저자: MohamedEl-Erian · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 연준은 더 이상 자기 통제력을 잃었고 정책 여력과 소통 능력이 약화돼 시장 변동성에 끌려가고 있다. 연준의 정책 한계: 12월 금리 인상은 맞았고 그보다 더 일찍(봄에) 했어야 한다는 평가. 현재 연준은 시장에 인질로 잡혀 있으며, 전날 성명이 아무 변화가 없었음에도 다우가 300포인트 이상 움직인 것이 그 증거다. 연준의 소통 문제: 연준은 명확한 정책 메시지를 유지하지 못하고 있음. 1월과 3월 행보를 계속 묻는 시장의 집착을 끊기 위해, 앞으로의 금리 인상은 이례적으로 완만하고 짧은 사이클이며 과거(회의마다 25bp)와 달리 이전보다 낮은 수준에서 끝날 것이라고 강조하려 함. 연준의 선택지: 손을 놓고 시장이 떨어지게 두는 것은 현실적 선택이 아님. 연준이 완전히 물러서면 가격이 펀더멘털과 분리돼 있었다는 사실이 드러나고 시장이 충격을 받을 것. 연준은 문제의 일부가 아니라 해결책이 되려 하지만, 과거 QE2 당시 벤냉키가 말했듯 비전통적 정책은 시간이 갈수록 편익은 줄고 비용과 리스크는 커진다. 자산가격과 펀더멘털: 연준이 성장을 직접 촉진할 수 없어 다른 정책 당국의 도움이 필요함. 연준은 미래의 성장과 금융 수익을 현재로 끌어다 쓴 셈이며, 자산가격 상승의 주요 수혜자는 시장이었다. 시장이 급락해도 연준이 BFF처럼 자산운용사를 떠받칠 수는 없다는 주장. 경기침체 확률: 엘-에리안은 2016년 경기침체 확률을 이전 30%로 제시했고, 시장 시각이 이 수준으로 수렴 중이라고 봄. 다만 2015년 침체 가능성은 매우 낮다고 평가. 현재 경제는 건강하고 현금 대기 자금이 많으며 혁신도 진행 중이라는 판단. 연준 의장 교체 영향: 옐런과 버냉키의 차이는 중요하며, 앞으로 연준 내부가 12월처럼 단일하게 움직이지 못하고 덜 통일된 모습을 보일 것. 중국의 정책 실수가 상황을 복잡하게 만들었다는 진단.
다듬은 글
mohammed let's start with December instead of yesterday did Jenny Ellen blow it in december no she didn't I think raising weight was the right thing to do in December in fact I should have done it earlier or have argued that should have done it in the spring but what we are seeing is the fed is no longer in control of its own destiny yeah well ask federal ficials would they have liked to move the dow x over 300 points after a statement is issue in which they do nothing at all the answer is no and yet they did because they're not able to communicate and maintain a clear policy message because the backup that become hostage to the rest of the world well are they not communicating a clear as much because I thought what they basically said yesterday was will hold we're not going to move either way we're going to hold that's fairly consistent and is it really their fault for not being consistent or is it because as you say in your book the only game in town people are fascinated with them because there's nothing else going on so David it's not that fault I mean they've been pushed into a role that they don't really want but think of it this way a month earlier they had told us that they expect for hikes now we may get one or two a month earlier they had told us that there's certain balance of risk in the economy now they're telling us they can't even comment on the balance of risk so I think the Fed is as confused as everybody else is and that's because we're living in the midst of massive changes in liquidity in volatility and in the global economy when you say the Fed can no longer control its own destiny do you mean it's because they're out of ammunition so first they are out of ammunition yes that's that's the first issue second is that because they've been the only game in town for so long that policy effectiveness is getting exhausted thirdly in order okay how is that new I feel like by the time we were on to QE a zillion we were saying well and and to be fair Chairman Bernanke told us in August 2010 when he went unconventional with qe2 he said it's about benefits costs and risks and the longer you say unconventional the lower the benefits the higher the costs and risks and that's what we're seeing today well go back to December where they sort of gave guidance more or less with the dot plot and things would be maybe for hikes this year I mean if they had said now they're not going to be for hikes and then there were then people would have been surprised they were trying to get us ready for that trying to communicate it I mean we do they have any choice so what they're trying to do which is right is get us off this obsession of what are they going to do in January what are going to do in March they want us to understand that this is going to be a very unusual heightened cycle it's gonna be very shallow it's going to be stopped go not the usual 25 basis points every meeting and it's going to end way below where it's ended in the past that's what they want us to focus on but we keep on pushing them what are you doing January what are you gonna do in March what are you gonna do in 2016 then is the only thing for the Fed to do just to prevent this is to sit is to simply step out and let the markets fall as they may so fall as they may is really an interesting comment because that means we are relying on the fit right but that's what it is if yours if the Fed is trying to push us to do one thing and we're saying nope what are you doing in January what are you doing in March if their answer is I'm saying and doing nothing then what happens so if they were to step back completely then we're going to realize how much we have decoupled prices from fundamentals and the difference has been central banks so if they were to step up completely and say you know what we got let me take a ridiculous example we're going to continue hiking to four percent as we have done historically the market would have a heart attack and they can't do it they don't want to become part of the problem they want to be part of the solution but but you're pointing to a fundamental problem which is if that if you're right I'm sure you are that means a fair amount of valuation in the market is actually anticipation with the feds going to do not about how corporations are doing with their profits are and whether people are making money or they're employed yeah so I've put it differently in the book I've said what the Fed has done because that's the only thing it can do it has borrowed growth from the future it has borrowed financial returns from the future now that makes sense if you can validate it by promoting economic growth but the Fed cannot promote economic growth and so on it needs the help of other policymakers so what if the market had heart attack yesterday when we were talking about fed raising rates to Barry Diller he thought about the Fed more at that moment then he said he ever has David before you sat in this seat how much did you think about it never then I was Rollo's so so if the market has a heart attack the market who's been the prime recipient of all the goodness around QE because asset prices rose what if the market had a heart attack why is that bad for the Fed so the example I use is you know you have a BFF you have a best friend forever that's what the Fed was for the markets and suddenly you BFF is such a problem the bed shouldn't be the BFF to a bunch of asset manager so I completely agree with you but the Fed had no choice and you would have done the same thing Stephanie right it had a moral obligation to step in when other policymakers could not it did never it never assumed and I don't think anybody else has that it will still be in that business five years later well that's a bsp a bigger but it's a chuckle at the fundamentals the underlying fundamentals are we headed toward recession so I put earlier the probability of recession 2016 at thirty percent and people felt that was really high now you know it's good the view is converging towards that I think there is a possibility is thirty percent possibility now there's a seventy percent possibility we don't I don't think it with sessions likely 4 2015 i think this economy is quite healthy there's a ton of cash on the sideline right there's a lot of innovation going on i think you said 4 2015 23 16 2016 thirty percent 2015 i think very low probability can you tell the difference between Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke I'm in terms of pot I mean like does it matter that much who's in the seat or is it Potter is it about monetary policy versus fiscal or political policy I think it matters i think the other thing we're gonna see when the minutes come out is this is a less unified f1c i think in december they were able to unify around a certain action and certain message but with what has happened subsequently which was not their fault remembers china made some policy mistakes that has complicated everybody's life now we're going to see a much less unified fed and that matters when it comes to who's sitting in the chair
Comments 0