『STEVE LIESMAN. Steve Liesman, CNBC. Mr. Chairman, thank you. When you say “similar moderate steps going forward,” is $10 billion an increment that people should anticipate? And is equal amounts of mortgage-backed securities and Treasuries also what one should anticipate? Finally, when you say “well past” the unemployment rate of 6-1/2 percent, why not pick a number? Why say “well past”? Thank you.』
『CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. Sure. On the first issue of $10 billion, again, we say we are going to take further modest steps subsequently, so that would be the general range. But again, I want to emphasize that we are going to be data-dependent. We could stop purchases if the economy disappoints. We could pick them up somewhat if the economy is stronger.1』
『1 The Chairman meant to say: “We could stop the reductions in the pace of purchases if the economy disappoints. We could reduce the pace of purchases somewhat more quickly if the economy is stronger.”』
『In terms of MBS versus Treasuries, we discussed that issue. I think that the general sense of the Committee was that equal reductions, or approximately equal reductions, was the simpler way to do this. It obviously doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the end to how much we hold. So that was going to be our strategy.』
USTとMBSを同規模で減らすのはシンプルで結構という事なのですが、従来資産買入の保有額が重要みたいな 話をしていたのに「It obviously doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the end to how much we hold. 」 ってナンジャソラという所ですが、さらに後の方でもっとナンジャソラな話が資産買入に関して出てくるので 乞うご期待。
『On the issue of another number, the unemployment rate-let’s talk first about the labor market condition. The unemployment rate is a good indicator of the labor market. It’s probably the best single indicator that we have. And so we were comfortable setting a 6.5 percent unemployment rate as the point at which we would begin to look at a more broad set of labor market indicators. However, precisely because we don’t want to look just at the unemployment rate, we want to-once we get to 6-1/2-we want to look at hiring, quits, vacancies, participation, long-term unemployment, et cetera, wages. We couldn’t put it in terms of another unemployment rate level, specifically.』
『So, I expect there will be some time past the 6-1/2 percent before all of the other variables that we’ll be looking at will line up in a way that will give us confidence that the labor market is strong enough to withstand the beginning of increases in rates.』
『The SEP, the Survey of Economic Projections, which were distributed, obviously that’s individual assessments and not the Committee’s collective view.』
『But nevertheless, it gives you some sense of current expectations about the length of time. The SEP shows that the 6.5 percent is expected by a large number of people to be reached about at the end of next year, end of 2014. And then the first rate increases, according to the so-called dots chart, take place near the end of 2015.』
SEPでの集計を説明してます。
『So that’s the order of the magnitude, I think, that people are currently expecting, but again I emphasize that it will depend on our being persuaded that-over, across a broad range of indicators- the labor market is sufficiently strong that we could begin to withdraw accommodation.』
ということで、6.5%になっても利上げしませんというのはあくまでも「現在の予想」なのですよね〜。
・資産買入は「補完的なツール」とな
ちょっとワープしまして14ページ辺りから始まる質疑応答。
『JASON LANGE. Jason Lange with Reuters. Chairman Bernanke, today, with one hand, you’re giving the economy something by telling us that or signaling that you may keep interest rates lower for longer than we previously thought. But with the other hand, you’re taking something away by reducing the large-scale asset purchases. If you think that, overall, this is maintaining the level of monetary accommodation steady, is that a sign that the decision to reduce the asset purchases is relatively less about an improved outlook for the economy and perhaps more about the concern that the asset purchases are less effective or might be fueling bubbles? Thank you.』
『The reason that asset purchases are a supplementary tool is because it’s a much less familiar tool. We have less ability to calibrate how big the effects are, for example.』
『And it’s also true that, as the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve gets large, managing that balance sheet, exiting from that balance sheet become more difficult.』
(;∀;)イイハナシタ゛ナー
『And there are concerns about effects on asset prices, although, I would have to say that’s another thing that future monetary economists will want to be looking at very carefully.』
ほほう。
『So, our view was-in September 2012-was that we had interest rates already low, and they were expected to stay low for a good long time. The economy, though, was faltering. We needed an additional boost.』
2012年9月は経済がふらついていたので追加のブーストをしたと。
『And so we brought in the asset purchase program again. We put in a specific objective, which is substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market.』
『Our sense was once that intermediate objective was attained-that is, when the economy had grown and was moving forward-that, at that point, we could begin to wind down the secondary tool, the supplementary tool, and achieve essentially the same amount of accommodation using interest rates and forward guidance.』
