저자: MohamedEl-Erian · 외국인
요약 보기
Fed 파월 의장의 정책 발표가 시장에 중립~소폭 긍정적이라는 평가. 지난주 발표가 좌측 꼬리(하방 위험)를 줄여 기대수익은 올리고 변동성은 낮췄다고 설명. 다만 상방(화이트테일)은 유럽·중국 성장 등 Fed가 통제할 수 없는 요인에 달려 있어 이탈리아·영국 PMI 악화 등을 우려. 미국 경제는 상대적으로 폐쇄적이고 유연하지만 기업 해외 매출 비중이 커 해외 영향을 받는다고 지적. 아시아는 역내 교역이 늘어 2008년 금융위기 파급이 제한적이었으나 미국 문제는 쉽게 해외로 번질 수 있다고 봄. CNBC 설문 응답: 향후 1년간 Fed는 금리 동결 가능성이 크고, 다음 움직임은 완화일 가능성이 높으며 내년 인하 확률은 50~55%로 예상. 대차대조표 축소 계획(연 최대 600억 달러)은 자동운전에서 벗어나 수정될 것이라고 전망. 파월 평가는 'A' 수준으로, 어려운 환경에서 시장 심리를 바꿨으나 부정적 변화였다고 봄(자동운전 신호로 투자자들이 반등 매도 대신 저가 매수를 하게 한 점 등). 금리 인하 예상과 달리 자산가격 예측 발언은 명확하지 않음.
다듬은 글
Mohamed, how this is kind of played out. The idea that we're so focused on the details, I don't think the markets are going to sway anything from that. But that's also because I think the Fed did it the right way and got the statement out there. Yeah, it's really important that this happened this week and not last week, because had it happened before the pivot, we would be having a completely different conversation. Having said that, as Steve said, this is normal. It's happened before. I always feel it's important for two sides to hear each other, and it reduces, doesn't eliminate, but reduces the probability of misunderstanding in the future. So net net, this is neutral to slightly favorable to the market, but it's not a big deal.
So what is a big deal to the markets right now? If we've got the Fed essentially on hold for the next six months, there are all kinds of other things to distract the market, but earnings have been the one focus we've seen so far. What do you think? What I think last week was a big deal. Yeah, okay. Because when you look at distributions, whether you look at the distribution of expected returns or the distribution of volatility, what the Fed did is it used the left tail. That's what it did. It didn't guarantee the right tail, everything going well. But it used the left tail, which means expected return goes up while expected volatility comes down.
When you say, well, you mean the possibility of making a mistake, tightening too much? I just wanted to say that the markets do not feel they've got responsive liquidity behind them, and that the left tail for the market is feeling they have to sell every rally. I think that's what the Fed did. It played on expectations that liquidity would be accommodated if needed, and therefore you can be more comfortable going back to the old view: look at dips as perhaps buying opportunities.
So that's really important. Now, what's important is the right tail depends on things the Fed does not control. It depends mainly on growth in Europe and China, and we got some pretty concerning PMI numbers again today out of Italy and out of the UK. So it's important to understand what the Fed does and what the Fed doesn't do. It reduces the left tail, it doesn't increase the right one, and that's really important.
We had a guest join us a little earlier who pointed out that our nation and the North American region is much more isolated from the rest of the globe in terms of trade, compared with where we used to be, and how the economy there may or may not impact us. Do you think that's a correct assumption? He pointed out that Asian nations have been trading a lot more with each other over the last 20 years or so, and that's why they were a little more isolated from the Great Recession we dealt with here. It didn't wash up on their shores as much. Can we say the same, that their problems won't necessarily wash up on our shores?
Certainly, what happens in the US is mainly a function of the US. We're a relatively closed economy. We are much more flexible and agile than the rest of the world, but our companies sell abroad. Our companies earn a lot of their profits abroad. So I think you have to make the distinction between the economy, which I think is relatively isolated, and the market.
Mohamed, would you take our CNBC Fed survey live on air? Here we go. When is the next move of the Fed going to be: A) tighten policy, or B) loosen policy? I suspect it will be to do nothing this year, all year. Oh yeah, zero all year, probably. Next year will more likely be a loosening than a tightening. When will this cut come? Sometime next year. What probability do you put on that cut happening? Call it 50 to 55 percent.
Okay, on the balance sheet: will the Federal Reserve alter its current plan to reduce the balance sheet this year by up to 600 billion dollars? It certainly will go off autopilot. That's certainly what it will alter. Yes, it will alter it, and it will alter both the destination and the pace. Say that's the next question. You're jumping the gun. Mohamed, what is the total? The current balance sheet is 4 trillion dollars. Where will the Fed get to, and when will they get there? It's data dependent. No, give me a number. No, you're like, these numbers are meaningless. The balance sheet is one of several tools. It's going to solve simultaneously, it's not going to solve one at a time. This is what the Fed has learned. Giving me a multivariate equation is what you do. What has the Fed learned from that? There was a time when autopilot was the right signal to give the markets. But this is the time to signal to the market that all its policy tools are in play. That's what the market wants to hear: that the Fed is responsive and has a range of policy tools.
Alright, last question in the survey. Grade Powell: A, B, C, D, or F? I'll give him an A, because I think anybody would have had enormous challenges navigating this environment. It's a very fluid environment, incredibly fluid, and they're learning as they go along. This is interesting, because there are two main theories of history: the great man or woman theory, and the great times theory. The question is whether Powell was the right person for the job, or whether the times dictated what he does. I kind of liked your explanation. The next hundred basis points was a lot harder than the first one, and the balance sheet was okay on autopilot for a while, until it wasn't. Then he was faced with a choice. I'm not sure he blew it as much as he was forced to react. And also, the most difficult environment to navigate is when economic prospects around the world are no longer correlated, when they are divergent, which is the case now. That is a very difficult environment for a policymaker, and that is what he has inherited. He didn't create this, he inherited it.
You say he has fostered the idea that investors don't have to sell rallies, because the idea was that if the S&P goes up to 2800 again and all of a sudden financial conditions are no longer tight, the Fed is back in play this year. You don't think that's the case? No, I think he fundamentally changed psychology, and I think he changed it in a negative way. Initially, when they signaled two things: first, signaling for rate hikes last year, which I said at the time was a mistake; and second, signaling and repeating "autopilot," which told markets to no longer buy every dip but to think about selling rallies. And now we've had a correction.
Have we asked Mohamed if he's going to be an effective governor? No.
Comments 0