Inflation can never be eradicated and so central banks will pursue targets for it, even as prices fall, says Lukas Daalder
Some economists argue that persistent disinflation – and the greater threat of deflation – means central banks should either abandon their common 2% target or replace it with a lower one. It follows a growing belief that monetary policy led by quantitative easing has been ineffective in creating inflation to drive economic growth.
But this is not necessarily the way to go, says Daalder, Chief Investment Officer of Robeco Investment Solutions. He says inflation is still around, though it is now seen in the prices of financial assets rather than the more traditional goods and services.
Central banks seem likely to stick to 2% as their inflation target, even though it is not based on academic research as being optimal, but was in fact arbitrarily chosen by New Zealand in 1989. The European Central Bank, US Federal Reserve, Bank of Japan and Bank of England all continue to target 2%, even though inflation in their respective jurisdictions has consistently been below that for most of the past decade.
Daalder says there are many arguments as to why the threat of inflation – which decades ago was in double digits and destabilized entire economies – has so dramatically lowered in the modern age. One is digitalization, which has revolutionized industries such as the media, photography and music and made it possible to produce extra copies of news items, games or songs at virtually zero cost.
Another is the loss of the market power of labor, following the demise of unions, globalization and the ongoing automation of formerly labor-intensive industries. Aging populations are also deflationary, since older people tend to save more and spend less. Meanwhile, oil has lost its power to move markets as other forms of energy such as shale gas and solar power have steadily weakened the oil price.
“All of these arguments point in the direction that inflation has been structurally lowered, a theory which is also supported by the inflation data we have seen in recent years,” says Daalder. “This raises the question of what happens if central banks continue to aim for an inflation rate of around 2%, while the mechanics of the modern-day economy prevent it from ever reaching that.”
“The economist Milton Friedman once said: ‘Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. It is made by or stopped by the central bank.’ In that case, why have the central banks been unsuccessful in reaching the 2% target? Normally, an increase in liquidity would have resulted in ‘too much money chasing too few goods’, to once again quote Friedman, leading to inflation. Why hasn’t this inflation materialized?”
“The answer is that this inflation has in fact materialized, but not in the sphere of goods and services, but rather in the realm of financial markets. The strong rebound seen in real estate markets; the fact that the S&P 500 is trading at a Shiller PE of 30.3x; and abnormally low bond yields (which means high bond prices) can all be seen as a reflection of inflated financial asset prices. As these assets are not included in the inflation target of central banks, we do not see them as inflationary, though.”
Daalder says a different group of economists accept these arguments for why disinflation has occurred, but prefer to focus on the risks involved with the decline in inflation, and future expectations for it, and deal with that instead. They primarily cite the loss of effectiveness of monetary policy in being able to create inflation, using the interest rate as the main weapon, as an indication that other methods are necessary.
They also argue that wages are traditionally sticky to the downside, where it is easier to fire people than adjust wages lower, potentially harming the economy. And letting inflation drift lower means the real level of debt steadily rises over time (assuming interest rates stay the same); someone taking out a 30-year mortgage assuming a 2% inflation rate would face a higher debt burden if inflation structurally drifts lower.
“Looking at the statements of various central banks officials, it appears that most of them can be considered to be in the second camp,” says Daalder. “This seems to point in the direction of the boom-bust scenario: central banks pushing too much liquidity in the system creates ‘inflation’ in all of the wrong places.”
“There is a more positive scenario possible as well, though: the scenario in which ordinary inflation will return, albeit it with a delay. “We are somewhat reluctant to embrace the ‘inflation is dead’ line of thinking,” says Daalder. “This is partly because we have seen these claims more often in the past – they remind us a bit too much of the ‘the business cycle is dead’ claim that resurfaces every ten years or so – but partly also because we do not believe that inflation can ever be eradicated.”
“As long as supply and demand do not perfectly match, inflation will remain part of our system. We can particularly see tightness returning in labor markets, with demand outstripping supply. Technological change may have postponed wage increases, but we do not see why it will not come eventually. In this scenario – our base case – inflation will return after some delay, and with it bond yields are expected to rise as well.”
The content displayed on this website is exclusively directed at qualified investors, as defined in the swiss collective investment schemes act of 23 june 2006 ("cisa") and its implementing ordinance, or at “independent asset managers” which meet additional requirements as set out below. Qualified investors are in particular regulated financial intermediaries such as banks, securities dealers, fund management companies and asset managers of collective investment schemes and central banks, regulated insurance companies, public entities and retirement benefits institutions with professional treasury or companies with professional treasury.
The contents, however, are not intended for non-qualified investors. By clicking "I agree" below, you confirm and acknowledge that you act in your capacity as qualified investor pursuant to CISA or as an “independent asset manager” who meets the additional requirements set out hereafter. In the event that you are an "independent asset manager" who meets all the requirements set out in Art. 3 para. 2 let. c) CISA in conjunction with Art. 3 CISO, by clicking "I Agree" below you confirm that you will use the content of this website only for those of your clients which are qualified investors pursuant to CISA.
Representative in Switzerland of the foreign funds registered with the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority ("FINMA") for distribution in or from Switzerland to non-qualified investors is ACOLIN Fund Services AG, Affolternstrasse 56, 8050 Zürich, and the paying agent is UBS Switzerland AG, Bahnhofstrasse 45, 8001 Zürich. Please consult www.finma.ch for a list of FINMA registered funds.
Neither information nor any opinion expressed on the website constitutes a solicitation, an offer or a recommendation to buy, sell or dispose of any investment, to engage in any other transaction or to provide any investment advice or service. An investment in a Robeco/RobecoSAM AG product should only be made after reading the related legal documents such as management regulations, articles of association, prospectuses, key investor information documents and annual and semi-annual reports, which can be all be obtained free of charge at this website, at the registered seat of the representative in Switzerland, as well as at the Robeco/RobecoSAM AG offices in each country where Robeco has a presence. In respect of the funds distributed in Switzerland, the place of performance and jurisdiction is the registered office of the representative in Switzerland.
This website is not directed to any person in any jurisdiction where, by reason of that person's nationality, residence or otherwise, the publication or availability of this website is prohibited. Persons in respect of whom such prohibitions apply must not access this website.