『And so, I do want to reiterate that this is not intended to be a tightening. We don’t think that there’s an inflation problem or anything like that. On the one hand, asset purchases are still going to be continuing, we’re still going to be building our balance sheet. The total amount of assets that we acquire are probably more than was-certainly more than what was expected in September 2012 or in June 2013. So we’ll have a very substantial balance sheet, which we’ll continue to hold.』
ここまでがバランスシートの話。
『And now we’ve also clarified our guidance that we will be keeping rates low well past unemployment of 6.5 percent. So we’re trying here to get a high level of accommodation. It is true that the purchases are-we view as supplementary to the interest rate policy. But, again, the action today is intended to keep the level of accommodation more or less the same overall and enough to push the economy forward.』
なお、ここに該当する話で昨日声明文英文比較をしたのをご紹介しましたが、ドメドメのアタクシは「is likely to rise for the time being」と「is likely to rise gradually」のニュアンス差がワカランチ会長だったので詳しそうな人をとっ捕まえて聞いたら、前者(12月声明文)の方が上昇するというニュアンスが弱くなっていて、これ「当面」で示される時間の概念というよりは上昇角度の概念じゃネーノという説明を賜りましたが、アタクシが聞いた人による説明につきそれが本当に本当かの保証は致しかねますので念のため申し添えます(アタクシの備忘で書いておきますです、はい)。
『When the FOMC began the current asset purchase program, the stated goal was substantial improvement in labor market outcomes. Bullard noted that two key labor market indicators-unemployment and nonfarm payroll employment-have shown clear improvement over the past year. “Cumulative progress in labor market outcomes since September 2012 provides the most powerful part of the case for tapering,” he said.』
『“To the extent that key labor market indicators continue to show cumulative improvement, the likelihood of tapering asset purchases will continue to rise,” Bullard said. “The Committee’s 2012 criterion of substantial improvement in labor markets gets easier and easier to satisfy on a cumulative basis as labor markets continue to heal.”』
どう見てもTapering開始容認です本当にありがとうございました。
『He noted that it is possible that the pace of labor market improvement will slow down in coming months or quarters. “For this reason the Committee also needs to assess whether progress made in labor markets will continue into the future,” he said. However, he added that recent labor market results seem to suggest that coming months will show continued labor market improvement.』
『“Based on labor market data alone, the probability of a reduction in the pace of asset purchases has increased,” Bullard said.』
『While labor market outcomes have been considerably better than those predicted at the time of the September 2012 decision, Bullard noted that inflation has surprised to the downside.』
キタコレ。
『“There is no widely accepted reason why inflation is running as low as it is in the face of extraordinarily accommodative policy from the Fed,” he said.』
『“A small taper might recognize labor market improvement while still providing the Committee the opportunity to carefully monitor inflation during the first half of 2014,” Bullard said. “Should inflation not return toward target, the Committee could pause tapering at subsequent meetings,” he added.』
『Bullard also addressed the “taper talk” this past June and September and the spillovers to forward guidance. He noted that in June and September, changes in perceived tapering scenarios led to large movements in key financial market variables. “Perhaps surprisingly, the perception of the expected path of the policy rate also changed sharply in response to these events-that is, tapering was clearly linked to forward guidance,” he added.』
『“The Committee needs to either convince markets that the two tools are separate, or learn to live with the joint effects of tapering on both the pace of asset purchases and the perception of future policy rates,” Bullard said.』
『“To clarify the independence of the asset purchase program from forward guidance, the Committee may consider changes to forward guidance,” he said, noting that the current guidance states that the FOMC will not raise rates as long as unemployment is above 6.5 percent and inflation remains below 2.5 percent.』
でどう改善するのでしょうかといいますと・・・・・・・・
『He discussed three possible options for altering forward guidance, including lowering the unemployment threshold. However, Bullard cautioned, this “puts the credibility of the thresholds approach at risk.” 』
『He said another option would be to establish an inflation floor at 1.5 percent, which would be symmetric with the current forward guidance on inflation and which could be helpful if inflation continues to behave in an unusual manner.』
『The third option would be to state verbally that the FOMC is unlikely to raise rates even after the 6.5 percent unemployment threshold is crossed, which Chairman Ben Bernanke has already done. This option is “less complicated and possibly just as effective,” Bullard said.』
『Regarding Fed communications, Bullard repeated his call for press conferences to be held after every FOMC meeting instead of only some meetings. “Markets have suggested that meetings without press conferences are unlikely to be situations where the Committee can take important action,” Bullard noted.』
