BofAML Warns “It’s Time To Be Bearish On US Treasuries”

It’s time to turn bearish on US Treasuries, is the clarion call from BofAML’s Macneil Curry. The impulsive advance in US 10yr yields from 2.669%/2.630% and Tuesday Bearish Engulfing Candles in many of the futures contracts (WN, US & FV), Curry says, means the larger bear trend has resumed. In 10yr yields Curry targets 2.950%/2.992% (the high end of the 4m 2.47%/3.00% area range trade). Pullbacks should be seen as temporary, corrective and an opportunity to go short. This bearish view, he warns, is invalidated on a 10yr yield move below the 2.659% lows of Nov-18. From a trading perspective they express this view by selling USZ3. Downside targets are seen to 128-22/128-12, with a stop above 133-10.

 

In yields…

 

and Futures…

 

Source: BofAML


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/KkntWUqy4NA/story01.htm Tyler Durden

BofAML Warns "It's Time To Be Bearish On US Treasuries"

It’s time to turn bearish on US Treasuries, is the clarion call from BofAML’s Macneil Curry. The impulsive advance in US 10yr yields from 2.669%/2.630% and Tuesday Bearish Engulfing Candles in many of the futures contracts (WN, US & FV), Curry says, means the larger bear trend has resumed. In 10yr yields Curry targets 2.950%/2.992% (the high end of the 4m 2.47%/3.00% area range trade). Pullbacks should be seen as temporary, corrective and an opportunity to go short. This bearish view, he warns, is invalidated on a 10yr yield move below the 2.659% lows of Nov-18. From a trading perspective they express this view by selling USZ3. Downside targets are seen to 128-22/128-12, with a stop above 133-10.

 

In yields…

 

and Futures…

 

Source: BofAML


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/KkntWUqy4NA/story01.htm Tyler Durden

How Well Are Obamacare’s State-Run Exchanges Actually Working?

As problems with Obamacare’s
federal exchange system have continued, supporters of the health
law have turned to a backup argument. Sure, the law is struggling
due to technical problems, but in the states that decided to set up
their own exchanges, it’s actually going reasonably well.
California, in particular, is being singled out for its high
enrollment numbers—numbers that some reports have said put the
state on track to hit its enrollment targets.

The reality of the state-run exchanges is a little more
complicated. There’s no question that the state systems are, on the
whole, working better than the federally facilitated exchanges. But
serious problems continue to plague a significant minority of the
state-run exchanges. And even states said to be success stories may
not be quite as successful as claimed.

The argument that state-run exchanges, put in place by state
governments that wanted to make the law work, predates the October
launch. Obama himself made a version of the argument during the
last week in September, when he went to Maryland to give a
speech
about the law, and to tout its state-run exchange.

But Maryland is one of the states that has struggled most to get
its exchange up and running. The technical troubles are significant
enough that it turned to paper applications and other workarounds.
But it’s not getting the sign up numbers it was hoping for. As
The Washington Post
reports
, just 1,278 people signed up for private coverage in
the state during October, and another 465 in the first week of
November. Those low numbers, the Post piece notes, “raise
questions about whether Maryland will achieve its enrollment target
of 150,000 by the end of March.”

Maryland has at least managed to get some people to the final
step of the private plan enrollment process. The same can’t be said
for Oregon. Not a single person has yet to enroll in private
coverage through the state’s broken exchange,
according
to  Reuters. The state exchange—which The
Washington Post

once described
as “the White House’s favorite health
exchange—was delayed before the October launch, and has never gone
online. And there’s no sign that it will in the foreseeable future.
Reuters says that its marketplace is “out of commission and
unavailable to the public indefinitely.” I suspect the White House
isn’t too thrilled anymore.

These aren’t the only state-run systems that have had or still
have serious problems. As The New York Times
noted
last week, Hawaii’s site went down on launch day, didn’t
come back online for weeks, and “users continue to report
problems.” Vermont’s exchange system does not yet process
individual payments for insurers, which presumably complicates
enrollment. Vermont’s system was
built
by CGI Group—the same contractor that botched the federal
exchanges.

So it’s not all flowers and rainbows in the state-run exchanges.
And even where things are going relatively well, there are still
problems. In Washington state, for example, a pricing glitch means
that about 8,000 people are finding out that they’ll be
eligible for a smaller federal subsidy
for their insurance than
they were initially told. One of those people was a woman whom
President Obama highlighted in a speech as being able to finally
obtain affordable insurance. Her new, revised price is so high that
she
now says
she expects to remain uninsured.

