It seems you have JavaScript disabled.

Ummm.. Yeah... I'm going to have to ask you to turn Javascript back on... Yeah... Thanks.

The Taylor Rule: Rates Should Be Much Higher (4%) at Trader’s Narrative

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/traders/public_html/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

This is a guest post by Bud Conrad of The Casey Report:

On March 3, I heard John Taylor over lunch at the San Francisco Federal Reserve. In his talk he reviewed the government’s bailouts and their effects on our economy. If you aren’t familiar with Taylor, he co-authored, along with Bob Hall, the macroeconomics textbook most widely used these days. In addition, he served as undersecretary of the Treasury in the early Bush years where, among other responsibilities, he was tasked with bringing a new currency to Iraq.

But for us economics nerds, he is most famous for formulating the Taylor Rule, a guideline for where the fed funds rate should be set. While there is more to it, the general idea is to use the inflation rate and the gap in GDP growth from its potential growth rate.

To make sure that inflation doesn’t get out of control, the Fed Funds rate should be higher with higher inflation. When the economy is doing poorly, a lower fed funds rate can help the economy.

The Taylor Rule incorporates these two items into the calculation to suggest an appropriate level for the Fed to use in setting its overnight rate. The basic rule is that the appropriate rate for the Fed can be calculated as follows:

Rate = 1.5 X inflation % + 0.5 X (real GDP gap %) + 1%

In the chart just below, I calculated what the Taylor Rule indicated would be a reasonable level for the fed funds rate (in orange), overlaid with the actual fed funds rate (in red). It shows how the Fed kept rates too low in 2004, fueling the housing bubble. That was Taylor’s major point and is documented in his latest book.

A similar comment could be made about 1975-1977. The wild swing down at the end of 2008, with negative inflation and GDP growth, indicated that the economy was so bad that the rate should go below zero, an impossibility. Even so, that provides some justification for the extreme actions of the Fed in undertaking its quantitative easing.

Fed Funds rate according to Taylor Rule Casey Research Mar 2010

Looking to the future, the more important concern for me is that the end of the chart seems to indicate that the appropriate rate has already moved up to 4%. That’s because the measure of inflation used here for personal consumption expenditures has turned from negative to positive.

If you think inflation will be rising and the economy will not be as bad going forward, you might expect rates to head higher soon. Of course, the Taylor Rule for rates and the actual rates don’t follow an exact track, but using data from the last quarter of 2009, we see a dramatic turnaround in the pressures on rates, based on the Taylor Rule.

Taylor was surprisingly critical of the long lists of bailout programs, citing data that they had very little positive effect on other measures of the economy. He implied we would have done better with less of these measures, including the granddaddy of the Fed’s actions, to buy $1.25 trillion mortgage-backed securities (MBS), as mortgage rates dropped only slightly. He said we shouldn’t worry about deflation, as he considers it unlikely but felt that in the future we will be worrying about inflation.

In combination, the conclusions I came away with were supportive of our position that the country’s economic problems are not over, and that inflation will be added to the list of those problems in the future.

You can follow the analysis of Bud Conrad, along with Doug Casey at The Casey Report.

Enjoyed this? Don't miss the next one, grab the feed  or 

                               subscribe through email:  

2 Responses to “The Taylor Rule: Rates Should Be Much Higher (4%)”  

  1. 1 Wayne W

    Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/traders/public_html/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

    Hard to argue with that chart and I have argued that higher fed rates are now justified as well. If you throw in the fact that LEI has been up 9 months in a row, suggesting continued growth in the economy and you should have a good case for 2% fed rates by the end of the year. But the Fed will start playing catch up when the Tbill rate starts getting away from the Fed Funds rate. That chart floats around from time to time.

    Ok Wayne, go to google and find one. Here, I found a Fed Funds vs Tbill chart from 1958 through Sept 2008.

    You can see that historically fed funds avg about 1/2% higher than Tbill rates, which is not too far out of line with where they are now. So there is the case for continued slow go on rates. I suspect when tbills get 0.5%, you will see some movement in Fed Funds. I really think Fed funds should be 1% by the end of the year, maybe a 1/4% move up each quarter.

    I’m just wondering when was the last time we weren’t in a recession and rates were below 1%. Hey, I just stumbled into a really nice site, lots of useful charts. for example year to year change in avg mile drivens is -4% and exceeds previous low in 1980. That’s interesting. You could spend all weekend here.

    Babak, you have been a busy boy this week.

  2. 2 MachineGhost

    Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/traders/public_html/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

    Here’s a critique of the Taylor Rule as being unrealistic to implement in real time as opposed to hindsight.

Leave a Reply