Earlier today I said:
Fourth, the dots undeniably moved forward and steeper, which means individual outlooks on the definitions of “considerable period” or “accommodative” did in fact change in meaningful ways. I am surprised, however, that this was not anticipated by market participants given the rapid decline in the unemployment rate. Along any given Fed objective function, one would expect that a more rapid decrease in unemployment would move forward and steepen the interest rate trajectory, even if just by 25 or 50pb.
The Washington Post’s Ylan Mui had a sitdown with Federal Reserve President John WIlliams:
Logically, given that the unemployment rate is a little bit lower, that suggests a little bit higher interest rate in 2016. Is that a big shift in the timing of the first rate increase? We’re talking about a relatively small change in terms of the forecast, and I wouldn’t see that as a significant shift.
When I look at the SEP projections for 2015, I just don’t see much of a change in the views on policy — definitely not the kind of change in views on policy that represents some shift in our policy framework. The fact that unemployment has come down since December a little more than we thought, this is not news. Everybody knows that.
Also, regarding financial stability, I said Friday:
In short, if you believe that the Fed will not use monetary policy to address financial stability concerns, I think you might not be paying attention. They are already using monetary policy to address those concerns by not taking more aggressive action. Don’t look to what they will do in the future for confirmation; look to what they are not doing right now.
I meant “aggressive action” as policy to speed the pace of the recovery, whereas current policy is geared toward ending asset purchases and paving the way for rate hikes. Williams on the topic:
I think our policies are doing about as well as we can without creating excessive risks down the road, either for the economy or financial stability. I think there is a little bit of a tradeoff between trying to push this economy now even harder and maybe having some unintended consequences down the road — not today, not next year, probably not the year after — and also the potential of making the exit out of our very accommodative policies a little more difficult to navigate.
Also, if you get a chance, read Gavin Davies at the Financial Times:
But in a wider sense there has been an unmistakable shift in the FOMC’s centre of gravity in the past few months. The key to this shift is that the mainstream doves who have dominated policy decisions in the past few years have now essentially stopped arguing against either the tapering of the balance sheet or the start of rate hikes within about a year from now. Only the isolated Narayana Kocherlakota remains in the aggressive dovish corner.
Bottom Line: Those who expected Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen to push for a more dovish policy path continue to be dissapointed.
This piece is cross-posted from Tim Duy’s Fed Watch with permission.