In other states,
like Kentucky, Connecticut, and California
, the demographic mix
of people signing up for plans appears to skew old, which could
pose longer-term problems if the insurance pools turn out to be
more expensive than expected.

And that’s presuming that any of these states actually hit their
enrollment targets. The Los Angeles Times
reported
this week that the numbers so far suggest that
California is on track to meet its 2014 enrollment goals after a
“sharp increase in November.”

But the enrollment numbers released for the state so far don’t
actually say how many people have completed the enrollment process.
An
HHS report on Obamacare signups
from last week counts 35,364
individuals as having “selected a Marketplace plan” in California,
which means they’ve dropped it into their online shopping cart. A
Los Angeles Times
report
from last weekend merely describes people as having
“selected” health plans.

And there appear to be issues with income and subsidy
verification as well. The same HHS report lists the  number of
people determined “eligible to enroll in a Marketplace plan with
financial assistance” as not applicable; that data is available in
most of the other state-run exchanges. Last weekend’s Los
Angeles Times
report noted significant problems for enrollment
assisters. One potential applicant
told
the LAT that “You can look, but you can’t use the
website to do the income calculation.”

That’s what Obamacare’s state-run exchanges look like. Even
where they appear to be working, it’s not clear they’re working all
that well.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/20/how-well-are-obamacares-state-run-exchan
via IFTTT

How Well Are Obamacare's State-Run Exchanges Actually Working?

As problems with Obamacare’s
federal exchange system have continued, supporters of the health
law have turned to a backup argument. Sure, the law is struggling
due to technical problems, but in the states that decided to set up
their own exchanges, it’s actually going reasonably well.
California, in particular, is being singled out for its high
enrollment numbers—numbers that some reports have said put the
state on track to hit its enrollment targets.

The reality of the state-run exchanges is a little more
complicated. There’s no question that the state systems are, on the
whole, working better than the federally facilitated exchanges. But
serious problems continue to plague a significant minority of the
state-run exchanges. And even states said to be success stories may
not be quite as successful as claimed.

The argument that state-run exchanges, put in place by state
governments that wanted to make the law work, predates the October
launch. Obama himself made a version of the argument during the
last week in September, when he went to Maryland to give a
speech
about the law, and to tout its state-run exchange.

But Maryland is one of the states that has struggled most to get
its exchange up and running. The technical troubles are significant
enough that it turned to paper applications and other workarounds.
But it’s not getting the sign up numbers it was hoping for. As
The Washington Post
reports
, just 1,278 people signed up for private coverage in
the state during October, and another 465 in the first week of
November. Those low numbers, the Post piece notes, “raise
questions about whether Maryland will achieve its enrollment target
of 150,000 by the end of March.”

Maryland has at least managed to get some people to the final
step of the private plan enrollment process. The same can’t be said
for Oregon. Not a single person has yet to enroll in private
coverage through the state’s broken exchange,
according
to  Reuters. The state exchange—which The
Washington Post

once described
as “the White House’s favorite health
exchange—was delayed before the October launch, and has never gone
online. And there’s no sign that it will in the foreseeable future.
Reuters says that its marketplace is “out of commission and
unavailable to the public indefinitely.” I suspect the White House
isn’t too thrilled anymore.

These aren’t the only state-run systems that have had or still
have serious problems. As The New York Times
noted
last week, Hawaii’s site went down on launch day, didn’t
come back online for weeks, and “users continue to report
problems.” Vermont’s exchange system does not yet process
individual payments for insurers, which presumably complicates
enrollment. Vermont’s system was
built
by CGI Group—the same contractor that botched the federal
exchanges.

So it’s not all flowers and rainbows in the state-run exchanges.
And even where things are going relatively well, there are still
problems. In Washington state, for example, a pricing glitch means
that about 8,000 people are finding out that they’ll be
eligible for a smaller federal subsidy
for their insurance than
they were initially told. One of those people was a woman whom
President Obama highlighted in a speech as being able to finally
obtain affordable insurance. Her new, revised price is so high that
she
now says
she expects to remain uninsured.

In other states,
like Kentucky, Connecticut, and California
, the demographic mix
of people signing up for plans appears to skew old, which could
pose longer-term problems if the insurance pools turn out to be
more expensive than expected.

And that’s presuming that any of these states actually hit their
enrollment targets. The Los Angeles Times
reported
this week that the numbers so far suggest that
California is on track to meet its 2014 enrollment goals after a
“sharp increase in November.”

But the enrollment numbers released for the state so far don’t
actually say how many people have completed the enrollment process.
An
HHS report on Obamacare signups
from last week counts 35,364
individuals as having “selected a Marketplace plan” in California,
which means they’ve dropped it into their online shopping cart. A
Los Angeles Times
report
from last weekend merely describes people as having
“selected” health plans.

