引き続きこのネタで恐縮ですが。 [外部リンク] APPLEBAUM. Sir, you've articulated more clearly than ever your commitment to reduce unemployment, but you've also said that you're not actually doing anything more to achieve that goal; that you still expect it to be three years away; that you're disappointed with the pace of progress; and that inflation is not the limiting factor. What is the limiting factor? Why is the Fed not announcing today additional measures to reduce unemployment? What would it take for you to get that?』
『CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. Well, we took--the question was whether this was something new relative to September, I think September was the date where we did do a substantial increase in accommodation. At that point, we announced our dissatisfaction with the state of labor market and the outlook for jobs and said we would take further action if the outlook didn't improve. And what we've done today is really just following through what we said. So, I would say that, you know, looking at it from the perspective of September, that we have, in fact, taken significant additional action to provide support for the recovery and for job creation.』
『The reason--one of the considerations though as I've talked about is that, you know, given that we are now in the world of unconventional policy that has both uncertain cost and uncertain efficacy or uncertain benefits, you know, that creates a more--somewhat more complicated policy decision than the old style of just changing the federal funds rate.』
『You know, there are concerns that I've talked about in these briefings before that if the balance sheet gets indefinitely large that there would be potential risks in terms of financial stability, in terms of market functioning. And the committee takes these risks very seriously.』
『And they impose a certain cost on policy that doesn't exist when you're dealing only with the federal funds rate. And so what we're trying to do here is balance the potential benefits in terms of lower unemployment and inflation at target against the reality that as the balance sheet gets bigger that there's greater cost that might be associated with that, and those have to be taken to account.』
『BINYAMIN APPLEBAUM. Sir, if I can just follow so, these forecasts presumably incorporate the actions taken into account, and so [inaudible] given those actions, it will still be three years until you achieve your goals. Is the message to people who are unemployed basically, "We are doing all we can?" Is this the conclusion that given that balance of factors, this is the most we can expect?』
『CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. Well, first of all, again, these--the projections that you're looking at are based on each individual--this is not a committee collective projection. What they are, of course, is 19 separate participants making their own projections based on their own views of optimal policy. So, for example, it includes those folks who think that we shouldn't be doing any more purchases and their forecasts are included in there as well.』
さあ説明が苦しくなってまいりました!!!!
『So, it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but it is true that if we could wave a magic wand and get unemployment down to 5 percent tomorrow, obviously we would do that, but there are constraints in terms of the dynamics of the economy, in terms of the power of these tools, and in terms of the fact that we do need to take into account, you know, the possibility of other costs and risks that might be associated with a large expansion of our balance sheet.』
今回の会見は中々読んでいてヲチャー的にはオモロイが逆さ絵苦渋の会見という風情もあるのです。 [外部リンク] HILSENRATH. Jon Hilsenrath from the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Chairman, I just--I want to try to square up some numbers, the threshold that you announced today for when rate hikes might start at 6-1/2 percent. The Committee's assessment of the longer-run unemployment rate is 6 percent or perhaps a bit lower and the longer-run equilibrium fed funds rate is around 4 percent according to these projections.』
『It suggests that when the Fed does start raising interest rates down the road, it might have to move fairly quickly to get to some equilibrium fed funds rate. Is that, specifically, is that the case and more generally, can you talk about what this framework that you set up today says about the exit strategy that you had laid out some time ago and whether that's evolving or changing?』
『So first of all, we don't have a precise estimate of the long-run sustainable unemployment rate. The estimates that were provided in the summary of economic projections today, as has been the case for a while, is 5.2 to 6.0 percent. So, it could be well less than 6-1/2 percent, so that gives us some time.』
『My anticipation is that the removal of accommodation after the takeoff point, wherever that occurs, would be relatively gradual. I don't think we're looking at a rapid increase. Of course, that depends on where inflation is and other conditions. But it's--the path that we're basing these numbers on is one that assumes, first of all, as you anticipated, assumes a[n] increase in the funds rate first occurring some time after unemployment goes below 6-1/2 percent, but does not necessarily assume a rapid increase after that. And I--what we said in our statement is that we would take a balanced approach.』
『In other words, you know, once we get to that point, we may or may not raise rates at that point. We'll look at the situation. But assuming that inflation remains well controlled, which I fully anticipate, I think that the rate of increase in rates would be moderate.』
