저자: ChristopherWaller · 외국인
요약 보기
Waller는 재무부의 엔화 개입과 자사주 매입이 단기적 영향에 그치며 연준 정책에 영향이 없다고 평가. 연준은 '거울 방' 문제를 피해 금융여건보다 거시지표(물가·고용)에 집중해야 하며, 정책 반응함수는 명확한 원칙(물가 상승 시 금리 인상, 실업 급증 시 인하)으로 설명 가능하다고 주장. 커뮤니케이션은 투명성이 필요하며 놀라움을 주는 것은 목표가 아니라고 강조. 작업그룹 논의에서는 커뮤니케이션 개선은 제한적일 것이며, 대차대조표 축소(준비금 부족 전환)에는 반대, 비공개 민간데이터 기반 결정은 신뢰 문제를 낳는다고 언급.
다듬은 글
about, um, uh, some recent, um, action in the Treasury bond market. I think the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman must have heard a lot of criticism in Asheville at the G20 summit about what's going on, and also about the Treasury's recent interventions, uh, with the yen and the buybacks. Did any of this surprise you?
You know, what the Ministry of Finance does is the business of the Ministry of Finance. Well, you know, um. As an economist, not a politician, I have never believed that such short-term interventions have a big effect. Um, but , you know, if they want to do them, it's actually their right to do it or not.
Of course. Are there any implications for the Fed? Well, if we assume that these interventions had a very short-term impact on long-term profitability, then no, none. Of course. If they want to adjust something and it somehow works, then maybe there are some fixes in the conditions they set, and that's fine too.
I have no problem with that . So, let's move on to, um, I mean, the chairman mentioned this in Jackson Hole, that he prefers to get unfiltered, uh , views of the market. And if the Ministry of Finance is becoming more active in this, maybe it's, uh, a market distortion, right? So, this is related to, uh, and he also mentioned this , it brings up the issue of communication, this "hall of mirrors" problem, right?
Are you looking at a pure market signal and an undistorted price, or are you in a situation where the Fed is talking to the markets, the markets are talking to the Fed, and you're not really getting an undistorted view of the world? So, uh , is this a problem now? Are you in this kind of cyclical world of the " hall of mirrors"?
Well, I'll give, I'll give an example to create context: as many know, I, I lift weights. Yes. And my wife is my weightlifting coach , right? This is an application . Yes. And the first thing she told me when I started working out was, "Don't look in the mirror." And I asked: why not? She said, “ Because if you start looking in the mirror, you’ll be more concerned with how you look than what you do.
So don't look in the mirror. Focus on technique, do the exercise, and don't worry about how it looks . I'll tell you what it looks like." So it's like the " hall of mirrors" problem in communications. Just don't look in the mirror. And if you noticed in my speech, I said almost nothing about financial conditions.
I'm looking at macro data. Macrodani is not part of this " mirror maze". So if you focus on your job and the really important metrics, you can take the financial market as a kind of indicator, but ultimately our mandate is price stability and full employment, not financial conditions. Here's how I've always avoided it: I just look at the macro data and just don't look in the mirror.
It seems that former Deputy Chairman Rich Clarida gave the same explanation a few years ago . He wrote about this and noted that this is not a problem, because market data can be compared with survey results, econometric data, and many other sources to check their consistency. So, in today's speech, you laid out very clearly what you call your response function.
The chairman at Jackson Hole said, "I'm not going to do it because it can't be perfect." You use a baseball metaphor to explain that it doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be, you know, generally parametric to outline broad boundaries, right? So what is the optimal way to do this? So, as I said, part of it is this: if you take any standard market or macro model for forecasting, you have to have a rule for the Fed to respond to, otherwise you can't solve the model and you can't make a forecast.
So I think every Wall Street research firm has a built-in reaction function. And there are many different reaction functions that can be used. But most importantly, you want them to be consistent in how they respond to events. If inflation rises, you raise rates. If GDP is growing, look at inflation to understand whether it needs to be compensated.
If unemployment rises significantly, rates may have to be lowered. These are just the basics of economics. You don't give any weird advice. This is what I mean by reaction . I'm just using economic theory to understand what I should do as a central banker if unemployment exceeds its long-run maximum, or if inflation starts to rise or fall.
But precise indicators are sometimes where a certain imperfection arises . I'm not necessarily going to tell you exactly how much is needed, but at least I can give you a qualitative indication of where things are going. Agree. Because I mean, that means you're not just addressing the financial markets.