And there appear to be issues with income and subsidy
verification as well. The same HHS report lists the  number of
people determined “eligible to enroll in a Marketplace plan with
financial assistance” as not applicable; that data is available in
most of the other state-run exchanges. Last weekend’s Los
Angeles Times
report noted significant problems for enrollment
assisters. One potential applicant
told
the LAT that “You can look, but you can’t use the
website to do the income calculation.”

That’s what Obamacare’s state-run exchanges look like. Even
where they appear to be working, it’s not clear they’re working all
that well.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/20/how-well-are-obamacares-state-run-exchan
via IFTTT

30 Minutes Later – Markets Tapering (Gold Limit Down)

The initial knee-jerk taper-on move was met with reactive buying (as per trading guru Steve Liesman’s wisdom) but that hope bounce (really only seen in stocks) has faded now and assets are pressing their extremes. USD pushing higher, Treasury yields higher, stocks and gold lower… Of course, all it takes is for one algo to get the idea of pricing in the inevitable subsequent un-taper and to send the entire risk complex soaring. Silver is now below $20 and Gold is Limit Down

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/MGMcwfAxMeQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Jacob Sullum on Marijuana Legalization in California

Possessing
up to an ounce of marijuana in California is an “infraction”
punishable by a $100 fine. In other words, state
law treats pot smoking as a transgression akin to jaywalking
or fishing without a license. Yet growing and selling marijuana are
felonies that can send you to prison for years. If consuming
marijuana is not a crime, asks Senior Editor Jacob Sullum, how can
it be a crime merely to help someone consume marijuana? That is a
question voters will confront next fall if the California
Cannabis Hemp Initiative qualifies for the ballot.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/20/jacob-sullum-on-marijuana-legalization-i
via IFTTT

CDC Belatedly Reveals That Smoking by Teenagers Dropped While Vaping Rose

Last September the CDC
noted with alarm
 that the percentage of teenagers who had
tried electronic cigarettes doubled between 2011 and 2012. “Many
teens who start with e-cigarettes may be condemned
to struggling with a lifelong addiction to nicotine and
conventional cigarettes,” CDC Director Tom
Frieden worried. In a Medscape interview a
few weeks later, Frieden suggested that fear had already
materialized, asserting that “many kids are starting out with
e-cigarettes and then going on to smoke conventional cigarettes.”
Yet the CDC’s data, which came from the 2012 National Youth Tobacco
Survey (NYTS), did
not support that claim
. In fact, nine out of 10 high school
students who reported vaping in the previous month were already
cigarette smokers, suggesting that the increase in e-cigarette
consumption might signal successful harm reduction. Last week the
CDC
reported
additional NYTS data that further undermine Frieden’s
claim, showing that smoking among teenagers fell as vaping
rose.

Between 2011 and 2012, when the share of middle school students
who reported using e-cigarette in the previous month rose from 0.6
percent to 1.1 percent, the share reporting past-month consumption
of conventional cigarettes fell from 4.3 percent to 3.5 percent.
Among high school students, past-month e-cigarette use rose from
1.5 percent to 2.8 percent, while past-month consumption of tobacco
cigarettes fell from 15.8 percent to 14 percent. Although these
trends do not necessarily mean e-cigarettes are responsible for the
decline in smoking, the numbers hardly seem consistent with the
story Frieden is eager to tell: that the availability of
e-cigarettes is leading to more smoking than would otherwise occur.

Since the numbers showing an increase in vaping come from the
very same survey as the numbers showing a decrease in smoking, it
is puzzling that the CDC decided to highlight the first trend two
months before the latter one, especially since the smoking data
suggest Frieden’s fear, which was repeated and amplified by various
activists and politicians pushing for
strict e-cigarette regulation
, is misplaced. But the omisision
is puzzling only if you assume the CDC is mainly interested in the
truth, as opposed to scientific-sounding justifications for an
irrational anti-vaping prejudice. Boston University public health
professor Michael Siegel, who sees e-cigarettes as a valuable harm
reduction tool,
comments

This decline in cigarette smoking was not reported in the
earlier CDC report on the increase in electronic cigarette use, nor
was it mentioned in any of the multitude of interviews or news
articles regarding the increase in youth e-cigarette use….

The opportunity to see the data on trends in cigarette smoking
would have helped the public to see that there was no scientific
support for the CDC’s conclusion. I thus find it curious that these
important data were not reported until weeks after the media [had]
already disseminated the conclusion that e-cigarettes are a
dangerous gateway to cigarette smoking. The CDC officials certainly
had plenty of opportunity to let the public know that there was no
discernible increase in cigarette smoking among youth concomitant
with the observed increase in e-cigarette use. It seems to me that
this is a critical finding to report.