『This is consistent--the exit strategy that we put out is consistent with our statement today, because the exit strategy was primarily about how we would normalize the balance sheet over time. And at this time we have not made any changes in that, and we believe that some increase in the size of our balance sheet is consistent still with that general sequence that we laid out in the minutes a year and a half ago.』
『That being said, if the balance sheet grows by enough, we may have to reconsider the pace or timing of that, but I don't see any changes that would, you know, radically change the time to normalization or the time to exit.』
『MARCY GORDON. Mr. Chairman, what prompted the Committee to make the decision at this particular time to specify targets? And by taking an unemployment rate that is quite low compared to currently, does that shift the balance of priorities in terms of your dual mandate, closer more in the direction of reducing unemployment rather than inflationary pressures?』
『We took the change today after a good bit of discussion. We had a very substantial discussion of the threshold approach at our last meeting. And we felt it was ready to go, ready to put out.』
前回の議事要旨を見ると意見百出でまとまっているように見えませんでしたが・・・・・・・
『We--while there are different views and aspects of the threshold approach, there was a lot of agreement that having a more explicit connection between rate policy and the state of the economy was more transparent and more helpful to the markets, and to the public than our date-based guidance, and therefore, there was a general view that, at some point at least, that we should switch to that kind of guidance. So we do hope that it'll be more helpful and give markets more information about how we're going to respond going forward.』
というガイダンス変更の説明は先ほどと同様。
『It is not a change in our relative balance, weights, towards inflation and unemployment by no means. First of all, with respect to inflation, we remain completely committed to our 2 percent longer-run objective. Moreover, we expect our forecast, as you can see from the summary of economic projections; our forecasts are that inflation will actually remain despite this threshold of 2-1/2 that inflation will actually remain at or below 2 percent going forward. And so--and finally, the thresholds that we have put out are entirely consistent with our longstanding views on what the rate path has to be, what the path of interest rates has to be in order to achieve improvement in the labor market while keeping inflation close to target.』
『So we--I think both sides of the mandate are well-served here. There is no real change in policy. What it is instead is an attempt to clarify the relationship between policy and economic conditions.』
『ALISTER BULL. Alister Bull from Reuters. Thanks very much Mr. Chairman. Could you talk about whether the decision to maintain the monthly bond purchases at 85 billion a month represents a ramping up or additional easing to Fed policy, because you're now going to be adding a little bit more to the size of balance sheet? And also, you know, you've talked about maintaining the asset purchases until you see a substantial improvement in the outlook of labor market and you've said that you want to take a qualitative approach but you've also got this 6-1/2 percent inflation threshold out there as well. So, could you talk about what sort of evidence you'd see to sort of make you change the pace or slow the pace of purchases?』
『CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. The first part of your question was?』 『ALISTER BULL. Is this an additional stimulus or are you--』
で、それに対する答えがえーという感じでして・・・・・・・・
『CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. No, I think this is really a continuation of what we said in September.』
え??
『You recall in September we expressed a satisfaction with progress in the labor market. We, at that point, we began the 40 billion dollars per month of MBS purchases and we said that unless we saw substantial improvement in the outlook for labor market that we would undertake additional asset purchases or other actions.』
それはそうですが。
『And that's what we've done today is simply follow through on what we said we would do in September. I don't think that we have, relative to last month, I don't think we have significantly added to accommodation.』
『The reason is that at least in my view and I think many of my colleagues, that what matters primarily is the mix of assets on the balance sheet, on the asset side of the balance sheet. So what's important is the fact that we're acquiring Treasury securities and MBS, taking those out of the market, you know, forcing investors into other closely related assets and that's where the stimulus comes from, not so much in the size of the balance sheet per se.』
『So, in my judgment the amount of stimulus is more or less the same, it's being continued. It's a follow through from what we saw in September. In terms of criteria, again, what we've done is we've announced an initial amount of 85 billion a month of purchases.』
『We are prepared to vary that as new information comes in. For example, if the economy's outlook gets noticeably stronger, we would presumably begin to ramp down the level of purchases.』
経済状況を見て資産買入の判断をするという話はまあ当然。
『But again, the problem with giving a specific number is that there are multiple criteria in which we make the decision. We'll be looking at the outlook for labor market which is very important but we'll also be looking at other factors that may be affecting the outlook for the economy.』
こちらではしらっと労働市場ターゲットではないという部分をアピールしてますな。
『For example, I hope it won't happen but if the fiscal cliff occurs, as I've said many times,I don't think the Federal Reserve has the tools to offset that event and in that case, we obviously have to temper our expectations about what we can accomplish.』
ここがフィスカルクリフに対する話。似たような言及は他の所でもございます。
