저자: MohamedEl-Erian · 외국인
요약 보기
워시(Warsh) 연준의장 지명자는 연준 독립성을 강조하며 정책 범위를 통화정책으로 한정할 것으로 보임. 상원 청문회에서 워시의 투자 불투명성(두 개의 5천만달러 보유분, 은행 투자 여부)이 쟁점이 될 전망. 워시는 AI 생산성 향상을 근거로 금리를 현 연준보다 더 일찍 인하하는 쪽으로 기울 것으로 예상. 대차대조표 규모에 대한 이론적 기준 부재를 지적하며 워시의 개혁 필요성 언급. 현재 연준은 이란 분쟁 등으로 대기 기조이며 9월 이후 인하 여부가 쟁점, 당분간 금리 동결 전망.
다듬은 글
Mohammad, I'm curious. Given Steve's report, given what we've seen so far with regard to Warsh's commentary, do you think he he is able to to make a strong case for Fed independence and whether it would be under threat or not under his leadership? So, I think he does make a strong case in his statement.
Thanks for having me, Leslie. You know, he's he says Fed independence is essential. He goes on to say it is protected if the Fed delivers on its dual mandate, particularly inflation. He encourages the Fed to be more open-minded, to be more humble in its approach, and then he draws a very clear line between monetary policy and other responsibilities, stressing that the Fed should stay in its lane.
I think that statement is very well balanced, most people will agree with. I don't think anybody would take huge exception to it. The question is going to be what other things are raised in his nomination hearing. Right. Speaking of those other things, the Wall Street Journal had a report showing that Warsh's finances are likely to play a big role in the confirmation hearings tomorrow, specifically the opacity around whether his investments include banks or not.
How big of a deal do you think that is? Obviously, the Fed is one of the key regulators for the banking system. So, um Senator Elizabeth Warren has already expressed displeasure at the fact that in the financial filing, there are two $50 million buckets, which don't contain detail because according to the filing, they are subject to non-disclosure agreement.
And she said, "We need to see what's in it to make sure that he divest like he says he will." So, I suspect that that those two holdings are going to be an issue in the conversation that he will have with the senators. And the other thing he's going to be asked is what would you do today? And as you know, monetary policy today is very finely balanced, and it's a matter of judgment as to what he would would do.
I think he would err on the side of lowering rates earlier than this Fed would because he believes in the productivity enhancement of AI. Well, and he said so much. Do you think that Fed independence extends to the balance sheet as well? Yes, the balance sheet is part of monetary policy. It's part of essentially how much liquidity is in the system.
What he's made very clear, and again, people agree with him, is that we need to have some theoretical underpinnings to QE, to the balance sheet. We have a notion of the neutral interest rates when it comes to rates, but when it comes to the quantity, the size of the balance sheet, we don't have anything of that.
So, we expand our balance sheets from 2 trillion to 9 trillion, then bring it back a bit, then bring it up again. We don't have a notion of what is equilibrium. And he has stressed that. He has also stressed, and he doesn't go into details, a lot of other reforms that are needed to the Fed. Um and I think that again, we would end up with a better Fed if Warsh is able to implement what he's talking about.
Um and you mentioned that he will still likely err toward the side of lowering interest rates. I want to play you a sound bite from Charlie Scharf, the chair and CEO of Wells Fargo. He spoke at the Economic Club of Washington earlier today and was asked whether he thinks the Fed should cut rates. Right now, there's pretty clear consensus that would be the wrong thing to do.
Um you know, when until the Iran conflict is uh in terms of, you know, it's clear what the end is in sight, there's there's real risk out there. What do you make of that? Do you think it would be more prudent to wait until the the geopolitical conflict is uh has a bit more line of sight? Whoever is in the chair right now will have no choice but to wait because you have a highly divided FOMC.
You have biases. Um some are very sensitive to employment, some are very sensitive to inflation, and they are data dependent. So, whoever is at the FOMC right now, I can guarantee you they're going to wait, and they're going to wait. Um the question is going to come later, probably in September, as to what you do then.
But if you look at the next meeting, if you look at the meeting after that, the Fed will just wait and not do anything at all. And it believes it that it is a quote well positioned. We've heard that phrase over and over again. So, they're just going to stay there because any other avenue requires support that whoever the chair is, that they simply won't get.
Comments 0