The Federal Reserve’s plans for the eventual wind-down of its economic stimulus campaign could provoke a political reaction that will make it more difficult to control inflation, a current Fed official and a former Fed governor said Friday.
Peter Newcomb/Reuters
James Bullard, president of the St. Louis Fed, sees political fallout from coming losses.
Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe
Eric Rosengren, head of the Boston Fed, noted 400,000 jobs would be added this year.
Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
Jerome Powell, a Fed governor, said the bank would resist any pressure from Congress.
When the economy grows stronger, the Fed plans to sell some of its vast holdings of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities. The Fed also plans to pay banks to leave some money on deposit with it to limit the pace of new lending.
And that could prove an awkward combination. The Fed faces the possibility of large losses as it sells off securities, which could force the central bank to suspend annual payments to the Treasury Department for the first time since the 1930s, even as it would be increasing the amounts paid to the banking industry for its cash holdings at the Fed to control inflation.
“That sounds like a recipe for political problems,” said James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. He described the predicament as one reason the Fed might consider limiting its plans for additional asset purchases.
But Eric S. Rosengren, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, said that concerns about potential losses needed to be weighed against the benefits of asset purchases. The Fed holds almost $3 trillion in Treasuries and mortgage bonds, and it is adding about $85 billion a month in an effort to cut unemployment.
Mr. Rosengren, a leading advocate of the purchases, said Boston Fed research showed asset purchases this year could help create about 400,000 new jobs.
“That’s what the Federal Reserve should really be caring about, what’s happening with the dual mandate with and without” the asset purchases, Mr. Rosengren said. “When I think about the costs, I have to weigh that against the benefits,” he said at the US Monetary Policy Forum in New York on Friday.
By law, the Fed sends most of its profits to the Treasury, and in recent years those profits have soared as the Fed has collected interest on its investments. Last year, the central bank contributed $89 billion to the public coffers — essentially refunding a significant portion of the federal government’s annual borrowing costs.
The purpose of the investment portfolio is to hold down borrowing costs for businesses and consumers. As the economy revives, the Fed has said it will begin selling some of those holdings. But it faces potential losses on those sales because interest rates would be rising. Security prices, which move inversely to rates, would be falling, and the government would be issuing new debt at the higher rates, making the low-yield bonds that the Fed holds less valuable.
Estimating the potential losses requires a wide range of assumptions on Fed policy, economic growth and interest rates. A Fed analysis published last month, which assumed that interest rates rose to 3.8 percent later this decade, estimated that the central bank might record losses of $40 billion and suspend contributions to the Treasury for four years beginning in 2017. If rates rose by another percentage point, however, the analysis estimated that losses would triple. An independent analysis published on Friday foresaw losses of around $20 billion and a suspension of payments for only three years.
The Fed can afford to lose money because it can simply print more. It would record a liability, and pay down the debt as profits rebounded.
But there are signs that the Fed’s political opponents would seize on any losses as evidence of economic malpractice. And such that criticism could come at a vulnerable moment: central banks are never popular when they are raising interest rates.
Representative Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, cited the potential losses in an open letter this week to the Fed chief, Ben S. Bernanke, requesting more information on what he called “the potentially devastating consequences from any unwind.”
Jerome H. Powell, a Fed governor, insisted Friday that the central bank would not allow its course to be influenced by such political pressure.
“We’re independent for a reason,” he said. “Congress has given us a job to do.”
Some supporters of current Fed policy also argue that an economic revival would inoculate the central bank against criticism, in part because the government’s coffers would be filling even without the Fed’s contributions.
But Frederic S. Mishkin, a Columbia economist and one of the authors of the independent analysis of the Fed’s potential losses, said that was wishful thinking.
“Politicians have very short memories,” said Professor Mishkin, a former Fed governor. “They’re going to focus very much on the fact that the Fed is no longer pulling its weight in terms of producing remittances for the federal government.”
Fed Officials Debate Bank’s Losses Once Economy Mends
This article
Fed Officials Debate Bank’s Losses Once Economy Mends
can be opened in url
http://internetnewser.blogspot.com/2013/02/fed-officials-debate-banks-losses-once.html
Fed Officials Debate Bank’s Losses Once Economy Mends