『Likewise, as I said, we'll also be looking at the efficacy and costs of our program and if, you know, we find, we expect it to be efficacious but if we find that it's not working as well as we hoped or the various costs are emerging that we have not anticipated then that would also have to be taken into account as we think about it.』
『So, we thought it was not constructive because we ourselves don't know precisely what would define substantial improvement but obviously, as long as the costs and other concerns do not emerge, we'll be looking for, you know, something that is substantial in terms of a better job market. 』
『Although the Committee’s announcement today specified the initial monthly pace and composition of asset purchases, it did not give specific dates at which the program may be modified or ended. Instead, the pattern of future asset purchases will depend on the Committee’s evaluation of incoming information, in two respects.』
『Second, the Committee will be monitoring economic and financial developments to assess both the efficacy and possible drawbacks of its asset purchase program.』
『The Federal Reserve’s asset purchases over the past few years have provided important support to the economy, for example, by helping to keep mortgage rates historically low. The Committee expects this policy tool to continue to be effective and the costs and risks to remain manageable, but as the program continues, we will be regularly updating those assessments.』
『If future evidence suggests that the program’s effectiveness has declined, or if potential unintended side effects or risks become apparent as the balance sheet grows, we will modify the program as appropriate.』
『More generally, the Committee intends to be flexible in varying the pace of securities purchases in response to information bearing on the outlook or on the perceived benefits and costs of the program.』
・資産買入見直しの判断は「数字的判断ではなくて総合的判断」
次のパラグラフから。
『Unlike the explicitly quantitative criteria associated with the Committee’s forward guidance about the federal funds rate, which I will discuss in a moment, the criteria the Committee will use to make decisions about the pace and extent of its asset purchase program are qualitative; in particular, continuation of asset purchases is tied to our seeing “substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market.”』
『Because we expect to learn more over time about the efficacy and potential costs of asset purchases in the current economic context, we believe that qualitative guidance is more appropriate at this time.』
『It is worth noting that the goals of the FOMC’s asset purchases and of its federal funds rate guidance are somewhat different. The goal of the asset purchase program is to increase the near-term momentum of the economy by fostering more accommodative financial conditions, while the purpose of the rate guidance is to provide information about the future circumstances under which the Committee would contemplate reducing accommodation.』
『I would emphasize that a decision by the Committee to end asset purchases, whenever that point is reached, would not be a turn to tighter policy.』
資産買入を終了する事は政策の引き締めを意味する訳では無い、という話をしているのですが。
『While in that circumstance the Committee would no longer be increasing policy accommodation, its policy stance would remain highly supportive of growth.』
『Only at some later point would the Committee begin actually removing accommodation through rate increases. Moreover, as I have discussed today, the decisions to modify the asset purchase program and to undertake rate increases are tied to different criteria.』
『In conclusion, the FOMC’s actions today are part of our ongoing efforts to support economic recovery and job creation while maintaining price stability. As I have often stressed, however, monetary policy has its limits; only the private and public sectors working together can get the U.S. economy fully back on track. In particular, it will be critical that fiscal policymakers come together soon to achieve longer-term fiscal sustainability without adopting policies that could derail the ongoing recovery.』
『STEVE LIESMAN. Mr. Chairman, Steve Liesman from CNBC. I guess I have a lot of questions but I'll just offer up two here. Why are there different targets for QE and for the funds rate? What does that achieve? Secondly, what good is a target if you have to reference to calendar dates in the statement itself, which is the thing you got away from. You have to point out in the statement that it's not substantially different from the calendar dates we set back in October. Do you have to keep doing that from now on to make it clear that--and then just thirdly, I guess I know I said two.』
『CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. I'm going to forget.』
『STEVE LIESMAN. But then you have another paragraph after that that says it's not just target it’s something else. So, it's unclear to me what good these targets are if you have to reference to calendar date, and then you kind of say in the next paragraph it's not really targets.』
『CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. Well, so first, the--as I said--the asset purchases and the rate increases have different objectives. The asset purchases are about creating some near-term momentum in the economy trying to strengthen growth and job creation in the near term, and the increases in the federal funds rate target when they ultimately occur are about reducing accommodations. Two very different objectives.』
これは先ほどの説明部分にもありましたように、資産買入政策と金利ガイダンス政策は「very different objectives」という風に言っております。