会見のあるFOMCと無いFOMCというのも宜しくないので毎回プレコンやれと。
『“The FOMC needs to keep its options open,” he said, adding that one way to do so is to include a press conference after every meeting. “A press conference at every meeting would likely improve Fed communications,” Bullard concluded.』
[外部リンク] 『Question: You said before that you briefly discussed the negative deposit rate, since when I have heard some voices here in this house saying that if you go into this negative territory, then, in parallel with a rate cut, both main interest rates will be lowered simultaneously with entry into this negative territory. So, my question is: did today’s decision about this include both decisions at the same time? Was there a discussion about a rate cut?(後半割愛)』
『Draghi: My answer to your first question is no, meaning that we had a brief discussion which was not in any great depth and did not touch on any technical aspect of this possible measure.(後半割愛)』
『Question: I have got two questions for you. Number one, earlier this year you said you would update us with news on a potential release of minutes or summaries of your deliberations in the Governing Council. As you pointed out, this is the last meeting this year, and we still did not hear anything - or can you actually enlighten us on whether there has been a decision?』
というのが議事要旨公表の検討どうなってますねんという質問。
『My second question is: the ECB Governing Council members have cited a number of possible policy measures, including negative interest rates and quantitative easing, some of which would be seen as very extreme, especially in the context of the euro area. Nobody has ever mentioned the option of FOREX interventions though - does that mean that is not a tool the ECB would be ready to consider?』
あらゆる手段を用いる(キリッ)という話の中には為替介入がありませんがその点如何??という事ですな。
『Draghi: On the first question about the minutes, we have started working in the Executive Board and we are continuing to work. It is a very complex issue, it has many dimensions. The one that is most popular is whether the names or “who does what” ought to be there, and there are many other issues. Especially for an institution that never had minutes before. So, we are preparing our proposal for the Governing Council, which, by the way, has already discussed this issue to some extent today. We are moving forward. We are slightly late, and the delay is justified by the complexity of the issue, frankly.』
『On the second point, you know what the policy of the ECB and the other major central banks is. Exchange rates are a matter of common concern. And they are not a policy target by the way. I have said this many times. So they are not a policy target. Our policy target is price stability in the medium term. However, the exchange rates are important for price stability, as we are seeing today, and for growth. So, we take this into account in our monetary policy decisions. The experience of what you are saying - unilateral FOREX intervention - is not contemplated by the current G20 agreements.』
『(質問の前半割愛)The second question is about exchange rates. In February 2013 exchange rates were mentioned in the statement as a downside risk for growth. This has not been the case since then. Should we consider that exchange rates are not really a risk, although at the time in February the USD/EUR exchange rate was 1.35, nearly the same as today? Does the euro area have to accept this high exchange rate? Is it not really a risk?』
ユーロ高は物価のリスクじゃねえのかオラオラオラと質問。
『(回答の前半部分割愛)On the second point, the fact that the statement is not there does not mean anything. The exchange rate is, as I said, important for price stability and growth. And the levels are by and large the ones that were there when the statement was included. So, we are watching the exchange rate, but you must always keep in mind that it is not a policy target. It is part of the information set that leads us to take monetary policy decisions, the objective of which is price stability in the medium term.』
『Question: My first question would be on the potential new LTRO, or if you would consider something like the Bank of England’s programme “Funding for Lending”, above all looking at the ever-decreasing lending activities. And my second question would be: you are always saying that you are watching money markets very carefully and you have all available instruments in your hands. What has to happen to use those instruments?』
『Draghi: I think I can respond to both questions with one answer. Basically, the message the Governing Council sends today is that we are ready and able to act, within the forward guidance framework.』
『Forward guidance is there. We did not identify, amongst the various, numerous instruments we have, one specific instrument in the discussion we had today. We had a brief discussion about negative deposit rates, but it was brief.』
『That is one point I want to make: readiness to act; ability to act within the framework of forward guidance; but a variety of instruments ready - technically ready, they have been worked out, they are there. And we had a brief discussion on negative deposit rates.』
