【明報專訊】聯儲局雖然對通脹率一向沒有明確的目標，但它有時會暗示1.75％至2％是軟指標（圖1），當然與歐央行不同，聯儲局同時負有兩大任務：穩定物價與經濟增長，所以，有時它可能要偏離通脹的軟目標，而把焦點放在增長上。
這兩個有時互相矛盾的任務令泰萊定律（Taylor's rule， 編者按：此定律指聯邦基金利率的水平，須視乎實際通脹率與經濟增長偏離正常水平有多遠），自2003年起，聯儲局似乎已放棄了泰萊定律，此改變已反映在大部分資產價格上。令人驚訝的是上周聯儲局公布的最新一份議息會議紀錄顯示該局有意走得更遠。
過往，聯儲局的議息聲明主要關注經濟增長，但公開市場委員會9月份的議息聲明卻明確提出了：「現時的通脹指標是低於跟『促增長、穩物價』相匹配的水平。」這段文字並未顯示聯儲局在貨幣政策上有新猷，該局仍是關心通脹率。
拋出物價通道論 恍設通脹硬指標
但上周公布的議息會議紀錄就加入了以下段落：「與會者注意到可有不同的策略以影響短期通脹預期，這包括提供更多有關委員會對要達至其兩大任務的通脹信息、以物價的通道走勢作為瞄準的目標，而非通脹率，及瞄準一個與名義經濟增長相符的物價通道。」
這些言論令人看來聯儲局已為瞄準通脹通道（Path of inflation，圖2） 打開大門，這意味着當物價低於通道（如在科網股泡沫爆破後），則聯儲局要以高於歷年趨勢的通脹率為目標，讓物價可重上之前的軌道上。這也意味着聯儲局會以通脹硬指標取代以前的軟指標。迄今該局並無明確表明會循此方向出發，但委員會曾就此巨變作出討論，已足以解釋為何近期美元大跌，商品價格上漲。理由也很簡單，在一個通道系統，聯儲局若有需要，大可未來幾年製造每年4％的通脹率，通道系統就等於承諾把低利率長時間維持。
事件是否就會如此發展呢？今日各地央行的難題是它們主要由一班20年來一直研究日本及其政策錯誤的經濟學家所掌控，風險是這些央行專家可能高估了通縮的威脅。
當然，要實施物價通道為目標，也甚具爭議，相信委員會內的成員如Hoenig, Lacker 及Fisher等會大力反對，而伯南克又是一位重視共識的主席，這極端的做法未必會落實。
局內成員料不易通過新招
近期，債市的波動性比其他市場有過之無不及。聯儲局發表了議息會議紀錄後，觸發已超賣的美元進一步下滑，資源價格全面報升，但有趣的是，經合組織成員國的的國債市場過去幾天卻沒有參與這次的聯儲局寬鬆派對。
其中一個明顯的理由是估值，大部分經合組織成員國的實質利率已低於2厘，在這水平，除非債券投資者相信新的年代會來臨，否則，國債現時的水平，投資者理應卻步。
國債牛市或已完結
另一個抑制國債再升的原因是市場上的動物衝動（animal spirits）重現，由熱辣辣的新股熱潮、 大幅增長的併購活動、私募基金活動復熾，突然間，銀行業似乎有更好的資金出路，而毋須把資金堆向國債市場。當然，弱美元政策會令各地央行被迫繼續累積美國國債，（就如數周前日本入市干預日圓升勢般），不過，通脹有可能升溫，而國債估值又甚高，這都令國債牛市可能終結了。
Pierre Gave
GaveKal亞洲區研究部主管
While the Fed does not have an explicit target for the rate of inflation, it has sometimes indicated a “soft target” of between 1.75% to 2%. Of course unlike the European Central Bank, the Fed has a dual mandate: price stability and growth. As a result, it has sometimes had to drift from that inflation ‘soft target’ to focus on growth concerns. The existence of these two, sometime conflicting, mandates, underpinned the Taylor Rule; though, starting in 2003, it seems the Fed chose to discard the Taylor Rule—a stance that has by now surely been reflected in the valuation of most asset prices Amazingly, the Fed meeting minutes released last week may be indicating that the Fed may be willing to go even further.