『Secondly, the asset purchases are a less well understood tool. We have--we'll be learning over time about how efficacious they are, about what costs they may carry with them in terms of unintended consequences that they might create, and we'll be seeing how--what else happens in the economy that can affect, you know, the level of unemployment, for example, that we hope to achieve.』
『And so, for that reason, as I discussed in my opening remarks, we decided to make the criteria for asset purchases qualitative at this time because we have a number of different things that we need to look at as we go forward.』
で、金利政策についての話になる。
『Rate increases by contrast are well understood, and we understand the relationship between those rate increases and the state of the economy. And so we've been able to give somewhat more quantitative, more specific guidance in that respect.』
金利政策の効果については良く理解されているので、質的ではなく数字的なガイダンスが適切と。
『With respect to the date, in the transition today, we wanted to make clear that the change in guidance did not--it happens to be the case that it doesn't change our mid-2015 expectation. Going forward, we'll drop the date and rely on the conditionality, and that has, I think, a very important advantage which is that if news comes in that the economy is stronger or weaker, then financial markets and the public will be able to adjust their expectations when policy tightening will occur without the Committee having to go through a process of changing its date in a nontransparent way, so I think that's beneficial. Does that cover your--okay.』
もちろん逆さ絵先生のプレコン冒頭での説明では昨日引用致しましたように、『The change in the form of the Committee’s forward guidance does not in itself imply any change in the Committee’s expectations about the likely future path of the federal funds rate since the October meeting.』(プレコンの4ページ目から)とゆうてますので、公式には今回のフォワードガイダンス変更はタカ派バイアスでもハト派バイアスでも無い、という事になっているのですが、現象面で言えばフォワードガイダンス変更によって金融政策運営に関して「総合判断」の部分が増えてしまって益々不透明感が増しているというのが今回の変更の特色でありまして(だから解説でも「時間軸が揺らぎやすくなる」という人が多いぞな)、正直このフォワードガイダンス変更のどこがどう透明性の強化なのか意味不明としか申し上げようがありません。
つまりですね、
『In particular, the Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored. 』(声明文より)
『To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends and the economic recovery strengthens.』(声明文より)
『In determining how long to maintain a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy, the Committee will also consider other information, including additional measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments. When the Committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach consistent with its longer-run goals of maximum employment and inflation of 2 percent.』
『In today’s statement, the Committee also recast its forward guidance to clarify how it expects its target for the federal funds rate to depend on future economic developments.』
でまあそこからズラズラと説明が始まるのですが詳しくは後日ということで勘弁。
『The change in the form of the Committee’s forward guidance does not in itself imply any change in the Committee’s expectations about the likely future path of the federal funds rate since the October meeting.』
『In particular, the Committee expects that the stated threshold for unemployment will not be reached before mid-2015 and projects that inflation will remain close to 2 percent over that period. Thus, given the Committee’s current outlook, the guidance introduced today is consistent with the Committee’s earlier statements that exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate are likely to be warranted at least through mid-2015.』
『Let me emphasize that the 6-1/2 percent threshold for the unemployment rate should not be interpreted as the Committee’s longer-term objective for unemployment. Indeed, in the economic projections submitted in conjunction with today’s meeting, the central tendency of participants’ estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment is 5.2 to 6.0 percent.』
6.5%の数値は目標じゃないよ望ましい水準はは5.2%〜6.0%だよと。
『However, because changes in monetary policy affect the economy with a lag, the Committee believes that it likely will need to begin moving away from a highly accommodative policy stance before the economy reaches maximum employment. Waiting until maximum employment is achieved before beginning the process of removing policy accommodation could lead to an undesirable overshooting of potential output and compromise the FOMC’s longer-term inflation objective of 2 percent.』
『As the FOMC statement makes clear, the Committee anticipates that policy under the new guidance will be fully consistent with continued progress against unemployment and with inflation remaining close to the Committee’s 2 percent objective over the longer term.』
『Although the modified guidance should provide greater clarity about how the Committee expects to respond to incoming data, it by no means puts monetary policy on autopilot. In this regard, let me make several points.』
『First, as the statement notes, the Committee views its current low-rate policy as likely to be appropriate at least until the specified thresholds are met. Reaching one of those thresholds, however, will not automatically trigger immediate reduction in policy accommodation. For example, if unemployment were to decline to slightly below 6-1/2 percent at a time when inflation and inflation expectations were subdued and were projected to remain so, the Committee might judge an immediate increase in its target for the federal funds rate to be inappropriate. Ultimately, in deciding when and how quickly to reduce policy accommodation, the Committee will follow a balanced approach in seeking to mitigate deviations of inflation from its longer-run 2 percent goal and deviations of employment from its estimated maximum level.』
