{"id":33224,"date":"2016-02-28T05:19:39","date_gmt":"2016-02-28T04:19:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.w-t-w.org\/en\/?p=33224"},"modified":"2016-02-28T05:22:35","modified_gmt":"2016-02-28T04:22:35","slug":"33224-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.w-t-w.org\/en\/33224-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Can the US Expect Negative Interest Rates?"},"content":{"rendered":"

No one will lend at a negative interest rate; potential creditors will simply choose to hold cash, which pays zero nominal interest.\u201d\u2013 Ben Bernanke, 2009<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI think negative rates are something the Fed will and probably should consider if the situation arises.\u201d-\u2013 Ben Bernanke, December 2015<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIn theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.\u201d\u2013 Yogi Berra<\/span><\/p>\n

John Mauldin writes: Economists used to think below-zero interest rates were impossible. Necessity (as central banks see it) is the mother of invention, though; and multiple central banks now think negative rates are a necessary step to restore growth.<\/span><\/p>\n

Are they right? Will negative rates pull the global economy out of its funk? Probably not; but for better or worse, several central banks are already below zero. The Federal Reserve just sent its clearest signal yet that it is headed that way, too. The Fed has warned banks to get ready. We had all better do the same.<\/span><\/p>\n

This week\u2019s letter has two parts. The first deals with some of the practical aspects of negative rates and what the Fed is really signaling. The second part, which is somewhat philosophical, deals with why the Fed will institute negative rates during the next recession. This letter is longer than usual, but I think it\u2019s important to understand why we will see negative rates in the world\u2019s reserve currency (and the currency in which most global trade is conducted). This policy trend is truly a foray into unexplored territory.<\/span><\/p>\n

The idea of negative rates isn\u2019t new; what\u2019s new is the willingness to try them out. The Ben Bernanke quote above comes from a November 2, 2009, Foreign Policy article in which the Fed chairman wrestled with how to keep inflation at the \u201cright\u201d level in a weak economy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Set aside the question of whether there is any \u201cright\u201d level of inflation. As of six years ago, the head of the world\u2019s most important central bank thought no one would ever lend at a negative interest rate. We now know he was wrong, at least with regard to Japan and most of Europe. Central banks there have instituted negative rate policies, and people are still borrowing and lending.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Fed staff has also speculated on the possibility. Earlier this month my good friend David Kotok sent around links to several academic and central bank negative-rate studies. One was a 2012 article by Kenneth Garbade and Jamie McAndrews of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Their title tells you what they thought at the time:<\/span><\/p>\n

Former Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota, who was for years the FOMC uber-dove, says going negative would be \u201cdaring but appropriate.\u201d He has a number of reasons for this stance. In a note last week, he said the federal government is missing a chance to borrow gobs of money at super-attractive interest rates.<\/span><\/p>\n

Kocherlakota would like to see the Treasury issue as much paper as it takes to drive real rates back above zero. He would use the borrowed money to repair our rickety infrastructure and to stimulate the economy.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is an appealing idea \u2013 in theory. In reality, I have no faith that our political class would spend the cash wisely. More likely, Washington politicians would collude to distribute the money to their cronies, who would build useless highways and bridges to nowhere. The taxpayers would end up stuck with more debt, and our infrastructure would be little better than it is now.<\/span><\/p>\n

The fact that this is a \u201cmonumentally\u201d bad idea doesn\u2019t mean it will never happen. There\u2019s an excellent chance it will happen. Yellen and the Fed are clearly looking in that direction.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yellen might face one small problem on the road to NIRP: no one is completely sure if the Fed has legal authority to enact such a policy. An Aug. 5, 2010, staff memo says that the law authorizing the Fed to pay interest on excess reserves may not give it authority to charge interest.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Negative<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

No one will lend at a negative interest rate; potential creditors will simply choose to hold cash, which pays zero nominal interest.\u201d\u2013 Ben Bernanke, 2009 \u201cI think negative rates are something the Fed will and probably should consider if the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33224","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-finance"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t