speeches · May 16, 2013
Regional President Speech
Narayana Kocherlakota · President
st
61 Annual Management Conference
of the
University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Narayana Kocherlakota
President
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Chicago, Illinois
May 17, 2013
During the conference, Narayana Kocherlakota participated in a panel that
discussed the future of central bank policies. Below is the question he was asked
and his response.
Question: What are the key challenges facing central bankers around the world
today?
Narayana Kocherlakota: Thanks for the question. Before answering, I should
point out that my remarks today will reflect only my own views and not
necessarily those of anyone else in the Federal Reserve System.
In my view, the biggest challenge for central banks—especially here in the
United States—is changes in the nature of asset demand and asset supply since
2007. Those changes are shaping current monetary policy—and are likely to
shape policy for some time to come.
Let me elaborate. The demand for safe financial assets has grown greatly
since 2007. This increased demand stems from many sources, but I’ll mention
what I see as the most obvious one. As of 2007, the United States had just gone
through nearly 25 years of macroeconomic tranquility. As a consequence,
relatively few people in the United States saw a severe macroeconomic shock as
possible. However, in the wake of the Great Recession and the Not-So-Great
Recovery, the story is different. Workers and businesses want to hold more safe
assets as a way to self-insure against this enhanced macroeconomic risk.
At the same time, the supply of the assets perceived to be safe has shrunk
over the past six years. Americans—and many others around the world—thought
in 2007 that it was highly unlikely that American residential land, and assets
backed by land, could ever fall in value by 30 percent. They no longer think that.
Similarly, investors around the world viewed all forms of European sovereign debt
as a safe investment. They no longer think that either.
The increase in asset demand, combined with the fall in asset supply,
implies that households and firms spend less at any level of the real interest
rate—that is, the interest rate net of anticipated inflation. It follows that the
Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) can only meet its congressionally
mandated objectives for employment and prices by taking actions that lower the
real interest rate relative to its 2007 level. The FOMC has responded to this
challenge by providing a historically unprecedented amount of monetary
accommodation. But the outlook for prices and employment is that they will
remain too low over the next two to three years relative to the FOMC’s
objectives. Despite its actions, the FOMC has still not lowered the real interest
rate sufficiently in light of the changes in asset demand and asset supply that I’ve
described.
The passage of time will ameliorate these changes in the asset market, but
only gradually. Indeed, the low real yields on long-term TIPS bonds suggest to me
that these changes are likely to persist over a considerable period of time—
possibly the next five to 10 years. If this forecast proves true, the FOMC will only
meet its congressionally mandated objectives over that long time frame by taking
policy actions that ensure that the real interest rate remains unusually low.
One challenge with this kind of policy environment—and this is closely
linked to the overarching theme of this panel—is that low real interest rates are
often associated with financial market phenomena that signify instability. There
are many examples of such phenomena, but let me focus on a particularly
important one: increased asset price volatility. When the real interest rate is
unusually low, investors don’t discount the future by as much. Hence, an asset’s
price becomes sensitive to information about dividends or risk premiums in what
might usually have seemed like the distant future. These new sources of relevant
information can lead to increased volatility, in the form of unusually large upward
or downward movements in asset prices.
These kinds of financial market phenomena could pose macroeconomic
risks. These potentialities are best addressed, I believe, by using effective
supervision and regulation of the financial sector. It is possible, though, that these
tools may fail to mitigate the relevant macroeconomic risks. The FOMC could
respond to any residual risk by tightening monetary policy. However, it should
only do so if the certain loss in terms of the associated fall in employment and
prices is outweighed by the possible benefit of reducing the risk of an even larger
fall in employment and prices caused by a financial crisis. Hence, the FOMC’s
decision about how to react to signs of financial instability—now and in the years
to come—will necessarily depend on a delicate probabilistic cost-benefit
calculation.
Here’s an example of the kind of calculation that I have in mind. Last week,
the Survey of Professional Forecasters reported that it saw less than one chance
in 200 of the unemployment rate being higher than 9.5 percent in 2014, and an
even smaller chance of the unemployment rate being that high in 2015.1 One
possible cause of this kind of a large upward movement in the unemployment
1 See the Survey of Professional Forecasters, page 14, at phil.frb.org/research-and-data/real-time-
center/survey-of-professional-forecasters/2013/spfq213.pdf.
rate is an untoward financial shock ultimately attributable to low real interest
rates. Thus, the gain to tightening monetary policy is that the FOMC may—and I
emphasize the word may—be able to reduce the already low probabilities of
adverse unemployment outcomes.
To me, this kind of analysis suggests that, currently, the gains from
tightening related to improving financial stability are both speculative and slight.
In contrast, the losses from tightening—in terms of pushing employment and
prices even further below the Federal Reserve’s goals—are both tangible and
significant. I conclude that financial stability considerations provide little support
for reducing accommodation at this time.
Thanks again for the question.
Cite this document
APA
Narayana Kocherlakota (2013, May 16). Regional President Speech. Speeches, Federal Reserve. https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/regional_speeche_20130517_narayana_kocherlakota
BibTeX
@misc{wtfs_regional_speeche_20130517_narayana_kocherlakota,
author = {Narayana Kocherlakota},
title = {Regional President Speech},
year = {2013},
month = {May},
howpublished = {Speeches, Federal Reserve},
url = {https://whenthefedspeaks.com/doc/regional_speeche_20130517_narayana_kocherlakota},
note = {Retrieved via When the Fed Speaks corpus}
}