『Second, the Committee recognizes that no single indicator provides a complete assessment of the state of the labor market and therefore will consider changes in the unemployment rate within the broader context of labor market conditions. For example, in evaluating a given decline in the unemployment rate, the Committee will also take into account the extent to which that decline was associated with increases in employment and hours worked, as opposed to (say) increases in the number of discouraged workers and falling labor participation. The Committee will also consider whether the improvement in the unemployment rate appears sustainable.』
労働市場の状況を見るときには失業率じゃなくて色々な指標を総合的に判断しますよと。
『Third, the Committee chose to express the inflation threshold in terms of projected inflation between one and two years ahead, rather than in terms of current inflation. The Committee took this approach to make clear that it intends to look through purely transitory fluctuations in inflation, such as those induced by short-term variations in the prices of internationally traded commodities, and to focus instead on the underlying inflation trend. In making its collective judgment about the underlying inflation trend, the Committee will consider a variety of indicators, including measures such as median, trimmed mean, and core inflation; the views of outside forecasters; and the predictions of econometric and statistical models of inflation. Also, the Committee will pay close attention to measures of inflation expectations to ensure that those expectations remain well anchored.』
『Finally, the Committee will continue to monitor a wide range of information on economic and financial developments to ensure that policy is conducted in a manner consistent with our dual mandate.』
まあこれも総合判断を強調ということですな。
・フォワードガイダンスと資産買入の違いについて
その次にこんなのが。
『It is worth noting that the goals of the FOMC’s asset purchases and of its federal funds rate guidance are somewhat different.』
ほほうという所ですが、これは先ほどあたくしが「謎」と申し上げた声明文の部分の答えのようです。
『The goal of the asset purchase program is to increase the near-term momentum of the economy by fostering more accommodative financial conditions, while the purpose of the rate guidance is to provide information about the future circumstances under which the Committee would contemplate reducing accommodation. I would emphasize that a decision by the Committee to end asset purchases, whenever that point is reached, would not be a turn to tighter policy.』
『While in that circumstance the Committee would no longer be increasing policy accommodation, its policy stance would remain highly supportive of growth. Only at some later point would the Committee begin actually removing accommodation through rate increases. Moreover, as I have discussed today, the decisions to modify the asset purchase program and to undertake rate increases are tied to different criteria.』
『Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Elizabeth A. Duke; Dennis P. Lockhart; Sandra Pianalto; Jerome H. Powell; Sarah Bloom Raskin; Jeremy C. Stein; Daniel K. Tarullo; John C. Williams; and Janet L. Yellen. Voting against the action was Jeffrey M. Lacker, who opposed the asset purchase program and the characterization of the conditions under which an exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate.』(今回)
『Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Elizabeth A. Duke; Dennis P. Lockhart; Sandra Pianalto; Jerome H. Powell; Sarah Bloom Raskin; Jeremy C. Stein; Daniel K. Tarullo; John C. Williams; and Janet L. Yellen. Voting against the action was Jeffrey M. Lacker, who opposed additional asset purchases and disagreed with the description of the time period over which a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate and exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate are likely to be warranted.』(前回)
ということで最後までラッカー怒りの反対票でした^^;
○資産買入の内訳について
先ほどのステートメントのケツの所に「Statement Regarding Purchases of Treasury Securities and Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities」と書いてあるリンクが親切に貼っていますので、そこを踏むとNY連銀のサイトに飛びます。
[外部リンク] Regarding Purchases of Treasury Securities and Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities
『The FOMC also directed the Desk to maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of agency debt and agency MBS in agency MBS, and, in January, to resume rolling over maturing Treasury securities into new issues at auction.』
おじちゃん頭が悪いので良くワカランチ会長なのですが、さっきのFOMC声明文では「resume rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction」と書いてあるのですが、こちらでは「resume rolling over maturing Treasury securities into new issues at auction」とありまして、「新発債」という文言があるということは市場で買うのではなくて償還乗換で買うと言っているのでしょうか。
『Beginning in January, the purchases of longer-term Treasury securities will be distributed across 7 sectors based on the following approximate weights:』
で、その内訳は以下の通り(行組みとフォントを改変しています)
Nominal Coupon Securities by Maturity Range
4〜4-3/4 Years 11% 4-3/4〜5-3/4 Years 12% 5-3/4〜7 Years 16% 7〜10 Years 29% 10〜20 Years 2% 20〜30 Years 27%
TIPS 4〜30 Years 3%
『Under this distribution, the Desk anticipates that the Treasury securities purchased will have an average duration of approximately 9 years, roughly the same as the net of the duration of the securities purchased and sold under the maturity extension program. The distribution of Treasury securities purchased could change if market conditions warrant.』
『Although the Committee’s announcement today specified the initial monthly pace and composition of asset purchases, it did not give specific dates at which the program may be modified or ended. Instead, the pattern of future asset purchases will depend on the Committee’s evaluation of incoming information, in two respects.』
『First, we expect to continue asset purchases until we see a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market, in a context of price stability. In assessing the extent of progress, the Committee will be evaluating a range of labor market indicators, including the unemployment rate, payroll employment, hours worked, and labor force participation, among others. Because increases in demand and production are normally precursors to improvements in labor market conditions, we will also be looking carefully at the pace of economic activity more broadly.』
