저자: MohamedEl-Erian · 외국인
요약 보기
잭슨홀 연설에서 파월이 고용 리스크를 인정하며 9월 인하 확률이 85%로 반영됐지만, 프레임워크·구조적 변화 등 장기 정책 논의는 빠졌다고 비판. 사실상 2% 이상 인플레 목표가 용인되는 상황이며 장기채 금리는 재정우위 우려로 상승 압력. 미국 장기금리가 오르면 세계로 전파되는 베타가 크다고 봄. 정부 지분 투자(인텔 등)는 소유와 경영 통제 구분이 필요하다고 경고.
다듬은 글
Fed J. Pal finally giving the market what it had been clamoring for on Friday, a pivot. Uh let's talk about that now with Muhammad Elaran who joins us. Uh he's of course the chief economic adviser at Aliance and president of Queens College Cambridge. Muhammad, great to see you. We've uh switched countries this week.
Um obviously you've written about this in the FT uh today and uh it's a great read. I recommend people have a look, but you're actually quite critical of J. pal in in in the article you've put out this morning. I am. Let's just start with what was timely if not a little bit late which is a recognition allow Chris Waller that the risk to the employment side of the mandates are higher and while there's inflation risks he downplayed the second and third round effects of tariffs.
I think that is correct and I'm glad he did that. The market repriced of course September cut to 85%. And the remaining 15% is between nothing and 50 basis points. We have to remember that. But what next? He didn't give much clarity on what happens after September. And then he said almost nothing about the policy implications of all the structural changes that he mentioned in the labor force, in the trading system, in the operation of the domestic economy.
And that matters because it matters for key issues of monetary policy, the level of interest rates, the equilibrium level of interest rates, the equilibrium level of the balance sheet, and it also matters for the framework. Um, the last thing we want is a framework that once again is dead on arrival or like the Wall Street Journal characterized the 2020 which was the most poorly timed change in the monetary framework.
So, I'm glad for what he said, but I'm disappointed for what he did not cover. And and I guess your point is that the Jackson Hole is is typically a place where you you would expect or hope to see some of those broader longer term topics um covered. One one other thing that you raised in the op-ed as well is this point that's been discussed a lot about what the long-term inflation target should be.
Do do you think it should be 3%, do you think it will be 3%? Uh and what would that mean for equity markets and other assets if if indeed that shift one day uh formally took place? So first of all, Jackson Hall is the place to do it. This was his last Jackson Hall. He's had eight of them. You would have expected him to talk about lesson learned.
you would expect of him to keep to strategy issues. Um, but he didn't. And that's because his tendency is to be data dependent, not strategic. In terms of the employment target, look, we're running an employment target around 2% de facto. For four years now, we've been above 2%. We don't get back to 2% for another two years, according to the Fed.
So, de facto, we're running with a higher inflation target. Now they ruled out any discussion of this in the framework but I can tell you that behind closed doors people are asking the question is it better inflation rate 2 and a half to 3% than 2%. And the reason is again the structural changes. Um and he's acknowledged by putting the risk on the employment side at a time when inflation is still going up.
He has somewhat acknowledged that for now the 2% inflation target is not as applicable as it has been in the past. But it doesn't appear, Muhammad, that the the barn market seems that they've lost any kind of credibility as inflation fighters as a result of the comments on Friday. Right. So look at the long end.
I've been absolutely fascinated by what's been happening to the long end of curves. Um and not just in in the US, around the world. Last year, Japan hit its highest level. The UK is at its highest level in many decades. The reaction of the long end here, the 30-year was very muted compared to what it was before.
You saw in the chart, we basically back at where we were on Friday morning within one or two basis points for the 30-year. I think what the long end is recognizing is this notion of fiscal dominance that we've entered a period of high deficits, high debt and that monetary policy for now is going to be impacted by what's happening elsewhere in the economy and I think that is what you're seeing in the long end and that explains the two 30s of 120 basis points.
In terms of long-end rates, do do you think that US long-end rates can be dragged higher if there's a big fallout in Japan or a big fallout in the UK for example or not? To some extent, it's much bigger the other way around. If you have a big fallout in US, that will pull the rest of the world up. We get pulled out to some extent if you like if you I mean to give you a sense the beta for us to the rest of the world.
So if the US goes up in the 30-year, the beta elsewhere is near one. In the case of the UK, as you know, Wford is above one. However, if the rest of the world goes up and we react, our beta is below half. And Muhammad, I want to pivot just a wild other conversation given that we've we've gone over where where this market may go.
We've been talking all morning about Intel. You're in London right now, or in the UK, I should say. Do you have a take on what we're We talked to Kevin Hasset earlier. He he basically said pretty flat out the US government's going to not just take stakes in things like Intel, but we're going to have a sovereign wealth fund that's going to be taking stakes in all sorts of businesses in the United States.
It sounds like what do you make of that? So, I'm getting nervous at this notion that this is beyond Intel. The only thing I like about this Intel transaction is a message to the private sector. There is no free lunch. Are you gonna take if you're gonna take money from the government, don't think it comes free.
However, I worry about two things. I worry about the spreading and I worry about the lack of respect between in this critical difference between ownership and control. Ownership is fine starting to impact business decision is really problematic. As Kevin said, what distinguishes the US from the rest of the world is a dynamic entrepreneurial private sector that reacts quickly.
Um, and I I just would be very nervous if suddenly we go into a world in which the government starts impacting lots of business decisions. Okay. But do you think there's a difference between taking non voting stakes in businesses and and basically taking non- voting stakes in businesses and maybe trying to influence things around the around the edges, right?
I mean that that's what we're talking about here. There was a piece over the weekend in the New York Times that called the called uh Donald Trump the new activist CEO, the ultimate activist CEO. Yeah. And I go back it's between ownership and control. I if they want to have ownership, if a sovereign wealth fund wants to have a stake in corporate US, okay, that's fine.
Um, but please don't go anywhere. Control, business decision, influences, that is a very slippery slope. Um countries have gone down that slope and it ends up by undermining the economic outlook and prosperity.
Comments 0