
1 year ago
Reply to  dbannist
“If they think neutral is 2.5-3% why not just go there?”
Because it may upset leeches dependent on the greater amount of loot which corresponds to 1%, versus 3%. Upsetting burglars is exactly what central banks were created to avoid. By moving slower, the burglars will be given more time to temporarily reduce their loot dependence.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
1 year ago
Reply to  dbannist
Because the ‘neutral rate’ is NOT 2.5-3% when inflation is 8% and above. I suspect this Fed statement is ‘fodder’ for the morons who still believe the Fed has control. Just a little fine tuning and the economy is back to normal.
Why should you buy a 12-month T-bond at 2.5-3% when inflation is at 8%. You are ‘losing’ 5% at a minimum. Add in a real rate of 2%, you are ‘losing’ a minimum of 7% when you buy the T-bond. Of course, the counter argument is you are better off 3% with a T-bond than having your cash ‘spending power’ erode at 8% per year.
All told, the Fed has created a cluster fudge of vast magnitude, with no way of fixing it. This is NOT 2008 over again, or even the early 1980s. IMHO, 2022-3 is a disaster in the making. I join with Mish in saying ‘HOLD GOLD.’ With morons and bankers in control, it might easily get to that level.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

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