 |
DG CAPITAL ADVISORS CLIENT MEMORANDA
Greenspan's Dilemma
September 19, 2000
David Gitlitz
The three-point rout that
lifted the long bond yield by more than 20 basis points to 5.95% the past
three sessions bears a close correspondence with the latest bounce higher in
crude oil prices to nearly $37 per barrel, but not for the widely cited
reasons. Some maintain the relationship is as straightforward as it looks –
higher oil prices mean higher inflation and thus lower bond prices. Others
say the oil-price surge will give the Fed the excuse it needs to
raise rates again, and bond yields are rising as a result. Neither
argument, however, is consistent with presently observable conditions. The
tripling of oil prices over the past 18 months has yet to spillover in the
more sensitive core inflation indices, and is unlikely to do so
spontaneously with gold holding in tight ranges just above $270 per ounce
and the dollar continuing to strengthen against foreign exchange. Were the
oil-price spike upping the odds on another Fed rate hike, meanwhile,
shorter-term yields would be rising, not falling. Indeed, readings from the
interest rate futures markets suggest a rising chance of a rate cut, not a
hike, early next year.
That,
in fact, appears to get at the principal explanation for the bond market’s
sudden setback: a rising risk premium attributable to a convergence of
forces that could compel the Fed to enter an easing cycle at precisely the
wrong time. As pointed out here last week, the inflationary implications of
a rising price of oil – a non-inflationary change in relative prices – arise
only from risk of the Fed accommodating the growth-retarding effect of the
higher price with easy money. The central bank would then be moving to
provide liquidity at a faster pace against a slowdown-induced decline in
money demand, potentially fostering a liquidity glut. The supposition that
this represents a relevant risk gained added credence with last Friday’s
release of August industrial production data showing the second consecutive
monthly contraction in the “Old Economy” precincts of the manufacturing
sector. That can be laid at the feet of both the Fed’s year-long growth
jihad raising the funds rate by 175 basis points, as well as the tax
effect of rising oil prices.
This is
the dilemma Alan Greenspan has visited upon himself by abandoning his
stable-money, price-rule principles and getting co-opted by the FOMC’s
output-gap consensus. The flip side of the fallacious formula compelling the
Fed to tighten in the face of rapid real growth, of course, demands ease in
response to indications of significant deceleration. Measured against the
only performance criterion for the Fed that matters – safeguarding the
currency’s purchasing power – the potential for error arising from this
policy regimen is vast. If nothing else, though, Greenspan has had unusual
luck on his side throughout his tenure, and this episode will probably be no
different. For one thing, although attempting to call an oil-price top has
been hazardous business, there is not much question that the margin for
additional upside is dwarfed by the potential downside. Should oil prices
break from current levels and settle in a range even as high as $30 per
barrel, the potential inflationary dangers of a corresponding Fed ease would
be commensurately reduced.
Moreover, there is yet little, if any, indication of money demand being
hindered in this era of extraordinarily dynamic wealth creation and
productivity-boosting technological innovation. Indeed, all indications are
that the Fed’s misguided exercise in growth restraint has extracted a
significantly heavier price from the smokestack industries than it has from
the high-tech, New Economy vanguard driving the expansion. The backup in
bonds seen to date, then, reflects the somewhat higher risk of an
unexpected increase in future inflation, rather than a rise in actual
inflation expectations. At this point, that risk – while not inconsequential
– still seems well contained. Absent any other indications of a threat to
dollar purchasing power, the real value in nominal yields just below 6%
remains highly attractive, as suggested by today’s half-point bounce off
yesterday’s lows.
|