Vivek Kaul
People who follow the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) governor Raghuram Rajan were expecting him to raise the repo rate by 25 basis points(one basis point is one hundredth of a percentage) in the mid quarter monetary policy review announced on December 18, 2013. Repo rate is the rate at which RBI lends to banks.
But that did not happen. This led one journalist attending the press conference after the policy announcement, to quip “We were expecting a Volcker, we got a Yellen.” To this, governor Rajan replied “Why a Volcker or a Yellen, how about a Rajan?” (As reported in the Business Standard).
Rajan took over as the 23rd governor of the RBI on September 4, 2013. Since then he has often been compared to the former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.
Volcker took over as the chairman of the Federal Reserve of United States in August 1979. This was an era when the United States had double digit inflation.
Interestingly, when Arthur Burns retired as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1978, the inflation was at 9%. Jimmy Carter, the President of the United States, chose G William Miller, a lawyer from Oklahoma, as the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Miller had no background in economics. As Neil Irwin writes in The Alchemists – Inside the Secret World of Central Bankers “Most significantly, Miller, fearful of a recession, refused to tighten the money supply to fight inflation. By the summer of 1979, with inflation at 10 percent, Carter had had enough. He “promoted” Miller to treasury secretary as a part of the cabinet shake-up, a job with less concrete authority. That left him with a vacancy in the Fed chairmanship.”
Carter picked up Paul Volcker as Miller’s replacement. Volcker at that point of time was the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Volcker had been a civil servant under four American presidents. “In his meeting with the president before the appointment, Volcker told Carter he was inclined to tighten the money supply to fight inflation. That’s what Carter was looking for – but he almost certainly didn’t understand just what he was getting,” writes Irwin.
In the year that Volcker took over consumer prices rose by 13%. The only way out of this high inflation was to raise interest rates and raise them rapidly. The trouble was that Jimmy Carter was fighting for a re-election in November 1980.
As Irwin writes “On an air force jet en route to an International Monetary Fund conference in Belgrade, Volcker explained his plans to Carter’s economic advisers. They didn’t like them one bit. Sure, Carter wanted lower inflation. But higher interest rates affect the economy with a lag of many months. There was barely a year to go until the president would be running for reelection, which meant that just as their boss was asking voters for another term, unemployment would be sky-rocketing due to the new Volcker policy.”
Volcker was not going to sit around doing nothing and came out all guns blazing to kill inflation which by March 1980 had touched a high of 15%. He kept increasing increasing rates, till they had touched 20% by January 1981. This had an impact on inflation and it fell to below 10% in May and June 1981.
The prime lending rate or the rate at which banks lend to their best customers, had been greater than 20% for most of 1981. Increasing interest rates did have a negative impact on economic growth and led to a recession. In 1982, the unemployment rate crossed 10%, the highest it had been since 1940 and nearly 12 million Americans lost their jobs.
During the course of the same year, nearly 66,000 companies filed for bankruptcy, the highest since the Great Depression. And between 1981-83,, the economy lost $570 billion of output. While all this was happening, Jimmy Carter also lost the 1980 presidential elections to Ronald Reagan.
India and Rajan are in a similar situation right now. The consumer price inflation(CPI) for the month of November 2013 was at 11.24%. In comparison the number was at 10.17% in October 2013. At the same time Lok Sabha elections are due next year.
In this scenario will Rajan jack up the repo rate to control inflation? When a central bank raises the interest rate the idea is to make borrowing expensive for everyone. At higher interest rates people are likely to borrow less than they were in the past. Also, people are likely to save more money. This ensures that a lesser amount of money chases goods and services, and that in turn brings inflation down.
At higher interest rates, borrowing becomes expensive for the government as well. This might force the government to cut down on its expenses. When a government cuts down on its expenses, a lower amount of money enters the economy, and that also helps in controlling inflation. But that is just one part of the argument.
