The Great Reversal: Part II (volatility and the real economy)

Sharks head and illuminated dollar sign in a shop window

Volatility in global markets has continued, with a developed economy - Japan - joining Brazil in becoming a bear market, meaning that stocks in these two countries have both fallen by more than 20% since their May peaks.

Plus, bond investors are concerned about the growing market volatility and expected rise in interest rates, such that the number of companies tapping the bond market has dropped dramatically as those investors pull back.

In my prior post, I wrote about the signs of a potential end to the era of cheap money.

Investors are jittery, and thus the markets are volatile. But, the impact on the economy should be moderate if central banks reverse their actions in a measured manner.

The nervousness comes from the unknown aspects of reversing a record amount of cheap cash out of the global economy.

Exit strategy

First, a reminder that central banks have injected over $12 trillion in cheap cash into the world economy since the global financial crisis. It is equal to one-sixth of global GDP.

The recent sell-off in global markets (stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities) is a signal that investors are preparing for the possible tapering off of the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing programme as the US economy improves.

Plus, with central bankers periodically warning about bubbles in the stock market, it's unsurprising that some are beginning to think about when and how the world's central banks turn off the cash tap.

Not knowing the answers to those questions may contribute to the nervousness and volatility in global markets.

Here are some possibilities in terms of the "exit."

An "exit strategy" from very loose monetary policy is when a central bank has a plan to raise interest rates and sell assets (government bonds and others), to re-absorb the money that it had injected into the economy.

For instance, the Fed could decide to first raise rates and then gradually sell the government bonds that it owns.

But, does the sequence matter - if it is a rate rise first or re-absorption of liquidity?

Uncomfortable position

If a central bank first raised interest rates, say gradually up from nearly 0%, then the demand for credit will fall.

This supports the aim of taking cash out from the economy that the central bank wants to achieve when it sells the bonds that it holds.

Once a central bank starts selling government bonds, it increases the supply so the price will likely fall.

As the price is inversely related to the yield on the bond, then anyone buying the bond could receive higher returns on lending to the government and the price is lower than before. It could attract new buyers and help the central bank reduce its balance sheet.

But, existing bondholders may want to get out before the exit strategy starts, because the larger supply may well push down the value of their holdings, so they could lose.

There is also a chance that the central bank could lose from their existing holdings of government bonds for the same reason, e.g. recall the Bank of England mentioning it.

Now, if a central bank were to sell bonds first and then raise rates, it may find that the price of money - which is what the interest rate is - is largely out of their hands. That may not be the most comfortable position for a central bank to be in.

Long-term rates are determined in the bond market, while central banks traditionally control short-term rates.

So, the benchmark or key rate set by the Fed is the 0-0.1% that determines short-term borrowing cost.

But, most lending in the economy depends on long-term rates - for example 10-year US government Treasury bonds are more influential than short-term rates in terms of the cost of a mortgage.

And those are largely determined by bond markets.

For instance, the yield on a 10-year government bond would depend on the short-term rate, expected inflation, economic growth and thus the expected interest rate a decade from now.

With the large amount of bonds to be released back into the market, a central bank may find that the bond market will do a lot of the dictating.

Though the Fed has re-discovered the ability to affect the yield curve (yields on short- to long-term US government bonds) through its Operation Twist, which was first done in the 1960s.

So, perhaps the jury is still out.

Healthy sign?

In terms of the impact on real economy, when there is a steepening yield curve (longer-term rates rise more than short-term ones), it is usually a sign that growth and therefore higher interest rates are expected in the future.

In other words, a sign of recovery.

There are certainly concerns about how the reversal will go. The nerves are evident in the volatile markets.

But, for the economy, a return to a time when savers earn a return, markets are not so bubbly, and growth resumes would be welcome.

It may not happen very soon, but when the time comes, an orderly "exit" could be a sign of better times ahead.

Just brace yourselves though, as it may be bumpy for a while.

Linda Yueh Article written by Linda Yueh Linda Yueh Chief business correspondent

The Bank of England's theory of everything

Setting interest rates is not the only thing the Bank of England focuses on anymore. But what does the newly expanded powers of the central bank mean for rates?

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Linda


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 37.

    Interesting, reason in fashion, successive fixations of concern amongst politicians, real anxiety in the public, credit-shortage here, debt-excess there, without fail neglecting 'underlying cause' (sandy-shore location upstream of own dam) in our vulnerability to what - from tiredness or distraction - is resignedly taken to be tidal-change in employment, demand, production, employment, demand, etc

  • rate this

    Comment number 36.

    I believe Detroit defaults are now the start of many in the USA. If this happens it will stagnate the current policy and prevent interest rate from rising. Thus delaying any recovery for the rest of the world. The financial con of getting financial institutions locked into low interest rate on bonds so they can raise interest rates for everyone else to pay the banks (Housing) may have backfired.

  • rate this

    Comment number 35.

    Obviously our comments are not rated highly. Linda your conclusion seems to indicate that its happeni ng now but the USA still need to change their policy. 2008/2009 saw visits from our PM to the USA . Our policy to print £ 'sjust endorsed USA policy. I suppose the USA will tell the UK to increase interest rates when they change policy!! . Thanks for your conclusions I hope its right.

  • rate this

    Comment number 34.

    I think the very first poster@#1 said it all : a load of "ifs","perhaps's","maybe's" and no mention that there is no reason to believe there is an exit strategy planned at all. I said so in posting on Part1 of this ill-conceived article and I say it again on Part2 (and I cannot believe a Part2 was deemed fit to print).The whole of Parts1 & 2 are a mess of supposition and poor "reporting" (musing).

  • rate this

    Comment number 33.

    Until the USA come to their senses and take their heads out of the sand switch off the printing presses they will send the world to ever decreasing interest rates (-%) worthless money and total unemployment. China can you do something the West wont.


Comments 5 of 37



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.