というのは声明文の通り。
『Second, the Committee will be monitoring economic and financial developments to assess both the efficacy and possible drawbacks of its asset purchase program.』
まあこれも書いてありますけどね。
『The Federal Reserve’s asset purchases over the past few years have provided important support to the economy, for example, by helping to keep mortgage rates historically low. The Committee expects this policy tool to continue to be effective and the costs and risks to remain manageable, but as the program continues, we will be regularly updating those assessments.』
『If future evidence suggests that the program’s effectiveness has declined, or if potential unintended side effects or risks become apparent as the balance sheet grows, we will modify the program as appropriate. More generally, the Committee intends to be flexible in varying the pace of securities purchases in response to information bearing on the outlook or on the perceived benefits and costs of the program.』
[外部リンク] received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in October suggests that economic activity and employment have continued to expand at a moderate pace in recent months, apart from weather-related disruptions. Although the unemployment rate has declined somewhat since the summer, it remains elevated.』(今回)
『Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in September suggests that economic activity has continued to expand at a moderate pace in recent months. Growth in employment has been slow, and the unemployment rate remains elevated.』(前回)
雇用に関する認識が今回「have continued to expand at a moderate pace」となり、従来の「Growth in employment has been slow」から改善されていまして、失業率に関しても「has declined somewhat since the summer」という文言が入っていますが、失業率は高い状態にあるというのは同じですな。
『Household spending has continued to advance, and the housing sector has shown further signs of improvement, but growth in business fixed investment has slowed.』(今回)
『Household spending has advanced a bit more quickly, but growth in business fixed investment has slowed. The housing sector has shown some further signs of improvement, albeit from a depressed level.』(前回)
家計支出に関しては引き続き改善という認識、企業の固定資産投資はスローという認識に変化はなく、住宅セクターに関しては「albeit from a depressed level」という文言が抜けて来たのがほほうという感じですな。
『Inflation has been running somewhat below the Committee’s longer-run objective, apart from temporary variations that largely reflect fluctuations in energy prices. Longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.』(今回)
『Inflation recently picked up somewhat, reflecting higher energy prices. Longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.』(前回)
物価については今回は「has been running somewhat below the Committee’s longer-run objective」という表現になっておりますが、まあこれは後に出てくるフォワードガイダンス変更も意識しているのかなとか思いましたけどどうですかね。もちろんその中でエネルギー価格要因による変動という話もしておりまして、ロンガータームのインフレ期待が安定というのはいつも通り、というか安定しなくなったらエライコッチャですけど。
・第2パラグラフ:ここは全文一致です
見通しに関する部分は全文一致ですので今回分だけ引用。
『Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee remains concerned that, without sufficient policy accommodation, economic growth might not be strong enough to generate sustained improvement in labor market conditions. Furthermore, strains in global financial markets continue to pose significant downside risks to the economic outlook. The Committee also anticipates that inflation over the medium term likely will run at or below its 2 percent objective.』(今回)
『To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee will continue purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month.』(今回)
『To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee will continue purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month.』(前回)
MBSの部分は当たり前ですが同じ文言で、この次が追加部分。
『The Committee also will purchase longer-term Treasury securities after its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of Treasury securities is completed at the end of the year, initially at a pace of $45 billion per month.』(今回)
『The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and, in January, will resume rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. 』(今回)
『The Committee also will continue through the end of the year its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of Treasury securities, and it is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities.』(前回)
『Taken together, these actions should maintain downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets, and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative.』(今回)
『These actions, which together will increase the Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities by about $85 billion each month through the end of the year, should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets, and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative.』(前回)
『The Committee will closely monitor incoming information on economic and financial developments in coming months. If the outlook for the labor market does not improve substantially, the Committee will continue its purchases of Treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities, and employ its other policy tools as appropriate, until such improvement is achieved in a context of price stability. 』(今回)
『The Committee will closely monitor incoming information on economic and financial developments in coming months. If the outlook for the labor market does not improve substantially, the Committee will continue its purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities, undertake additional asset purchases, and employ its other policy tools as appropriate until such improvement is achieved in a context of price stability.』(前回)