My impression remains that there is, for some reason (perhaps
related to ideology), a pre-determined conclusion that e-cigarettes
are evil. Instead of fairly reporting all of the evidence, only the
evidence that supports the pre-determined conclusions [is] being
shared. 

Does the gateway effect Frieden fears—a switch from e-cigarettes
to conventional cigarettes among people who otherwise would never
smoke—show up after high school? Not according to a
recent survey
of college students, in which only 3.3 percent
said e-cigarettes were the first form of nicotine they’d tried. Of
those, only one (2.3 percent) later started smoking conventional
cigarettes. “It didn’t seem as though it really proved to be a
gateway to anything,” the lead researcher said.

[Thanks to Bill Godshall for the tip.]

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/20/cdc-belatedly-reveals-that-smoking-by-te
via IFTTT

Gold Market Halted For 2nd Time Today Following FOMC Minutes Monkey-Hammering

For the second time today (and 4th in the last 3 months) – at least this time on some actual news – Nanex notes that gold futures have been halted for 20-seconds following the release of the FOMC minutes. 1,500 contracts took us down at 6:26ET this morning, this time it was even more…

9. December 2013 Gold (GC) Futures Trades.



10. December 2013 Gold (GC) Futures Quote Spread.



 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/BclOR9xgpbg/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Hilsenrath’s 1057 Word FOMC Digest In +/- 1 Minute

It took Hilsenrath just under a minute to pump out his 1057 word thesis on the FOMC minutes. As usual, this is indicative of a comfortable embargo cushion which one can be assured was unbreached, as anything else would be very illegal.

From the WSJ:

Fed Minutes Takeaways: On Track to End QE, but Stick to Low Rates

Federal Reserve officials had a wide-ranging discussion about the outlook for monetary policy at their Oct. 29-30 policy meeting. The bottom line was that they stuck to the view that they might begin winding down their $85 billion-per-month bond-buying program in the “coming months” but are looking for ways to reinforce their plans to keep short-term interest rates low for a long-time after the program ends.

They struggled to build a consensus on how they would respond to a variety of different scenarios. One example: What to do if the economy didn’t improve as expected and the costs of continuing bond-buying outweighed the benefits? Another example: How to convince the public that even after bond buying ends, short-term interest rates will remain low.

Here is a first look at key passages (in italics) and what they suggest about Fed policy:

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: It looked a little softer in the near-term, but officials weren’t veering from their view on how the recovery would play out:

Although the incoming data suggested that growth in the second half of 2013 might prove somewhat weaker than many of them had previously anticipated, participants broadly continued to project the pace of economic activity to pick up. The acceleration over the medium term was expected to be bolstered by the gradual abatement of headwinds that have been slowing the pace of economic recovery—such as household-sector deleveraging, tight credit conditions for some households and businesses, and fiscal restraint—as well as improved prospects for global growth. While downside risks to the outlook for the economy and the labor market were generally viewed as having diminished, on balance, since last fall, several significant risks remained, including the uncertain effects of ongoing fiscal drag and of the continuing fiscal debate.

OUTLOOK FOR BOND BUYING: Given their expectations for the economy, they still expect to end the program in the months ahead:

Participants reviewed issues specific to the Committee’s asset purchase program. They generally expected that the data would prove consistent with the Committee’s outlook for ongoing improvement in labor market conditions and would thus warrant trimming the pace of purchases in coming months.

WHAT IF THE BOND-BUYING PROGRAM STOPS WORKING BEFORE THE LABOR MARKET IMPROVES: The Fed might end bond buying and find another way to stimulate the economy.

Some participants noted that, if the Committee were going to contemplate cutting purchases in the future based on criteria other than improvement in the labor market outlook, such as concerns about the efficacy or costs of further asset purchases, it would need to communicate effectively about those other criteria. In those circumstances, it might well be appropriate to offset the effects of reduced purchases by undertaking alternative actions to provide accommodation at the same time

KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID: Fed officials are trying harder to keep a consistent message after the confusion in markets earlier this year.