One school of thought goes that there is not much the RBI can do about inflation by increasing interest rates. Leading this school is finance minister P Chidambaram. As he said in late November “Consumer inflation in India is entrenched due to high food and fuel prices and monetary policy has little impact in curbing these prices…There are no quick fixes for inflation, will take some time to fix it,” he said.
This logic is borne out to some extent if one looks at the inflation numbers in a little more detail. The food inflation as per wholesale price index(WPI) was at 19.93% in November 2013. Within it, onion prices rose by 190.3% and vegetable prices rose by 95.3%. The food inflation as per the consumer price index(CPI) stood at 14.72% in November 2013. Within food inflation, vegetable prices rose by 61.6% and fruit prices rose by 15%, in comparison to November 2012.
Hence, a large part of inflation is being driven by food inflation. As the RBI said in the Mid-Quarter Monetary Policy Review: December 2013 statement released on December 18, 2013, “Retail inflation measured by the consumer price index (CPI) has risen unrelentingly through the year so far, pushed up by the unseasonal upturn in vegetable price.”
A major reason behind the Rajan led RBI not raising the repo rate was the fact that they expect vegetable prices to fall. “Vegetable prices seem to be adjusting downwards sharply in certain areas,” it said in the monetary policy review statement. Taimur Baig and Kaushik Das of Deutsche Bank Research in a note dated December 18, 2013, said “vegetable prices, key driver of inflation in recent months, have started falling in the last couple of weeks (daily prices of 10 food items tracked by us are down by about 7% month on month(mom) on an average in the first fortnight of December).”
If vegetable prices in particular and food prices in general do come down then both the consumer price and wholesale price inflation are likely to fall. If we look at the RBI’s decision to not raise the repo rate from this point of view, it looks perfectly fine.
But there is another important data point that one needs to take a look at. And that is core retail inflation. If one excludes food and fuel constituents that make up for around 60% of the consumer price index, the core retail inflation was at 8% in November 2013. This needs to be controlled to rein in inflationary expectations. As the monetary policy review statement of the RBI points out “High inflation…risks entrenching inflation expectations at unacceptably elevated levels, posing a threat to growth and financial stability.”
According to a recent survey of inflationary expectations carried out by the RBI, Indian households expect consumer prices to rise by 13% in 2014. Th rate of inflation that people(individuals, businesses, investors) think will prevail in the future is referred to as inflationary expectation. Inflationary expectations can be reined in to some extent by raising interest rates. As Baig and Das said in a note dated December 16, “RBI would still want to maintain a hawkish stance to ensure that inflation expectations (which is firmly in double digit territory as per recent surveys) do not rise further.”
The trouble here is that higher interest rates will dampen consumer expenditure further. At higher interest rates people are less likely to borrow and spend. The businesses are less likely to expand. This is reflected in the private final consumption expenditure(PFCE) number which is a part of the GDP number measured from the expenditure point of view. The PFCE for the period between July and September 2013 grew by just 2.2%(at 2004-2005 prices) from last year. Between July and September 2012 it had grown by 3.5%. The PFCE currently forms around 59.8% of the GDP when measured from the expenditure side.
The lack of consumer demand is also reflected in the index of industrial production(IIP), a measure of industrial activity. For October 2013, IIP fell by 1.8% in comparison to the same period last year. If people are not buying as many things as they used to, there is no point in businesses producing them. It is also reflected in manufactured products inflation, which forms around 65% of WPI. It stood at 2.64% in November 2013.
When the demand is not going up, businesses are not in a position to increase prices. And that is reflected in the manufacturing products inflation of just 2.64%. It was at 5.41% in November 2012.
Given this, if the Rajan led RBI were to keep raising the repo rate to bring down inflationary expectations, it would kill consumer demand further. The Congress led UPA government won’t want anything like this to happen in the months to come. They have already messed up with the economy enough.