『In determining the size, pace, and composition of its asset purchases, the Committee will, as always, take appropriate account of the likely efficacy and costs of such purchases.』(今回)
『In determining the size, pace, and composition of its asset purchases, the Committee will, as always, take appropriate account of the likely efficacy and costs of such purchases.』(前回)
コストとベネフィットを勘案して判断するという話は当たり前ですが従来通り。
・第5パラグラフ:フォワードガイダンス文言の変更キタコレということで
正直今回これをやるとは思いませんでしたが・・・・・・・・・・・
『To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends and the economic recovery strengthens. 』(今回)
『To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens. 』(前回)
実は読んでいて謎なのがこの部分で、「after the asset purchase program ends and the economic recovery strengthens」っていうのは何やそらという所。前回の「経済の回復が強くなったとしても、相当の期間に渡っての高度に緩和的な金融政策スタンスが依然として適切であると想定する」というのは判るのですが、そこに「資産買入プログラムが終了しても」というのがしらっと入っているのがはてこれは??という所で、もしかしてこれフォワードガイダンス文言は「FFレートの誘導目標」には紐が付いているけれども「資産買入プログラム」には紐が付いていないという事を意味するのではないでしょうかと思ったのだが・・・・・・・・・・
『In particular, the Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored. The Committee views these thresholds as consistent with its earlier date-based guidance.』(今回)
『In particular, the Committee also decided today to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate are likely to be warranted at least through mid-2015.』(前回)
まあ前回までのガイダンスを変更していると思いっきり書いてありますので前回と比較しても仕方ないのですが(大汗)、今回のガイダンス文言に関しては会見での冒頭の説明でもう少し詳しい解説があるのですが、「失業率6.5%」に関しては実際のアクチュアルな経済指標に紐がついていまして、「物価上昇率2.5%」に関しては足元の数字ではなく、「between one and two years ahead is projected to be」とありますように、「向こう1年から2年の見通し」の数字になっていまして、まあこれはある意味当たり前なのですが一時的要因での物価上昇の場合は物価目標からの逸脱と見なさないというお話ではあります。
『In determining how long to maintain a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy, the Committee will also consider other information, including additional measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments. When the Committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach consistent with its longer-run goals of maximum employment and inflation of 2 percent.』(今回)
『1. Not the 1960s』とあるのが12ページなのですが、ナンジャソラとか思って読んだ所、どうも「1960年代のような失業率重視の政策をしているのかというとこれはさにあらず」という事を仰せのようですな。
『Care needs to be taken that this does not represent a return to 1960s-style macroeconomics, in which many thought unemployment could be meaningfully targeted by the central bank.』
『That approach to policy was badly discredited in the 1970s.』
『The Committee’s January 2012 statement makes it clear that the FOMC cannot meaningfully target unemployment.』
13ページは『2. Maintaining a balanced approach to policy』ということで物価と雇用のバランスアプローチに関してですが、実際の数値を使うのか見通し数値を使うのかという点もここで触れられています。
『Many proposals suggest considering the forecast for inflation but the actual value of unemployment.』
『In order to maintain a balanced approach to policy, the two variables should be treated symmetrically.』
『My preference is for a statement in terms of actual values for both inflation and unemployment.』
15ページ目では『3. The Committee considers all aspects of the data』ということで、「必ずしも単一の数値(まあこの場合2つの数値ですけど)のみに依拠した金融政策をやる訳では無い」というのが3つ目のチャンレンジとしています。次のページにもまあそんな感じの話があるのですけど、こちらのページの方がキタコレって感じでして・・・・・・・
『Care should be taken that the Committee does not leave the impression that only these two variables matter for monetary policy.』
『That would greatly oversimplify any reasonable judgment concerning the state of the U.S. economy.』
ということで単純化するのはいかんぞなという話ですが、その後が中々。
『There may be reasons other than high inflation that could lead to an increase in the policy rate. ・Example: low rates fuel asset price bubbles.』
で、労働市場に関しても失業率だけでは無くて色々な物を見ていますよというのがその次の『4. The health of the labor market is multi-faceted』。
『The Committee needs to stress that the unemployment rate is only one aspect of the health of the labor market.
・The Committee weighs labor market outcomes from a broader perspective. ・A key metric is the payroll employment reading each month. ・The labor force participation rate has been a very important factor during the last several years. ・Measures of hours worked help us to understand the full-time versus part-time aspects of labor market outcomes. ・Other measures, including turnover data, have also been important.』
『The Committee needs to emphasize that unemployment can remain elevated for reasons unrelated to monetary policy.』
『In particular, elevated European unemployment over the last several decades provides a stark warning that this variable does not always behave as one might expect.』
『An unemployment threshold of 6.5 percent would never have been breached in the Euro zone over the last twenty years.
・Despite this, the ECB did raise the policy rate at times during this period and did keep the Euro-area inflation rate near two percent.』
で、最後の問題は「閾値がトリガーとして見られる」という件でして、19ページの『6. Thresholds will be viewed as triggers』というお題に。
『The Committee may need to recognize that thresholds will likely be treated as “triggers for action” in financial markets.』
しかも実際の数値をという事になったらまあ市場は「その数値に達したら金融政策が変わる」と見ますわな。
『In essence, the effect of a threshold announcement is to draw a line in the sand.
・Crossing the threshold means something significant has occurred. ・Even if policy action is not required right at that moment, the probability of action is increased.』
『Markets will react to the probability of policy action.』
『“Operation Twist” has been continuing during the second half of 2011 and all of 2012.』
『The program includes sales of shorter-term Treasury securities in conjunction with purchases of longer-term Treasury securities.』
『Outright purchases of longer-dated Treasuries with newly created reserves eliminates the sale of short-term securities and so may be viewed as somewhat more stimulative.』
『Analysis of the effects of the twist program in comparison to the QE programs yields mixed results.