Indeed, while Fed announcements in the past primarily focused on growth concerns, in the September announcement, FOMC board members explicitly pointed out that “measures of underlying inflation are currently at levels somewhat below those the Committee judges most consistent, over the longer run, with its mandate to promote maximum employment and price stability”. But this did not necessarily imply the Fed was considering a totally new focus for monetary policy. After all, with Core personal consumption expenditure (PCE) now rising at a YoY RATE of +1.1%, it seemed the Fed was still simply concerned about the rate of inflation. But then the Fed added this in the minutes: “Participants noted a number of possible strategies for affecting short-term inflation expectations, including providing more detailed information about the rates of inflation the Committee considered consistent with its dual mandate, targeting a path for the price level rather than the rate of inflation, and targeting a path for the level of nominal GDP.”
With these comments, the Fed appears to be opening the door to targeting the PATH of inflation (see chart). What this means is that if the price index drifts below its targeted path (e.g., after the TMT bust), then the Fed should target above-trend RATES of inflation to get it back on path (maybe this is why Greenspan kept rates so low for so long then?!). Alternatively, if prices rise above the targeted path, the Fed should aim for below-trend RATES to return to path. In other words, a soft inflation rate target would be abandoned in favor of a hard inflation path target! As of now, the Fed has yet to indicate any decision to go in this direction, but the fact that they are openly discussing such a major change may help explain the recent performance of the US$, commodities, etc… And this for obvious reasons: under a ‘path’ system, the Fed would have the green light to manufacture +4% inflation for the next few years if this was deemed necessary. A ‘path system’ would thus constitute a promise to keep rates low for an extended period of time.
So is this likely to happen? One of the major problems of central banks today is that they are staffed mostly by economists who have spent the past two decades studying Japan and its policy mistakes. And if to a hammer everything looks like a nail, then the risk must be that our current policymakers, formed in the midst of the Japanese disaster, may be overplaying the threat of deflation. Having said that, moving to a price path target would be a very controversial change in policy, and that some Fed directors such as Hoenig, Lacker, Fisher, etc. would likely put up a big fight. And given the fact that chairman Bernanke has a reputation of being more of a consensus builder than his predecessor, such a radical move may yet not happen. In any event, with commodities going through the roof, and the US$ once again collapsing, Ben Bernanke’s Friday speech at the Boston Federal Reserve on monetary policy in a low inflation environment could well shake-up markets further.
And nowhere will such volatility be felt more than in the bond markets. Indeed, while, the publication of the latest Fed minutes triggered yet another fall in the oversold/undervalued US$ and a fairly broad rally in commodities. But interestingly, this time around, it seems that global OECD government bond markets decided to skip on ‘easy Fed policy’ party of the past few days.
One obvious reason is valuations; with real rates far below 2% in most OECD countries, bond investors today have to assume that we have indeed entered a long period of ‘New Normal’. Meanwhile, most investors remember that the last time they were sold a ‘New Paradigm’ (back in the late 1990s), things didn’t work out that great! So discarding valuations may start to become challenging for the incremental buyer.
Another factor which may be now acting as a brake on the US bond market is the current revival of animal spirits: from hot IPOs, to a surge in M&A (Yahoo, Genzyme, Oracle…), to a pick-up in private-equity activity (e.g., Seagate), it seems that, all of a sudden, banks may have better use for their cash than piling it into government bond markets.
Of course, against this, the apparent ‘weak US$’ policy forces central banks everywhere to accumulate US treasuries (as Japan so aptly demonstrated a few weeks ago). And with the US registering yet another high current account deficit, one might expect foreign central banks to keep showing up on the ‘ask’ side of the market. However, this is also not a given: yesterday saw Singapore’s MAS widen the daily trading band of the Singapore Dollar, Russia do the same for the Ruble etc… Still, between the possibility of rising inflation, and the overall market valuations, it seems that the bond market rally has come to an end.