You also appeal to the public, shaping their expectations. So if we all act blindly, it's probably worse than if we had any information. Yes. You want to have something, like I said, it's like a strike zone story. She is not perfect. This is not true, and it varies from judge to judge. Agree. Agree.
Agree. But the players just say, "Just tell me how it works. I don't care, as long as I know the rules and then I can keep playing." Agree. So, is the head, as you said, not allowing the ideal to get in the way of the good, in your opinion? I, I think that's exactly what was in his statement. You know, it sounds like: I won't give an answer because it's all very complicated and we can't really do it.
OK. I mean , that's good, but I just have a completely different perspective on it. Agree. So, let's talk about communications more broadly, because there was, and I think you can look at it from two perspectives, more than just from Kevin Warsh's perspective or the chairman's perspective. Some say that too much chatter becomes too confusing.
One person says one thing , another says another. Although, if we go back to the 80s and 90s, there were really significant political battles in the US over the transparency and secrecy of the Fed. Bills were introduced, there were efforts to open access under the FOIA law, and since then the trend has been to say more, not less.
Quite consistently. So have we reached a point where you think this path to transparency and more information has reached a point of diminishing returns, or is that a problem? You know, I studied academic literature from the 80s and 90s , that's when it all started. Yes. Like, why do you want to surprise people?
What is the benefit of this ? I used this example for years when I taught macroeconomics . If you were the state department of transportation and were going to close three lanes of a highway for construction, would you agree? You have two communication options. You can say nothing and let people just drive into this construction zone and get into a mess.
Or you can start giving them signs in advance : "Look, there's roadworks ahead . Look, there are detours." Which of these two worlds do you want to live in ? I think we would all prefer to have information in advance to make better decisions. This is my view on communication: to provide not so much " forward-looking guidance", but some idea of what lies ahead so that you can make important decisions for yourself .
If we expect this from the Department of Transportation, I think it's only logical to expect this from the central bank, right? Do you think that in our era, when suspicion is the norm, it's worth hiding behind a wall and saying: " Listen, it's better for us. Trust us, just let us stay out of the picture." Well, that was the old model: just never explain anything or apologize, right?
Well , good luck in returning to the other world. It just doesn't work. And this is not the best model for ensuring economic well-being. Therefore, I try to communicate as best as possible so that people can make the most effective decisions. Amazement of people has never been my goal in terms of thinking about things.
Now, that doesn't mean you won't be surprised. Sometimes it's just inevitable, but my goal is not to say, " Look, whatever I do, it's going to be a surprise." Um, let me summarize. We're running out of time, but on the working groups: Fed Chairman Warsh announced the creation of five groups: communications, balance sheet, AI and productivity, inflation framework, and I forget the fifth one.
Um, it doesn't matter. Yes. Yes. So many of these issues have already been discussed a lot. Data was the fifth point. A lot of this is quite new. You know, AI and productivity—this is coming into focus for the first time. in such a tangible way. Where do you think it would be easiest to achieve results here, to get specific recommendations from committees that the FOMC could implement, and so that in six months or a year people would say, "Yes, this is a better way to work." Yes.
I mean, the communication issue —we've been talking about this for the 17 years I've been at the Fed, and as you rightly point out, it's been going on since the 90s . I mean, you can make small improvements, but we just did a complete review of the structure where we discussed communications, and you know , people have very strong views on how to communicate, let's take the scenario analysis that Chairman Bernanke promoted last year.
There was a reaction from people, I personally appreciated it, but the resistance was quite strong. So I'm not sure anything really new will come out of this . As for balance, in my personal opinion, this is where there will be the most disagreements on how to proceed. If you want to reduce the demand for reserves but stay within sufficient reserves, I don't mind.
But if you want to say that we should move to a reserve deficit, I would be categorically against that. Regarding private data, great. We use private data all the time. But I worry that if you start making decisions based on private data that is not available to the public, then the public, and certainly the market, will pay too much attention to what you say , thinking that you know something that they don't.
You also risk losing trust. If I can't verify your words with data, I'll have trust issues. This is not very good for artificial intelligence. Who knows? That's still a long way off, and we're not necessarily designing monetary policy for two years ahead right now, are we? Epic. Yes. And the inflation issue may actually be the most interesting one, to be honest.
I don't know. I know the people on this committee, they have very different views. So I'm curious to see what they come up with, but if they have a new inflation model that will help me predict better, bring it here. I am ready to work better with open arms. Right. Good. Well , that concludes this. Thank you , Chris, for coming, and thank you to everyone who watched and listened to us.
Comments 0