Hence, Rajan and the RBI would have to make this tricky decision. If the keep raising the repo rate, chances are they might be able to rein in inflationary expectations and hence inflation, in the time to come. Nevertheless, if they keep doing that the chances of the Congress led UPA in the Lok Sabha elections will go down further.
To conclude, when Arthur Burns was appointed as the chairman of the Federal Reserve on January 30, 1970, president Richard Nixon had remarked,“I respect his independence. However, I hope that independently he will conclude that my views are the ones that should be followed”. Burns had not disappointed Nixon and started running an easy money policy before the 1972 presidential election, which Nixon eventually won.
Raghuram Rajan needs to decide, whether he wants to go against the government of the day and do what Volcker did, or fall in line and help the government win the next election, like Burns did. Its a tricky choice.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on December 20, 2013
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)
Arthur Burns
Obama, Salman Khan, QE-3: Why we have to wait for 6 Nov
Vivek Kaul
Richard Nixon, who was the President of the United States between January 1969 and August 1974, appointed Arthur C Burns as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of United States (the American central bank) on January 30,1970. “I respect his (i.e. Burns) independence. However, I hope that independently he will conclude that my views are the ones that should be followed,” Nixon said on the occasion.
Burns did not disappoint Nixon and when it was election time in 1972. Since the start of 1972, Burns ran an easy money policy and pumped more money into the financial system by simply printing it. The American money supply went by 10.6% in 1972.
The idea was that with the increased money in the financial system, interest rates would be low, and this would encourage consumers and businesses to borrow more. Consumers and businesses borrowing and spending more would lead to the economy doing well. And this would ensure the re-election of Nixon who was seeking a second term in 1972. That was the idea. And it worked. Nixon won the second term with some help from Burns.
As investment newsletter writer Gary Dorsch wrote in a column earlier this year “Incumbent presidents are always hard to beat. The powers of the presidency go a long way….Nixon pressured Arthur Burns, then the Fed chairman, to expand the money supply with the aim of reducing unemployment, and boosting the economy in order to insure Nixon’s re-election…Nixon imposed wage and price controls to constrain inflation, and won the election in a landslide.” (you can read the complete column here)
History is expected to repeat itself
Something similar has been expected from the current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. It has been widely expected that Bernanke will unleash the third round of money printing to revive the moribund American economy. Bernanke has already carried out two rounds of money printing before this to revive the American economy. This policy has been technically referred to as quantitative easing (QE), with the two earlier rounds of it being referred to as QE I and QE II.
The original idea was that with more money in the economy, banks will lend, and consumers and businesses will borrow and this in turn would revive the economy. But the American consumer had already borrowed too much in the run up to the financial crisis, which started in September 2008, when the investment bank Lehman Brothers went bust. The consumer credit outstanding peaked in 2008 and stood at $2.6trillion. The American consumer had already borrowed too much to buy homes and a lot of other stuff, and he was in no mood to borrow more.
The wealth effect
The other thing that happened because of the easy money policy of the American government was that it allowed the big institutional investors to borrow at very low interest rates and invest that money in the stock market. This pushed stock prices up leading to more investors coming into the market.
As Maggie Mahar puts it in Bull! : A History of the Boom, 1982-1999: What drove the Breakneck Market–and What Every Investor Needs to Know About Financial Cycles: “In the normal course of things, higher prices dampen desire. When lamb becomes too dear, consumers eat chicken; when the price of gasoline soars, people take fewer vacations. Conversely, lower prices usually whet our interest: colour TVs, VCRs, and cell phones became more popular as they became more affordable. But when a stock market soars, investors do not behave like consumers. They are consumed by stocks. Equities seem to appeal to the perversity of human desire. The more costly the prize, the greater the allure.”
As more money enters the stock market, stock prices go up. This leads to what economists call the “wealth effect”. The stock market investors feel richer because of the stock prices going up. And because they feel richer they tend to spend some of their accumulated wealth on buying goods and services. As more money is spent, businesses do well and so in turn does the economy.