『On the LTRO - as you mentioned specifically - I would take this opportunity to make a point here. When we conducted the LTROs two years ago, the level of uncertainty was very high. And therefore the long-term liquidity, three-year liquidity, was justified by that level of uncertainty. Furthermore, we view the LTRO as a very successful monetary policy measure: it did avoid severe further credit contractions arising from lack of funding at the time. The funding situation was extremely stressed. You remember - I have told you several times - we had EUR 250 billion of bank bonds due within one term, within one quarter, and we had more than EUR 300 billion of government bonds coming due within the same quarter. This was coming after the second part of 2011, which had been a period of dramatically increasing stress.』
LTROに関する説明がおっぱじまっておりますが、ここの辺りまでがLTRO実施の効果ですな。
『Now, today the situation is fortunately substantially different. The level of uncertainty is considerably lower, and that is one consideration to keep in mind. The second consideration is that the use that these banks have made of this liquidity has been mostly to buy government bonds. And I think it is basically a fact of this experience that not much of this actually found its way through the economy. So, if we are to do an operation similar to the LTRO, we will want to make sure that this is being used for the economy. And we will want to make sure that this operation is not going to be used for subsidising capital formation by the banking system under these carry trade operations.』
『Question: I want to get back to this point about all these numerous policy options you have. Maybe you could give us some verbal meeting minutes and just run down them and give us a sense of what the state of play is on the thinking on, for example, negative deposit rates. You talked about it briefly - what did you talk about? Asset purchases. What kind of discussion do you have about these things, why are they good ideas and why aren’t you really implementing some of these yet?(後半割愛)』
この質疑後半のネタも面白いのですが時間と量の関係でパスします(単なる面白ネタなだけなので)。
『Draghi: On the first question, I really have to say again what I said before: no specific instruments were identified in our discussion and I would say the level of preparedness is pretty high on all of them. So we don’t need any further analysis on that, but then the key question is whether or not any further use of these instruments would be justified by the current medium-term assessment and medium-term outlook for inflation. I think that is the key question. As I said after our decision in November, we have seen that markets have responded. The impact of our forward guidance has been quite strong. This has worked and inflation expectations are firmly anchored. However, having said that, we will certainly monitor any developments closely and let me say that we are fully aware of the downside risks that a protracted period of low inflation does imply.(後半割愛)』
[外部リンク] DECEMBER 09 St. Louis Fed’s Bullard Discusses Tapering, Forward Guidance and Fed Communications
プレゼン資料(PPTをPDFにしたもの)はこちら(重いので注意) [外部リンク] 『ST. LOUIS - Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James Bullard discussed “Some Issues in Current U.S. Monetary Policy” at a meeting of the CFA Society of St. Louis on Monday.』
ほうほうそれでそれで?
『During his presentation, Bullard reiterated that current U.S. monetary policy has two components: 1) a short-term policy rate, which has been near zero since December 2008, and its associated forward guidance, and 2) an “open-ended” asset purchase program that began in September 2012, with purchases currently at a pace of $85 billion per month.』
政策のコンポーネントは(1)金利政策(2)オープンエンドの資産買入の二つですとな。
『In regard to the asset purchase program, he emphasized that any Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decision on tapering is data dependent, where tapering refers to reducing the pace of purchases. “Data dependence encompasses both cumulative progress in labor markets since September 2012 and a judgment concerning the sustainability of that progress,” Bullard explained. He also noted that “inflation continues to surprise to the downside.”』
『Bullard discussed other current U.S. monetary policy issues, including possible changes to forward guidance and the idea of holding a press conference after all FOMC meetings.』
つーことで、じゃあ結局そのTaperingはどうなのよというとその先にある『Cumulative Progress in Labor Markets』って小見出しの所と、『Low Inflation』って小見出しの所にございます。
『“Cumulative progress in labor market outcomes since September 2012 provides the most powerful part of the case for tapering,” he said.』
『Based on labor market data alone, the probability of a reduction in the pace of asset purchases has increased,” Bullard said.』
『“There is no widely accepted reason why inflation is running as low as it is in the face of extraordinarily accommodative policy from the Fed,” he said.』
『“A small taper might recognize labor market improvement while still providing the Committee the opportunity to carefully monitor inflation during the first half of 2014,” Bullard said. “Should inflation not return toward target, the Committee could pause tapering at subsequent meetings,” he added.』