・Still, on balance I think it is reasonable to think that an outright purchase program has more impact on inflation and inflation expectations than a twist program.』
『Replacing the expiring twist program one-for-one with outright purchases of longer-dated Treasuries is likely a more accommodating policy.
・If the goal is to keep policy on its present course, the replacement rate should be less than one-for-one.』
『The Committee currently uses a given date to indicate when the first increase in the policy rate will likely occur. ・This approach has some problems.』
『A possible alternative is to use “thresholds,” values for inflation and unemployment that would give an indication that the time for a rate increase may have arrived.』
『However, thresholds present a new set of six distinct challenges for the FOMC.』
『The Committee currently states that the policy rate will likely remain near zero until “mid-2015.”』
『This creates a “pessimism problem” for the Committee.
・The date can be interpreted as a statement that the U.S. economy is likely to perform poorly until that time. ・I have called this an “unwarranted pessimistic signal.” ・Michael Woodford of Columbia University has called it potentially “counter-productive.” ・The Committee does not intend to send such a signal.』
・When the outlook for the U.S. economy changes, in principle the Committee should change the date associated with the likely first increase in the policy rate.』
『However, the Committee has been reluctant to change the date unless the change in the outlook has been substantial.』
『This means that markets at times have a somewhat different date in mind than in the Committee statement.』
でまあその辺の問題を閾値方式は解決しますという話がその次。
・閾値方式のフォワードガイダンスについて:利点について、具体的にどうするのか、など
次のページが『The use of thresholds may help』ということで。
『The Committee may wish to eliminate the date in the statement in favor of a description of economic conditions at the time of the first rate increase.』
ということで、まあFOMCとしてはカレンダーデート方式は閾値方式に変えたいようです。
『Then, as data arrive on U.S. economic performance, private sector expectations concerning the timing of the first rate increase would automatically adjust.
・Vice Chair Janet Yellen has called this an “automatic stabilizer.”』
『The Committee would no longer be sending the pessimistic signal, because the stated threshold conditions could be met at any time.』
これはさっき説明していた問題点の話。
んでもって次のページが『Some specific proposals』ということでブラード総裁の提案。
『The proposals that have been put forward often begin with an unemployment threshold, such as 6.5 percent, and add an inflation threshold, such as 2.5 percent.』
『A threshold-style statement by the FOMC would not have a date, but would instead emphasize these economic conditions.』
『The intent would be to communicate that the policy rate will remain near zero at least as long as unemployment remains high and inflation remains near target.』
で、次のページ(さっきから次の、で済ませてますがここで10ページです)。
『Switching to a threshold strategy does not necessarily mean that policy would be easier or tighter.』
『The 6.5 value for the unemployment rate is broadly consistent with mainstream analysis of the likely value of the unemployment rate at the time of the first increase in the policy rate.
・Likewise, many expect inflation to remain low.』
『The intent is to change the approach to policy, but keep the policy itself about as easy as it is today.』
先日の駄文で基金オペの進捗状況について申し上げましたが、11月30日現在の基金EFT残高(別表2の指数連動型上場投資信託の所ね)が『1,468,785,640千円』ということで目標1兆6000億円に対して1400億円程足りませんがどうなんでしょうかと申し上げましたが(11月30日現在の数字はこちら→[外部リンク] statement to the press conference (with Q&A) Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, Vitor Constancio, Vice-President of the ECB, Frankfurt am Main, 6 December 2012
『Question: (最初の質問割愛)And my second question is: Did you discuss interest rate cuts today and, in that respect, what - in your view - are the greatest downside risks associated with a negative deposit rate in the euro area? 』
ということでその部分に関する答えですけれども、
『Draghi: (最初の部分割愛)Did we discuss interest rate cuts? That was your second question. There was a wide discussion but, in the end, the prevailing consensus was to leave the rates unchanged. On the issue of negative interest rates on the deposit facility, there is nothing new to report. As Mr Praet recently has said we are operationally ready, but the discussions in this respect did not go into any depth. We briefly touched upon the complexities that such measure would involve and on possible unintended consequences. But we did not elaborate on this any further.』
『Let me now explain our assessment in greater detail, starting with the economic analysis. Following a contraction of 0.2%, quarter on quarter, in the second quarter of 2012, euro area real GDP declined by 0.1% in the third quarter. Available statistics and survey indicators continue to signal further weakness in activity in the last quarter of the year, although more recently some indicators have stabilised at low levels and financial market confidence has improved further.』
『Over the shorter term, weak activity is expected to extend into next year, reflecting the adverse impact on domestic expenditure of weak consumer and investor sentiment and subdued foreign demand.』
『A gradual recovery should start later in 2013 as our accommodative monetary policy stance and significant improvement in financial market confidence work their way through to private domestic expenditure, and a strengthening of foreign demand should support export growth.』