As Gary Dorsch writes “Historical observation reveals that the direction of the stock market has a notable influence over consumer confidence and spending levels. In particular, the top-20% of wealthiest Americans account for 40% of the spending in the US-economy, so the Fed hopes that by inflating the value of the stock market, wealthier Americans would decide to spend more. It’s the Fed’s version of “trickle down” economics, otherwise known as the “wealth effect.”
Why Bernanke won’t launch QE III soon
Given these reasons it was widely expected that Ben Bernanke would start another round of money printing or QE III this year to help Obama’s reelection campaign. Bernanke has been resorting to what Dorsch calls “open mouth operations” i.e. dropping hints that QE III is on its way. In August he had said that the Federal Reserve “will provide additional policy accommodation as needed to promote a stronger economic recovery.” This was basically a complicated way of saying that if required the Federal Reserve wouldn’t back down from printing more money and pumping it into the economy.
But even though Bernanke has been hinting about QE III for a while he hasn’t gone around doing anything concrete about it. The reason for this is the fact that Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate against the incumbent President Barack Obama has gone to town criticizing the Fed’s past QE policies. He has also warned the Federal Reserve to stay neutral before the November 6 elections, says Dorsch. As Romney told Fox News on August 23 “I don’t think QE-2 was terribly effective. I think a QE-3 and other Fed stimulus is not going to help this economy…I think that is the wrong way to go. I think it also seeds the kind of potential for inflation down the road that would be harmful to the value of the dollar and harmful to the stability of our nation’s needs.”
Romney even indicated that he would prefer someone other than Bernanke as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. “I would want to select someone new and someone who shared my economic views…I want someone to provide monetary stability that leads to a strong dollar and confidence that America is not going to go down the road that other nations have gone down, to their peril.” With more and more dollars being printed, the future of the dollar as an international currency is looking more and more bleak.
Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan also echoed his views when he said “Sound money… We want to pursue a sound-money strategy so that we can get back the King Dollar.”
Given this it is highly unlikely that Ben Bernanke will unleash QE III before November 6, the date of the Presidential elections. And whether he does it after that depends on who wins.
Of Obama and Salman Khan
As far as pollsters are concerned Obama seems to have the upper hand as of now. But at the same time the average American is not happy with the overall state of the American economy. “According to pollsters, two thirds of Americans think the US-economy is still stuck in the Great Recession, and is headed in the wrong direction. Only 31% say it is moving in the right direction – the lowest number since December 2011. The dire outlook is explained by a recent analysis by the US Census Bureau and Sentier Research LLC, indicating that US-household incomes actually declined more in the 3-year expansion that started in June 2009 than during the longest recession since the Great Depression,” writes Dorsch.
But despite this Americans don’t hold Obama responsible for the mess they are in. As Dorsch points out “Although, Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the future, many voters don’t seem to be holding it against Democrat Obama. Instead, the embattled president is getting some slack because he inherited a very tough situation. In fact, Obama’s strongest base supporters are among also suffering the highest jobless rates and highest poverty rates in the country.”
Obama’s support is similar to the support film actor Salman Khan receives in India. As Manoj
Manoj Desai, owner of G7 theatres in Mumbai, recently told The Indian Express “Even when the fans are disappointed with his film, they never blame him. You will often hear them say, bhai se galat karwaya iss picture main. (They made Bhai do the wrong things in this movie)”
What’s in it for us?
Indian stock market investors should thus be hoping that Barack Obama wins the November 6 elections. That is likely to lead to another round of quantitative easing. As had happened in previous cases a portion of that matter will be borrowed by big Wall Street firms and make its way into stock markets round the world including India.
(The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on September 5,2012. http://www.firstpost.com/world/obama-salman-khan-qe-3-why-we-have-to-wait-for-6-nov-444474.html)
(Vivek Kaul is a Mumbai based writer and can be reached at [email protected])