Inflation targeting is celebrating its 30th anniversary, but is now due for a makeover, says portfolio manager Rikkert Scholten.
Back in 1989, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand was the first central bank to formally introduce an inflation target. Many others adopted the policy in the subsequent decades, and it has largely been a success.
Although central bank policy is just one of many factors driving down inflation, in developed economies inflation is now firmly anchored at moderate levels. In New Zealand, inflation declined from 7% in 1989 to an average of 1.6% since 2010. Similar averages have been seen in the US (1.8%), Canada (1.7%), UK (2.3%) and the Eurozone (1.4%) over the past decade.
As inflation expectations have followed the decline in actual inflation levels, there is a risk of inflation becoming anchored at undesirably low levels.
The combination of low inflation and a low natural rate of interest has made it much more difficult for central banks to steer the economic cycle by controlling real interest rates. One has to wonder, therefore, whether a policy framework that was designed for the economic conditions of the late 1980s and early 1990s is still fitting for the economic reality of today. This can be seen in the table below.
The data on real rates illustrates the need for a review of the policy framework. In the low-rate, low-inflation recession environment of the 1950s and 1960s, the US central bank’s ability to bring down real rates was more limited than in the decades that followed, when core inflation and rates were higher.
And in the arguably fierce recession of 2007-2009, lowering real yields by 4% was insufficient to trigger a recovery. With the Fed funds rate now much closer to the effective lower bound of zero and inflation at around 2.0%, bringing down real rates to stimulate the economy in the next recession will be a challenge.
Needless to say, the Fed has responded by beefing up its monetary arsenal with forward guidance and quantitative easing (QE). Once dubbed ‘unconventional’, these instruments have been found by the Atlanta Fed to have yielded the equivalent of another 300 bps in interest rate cuts.
However, more and more unconventional policy will be needed in the future, as the natural rate of interest has remained stubbornly low. Yet the Fed will not simply accept the erosion of traditional monetary policy, with good reason. It is one thing to have to support traditional policy instruments (rates) with non-traditional tools such as forward guidance and QE.
But it is quite another to have to rely almost entirely on non-traditional instruments for monetary policy – which, arguably, is now the case in the Eurozone and Japan. Avoiding this ‘horror scenario’ should serve as a very powerful non-official motivation for the Fed to evaluate its current policy framework.
So, what are the alternatives? Suggestions for a makeover, and some of their advantages or drawbacks, are:
The alternatives that achieve the highest scores are introducing a target range and inflation averaging. Both policies would allow the Fed to make up for past missed inflation targets and involve a limited loss of transparency. More importantly, neither would risk undermining the credibility of the Fed. Between the two, inflation averaging would probably be the preferred option.
In the current environment, inflation is below target. One thing, therefore, is clear: each of these options would allow for a more dovish monetary policy than would otherwise be the case. The four-percentage point miss on PCE inflation in the past five years likely implies that even on a medium-term horizon, monetary policy should be more expansionary than in the current setting.
A dovish Fed policy would also allow other central banks to keep rates lower than would otherwise be the case. This is especially relevant for the central banks of emerging markets for which the exchange rate plays an important role in monetary policy setting.
Some of the ideas put forward could, ultimately, be adopted by other central banks. Yet a broader rethinking of macroeconomic policy could also result in a different role for monetary policy. So, expect to see changes to both fiscal and monetary policy, with the Fed most likely leading the way.
The Robeco Capital Growth Funds have not been registered under the United States Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, nor or the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended. None of the shares may be offered or sold, directly or indirectly in the United States or to any U.S. Person (within the meaning of Regulation S promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”)). Furthermore, Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. (Robeco) does not provide investment advisory services, or hold itself out as providing investment advisory services, in the United States or to any U.S. Person (within the meaning of Regulation S promulgated under the Securities Act).
This website is intended for use only by non-U.S. Persons outside of the United States (within the meaning of Regulation S promulgated under the Securities Act who are professional investors, or professional fiduciaries representing such non-U.S. Person investors. By clicking “I Agree” on our website disclaimer and accessing the information on this website, including any subdomain thereof, you are certifying and agreeing to the following: (i) you have read, understood and agree to this disclaimer, (ii) you have informed yourself of any applicable legal restrictions and represent that by accessing the information contained on this website, you are not in violation of, and will not be causing Robeco or any of its affiliated entities or issuers to violate, any applicable laws and, as a result, you are legally authorized to access such information on behalf of yourself and any underlying investment advisory client, (iii) you understand and acknowledge that certain information presented herein relates to securities that have not been registered under the Securities Act, and may be offered or sold only outside the United States and only to, or for the account or benefit of, non-U.S. Persons (within the meaning of Regulation S under the Securities Act), (iv) you are, or are a discretionary investment adviser representing, a non-U.S. Person (within the meaning of Regulation S under the Securities Act) located outside of the United States and (v) you are, or are a discretionary investment adviser representing, a professional non-retail investor. Access to this website has been limited so that it shall not constitute directed selling efforts (as defined in Regulation S under the Securities Act) in the United States and so that it shall not be deemed to constitute Robeco holding itself out generally to the public in the U.S. as an investment adviser. Nothing contained herein constitutes an offer to sell securities or solicitation of an offer to purchase any securities in any jurisdiction. We reserve the right to deny access to any visitor, including, but not limited to, those visitors with IP addresses residing in the United States.
This website has been carefully prepared by Robeco. The information contained in this publication is based upon sources of information believed to be reliable. Robeco is not answerable for the accuracy or completeness of the facts, opinions, expectations and results referred to therein. Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of this website, we do not accept any responsibility for damage of any kind resulting from incorrect or incomplete information. This website is subject to change without notice. The value of the investments may fluctuate. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. If the currency in which the past performance is displayed differs from the currency of the country in which you reside, then you should be aware that due to exchange rate fluctuations the performance shown may increase or decrease if converted into your local currency. For investment professional use only. Not for use by the general public.