Participants broadly endorsed making the Committee’s communications as simple, clear, and consistent as possible, and discussed ways of doing so. With regard to the asset purchase program, one suggestion was to repeat a set of principles in public communications; for example, participants could emphasize that the program was data dependent, that any reduction in the pace of purchases would depend on both the cumulative progress in labor markets since the start of the program as well as the outlook for future gains, and that a continuing assessment of the efficacy and costs of asset purchases might lead the Committee to decide at some point to change the mix of its policy tools while maintaining a high degree of accommodation

MODEST SUPPORT FOR THRESHOLD CHANGE: The Fed has been saying it will keep short-term rates low until after the jobless rate falls below 6.5%. Some economists think the Fed should lower that threshold to provide more support to the job market. There wasn’t a great deal of support for such a move.

A couple of participants favored simply reducing the 6½ percent unemployment rate threshold, but others noted that such a change might raise concerns about the durability of the Committee’s commitment to the thresholds.

INFLATION BOUNDS: The Fed is also considering offering a lower bound on inflation. That got some support, though not rousing.

In general, the benefits of adding this kind of quantitative floor for inflation were viewed as uncertain and likely to be rather modest, and communicating it could present challenges, but a few participants remained favorably inclined toward it.

LOW RATES FOR LONG: Fed officials appear to be gravitating toward an “inertial” policy approach. In other words, toward assuring the public that the Fed won’t be in a hurry to raise short-term rates even after its 6.5% threshold is crossed.

Several participants concluded that providing additional qualitative information on the Committee’s intentions regarding the federal funds rate after the unemployment threshold was reached could be more helpful. Such guidance could indicate the range of information that the Committee would consider in evaluating when it would be appropriate to raise the federal funds rate. Alternatively, the policy statement could indicate that even after the first increase in the federal funds rate target, the Committee anticipated keeping the rate below its longer-run equilibrium value for some time, as economic headwinds were likely to diminish only slowly. Other factors besides those headwinds were also mentioned as possibly providing a rationale for maintaining a low trajectory for the federal funds rate, including following through on a commitment to support the economy by maintaining more-accommodative policy for longer. These or other modifications to the forward guidance for the federal funds rate could be implemented in the future, either to improve clarity or to add to policy accommodation, perhaps in conjunction with a reduction in the pace of asset purchases as part of a rebalancing of the Committee’s tools

DON’T FORGET IOER: The Fed pays 0.25% to banks that keep reserves on deposit with the central bank. Some economists think it should reduce that rate to encourage lending. The idea hasn’t had much traction in the past, but it is back in play.

Most participants thought that a reduction by the Board of Governors in the interest rate paid on excess reserves could be worth considering at some stage, although the benefits of such a step were generally seen as likely to be small except possibly as a signal of policy intentions.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/1CzL8RUqeKI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Hilsenrath's 1057 Word FOMC Digest In +/- 1 Minute

It took Hilsenrath just under a minute to pump out his 1057 word thesis on the FOMC minutes. As usual, this is indicative of a comfortable embargo cushion which one can be assured was unbreached, as anything else would be very illegal.

From the WSJ:

Fed Minutes Takeaways: On Track to End QE, but Stick to Low Rates

Federal Reserve officials had a wide-ranging discussion about the outlook for monetary policy at their Oct. 29-30 policy meeting. The bottom line was that they stuck to the view that they might begin winding down their $85 billion-per-month bond-buying program in the “coming months” but are looking for ways to reinforce their plans to keep short-term interest rates low for a long-time after the program ends.

They struggled to build a consensus on how they would respond to a variety of different scenarios. One example: What to do if the economy didn’t improve as expected and the costs of continuing bond-buying outweighed the benefits? Another example: How to convince the public that even after bond buying ends, short-term interest rates will remain low.

Here is a first look at key passages (in italics) and what they suggest about Fed policy:

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: It looked a little softer in the near-term, but officials weren’t veering from their view on how the recovery would play out:

Although the incoming data suggested that growth in the second half of 2013 might prove somewhat weaker than many of them had previously anticipated, participants broadly continued to project the pace of economic activity to pick up. The acceleration over the medium term was expected to be bolstered by the gradual abatement of headwinds that have been slowing the pace of economic recovery—such as household-sector deleveraging, tight credit conditions for some households and businesses, and fiscal restraint—as well as improved prospects for global growth. While downside risks to the outlook for the economy and the labor market were generally viewed as having diminished, on balance, since last fall, several significant risks remained, including the uncertain effects of ongoing fiscal drag and of the continuing fiscal debate.

OUTLOOK FOR BOND BUYING: Given their expectations for the economy, they still expect to end the program in the months ahead:

Participants reviewed issues specific to the Committee’s asset purchase program. They generally expected that the data would prove consistent with the Committee’s outlook for ongoing improvement in labor market conditions and would thus warrant trimming the pace of purchases in coming months.

WHAT IF THE BOND-BUYING PROGRAM STOPS WORKING BEFORE THE LABOR MARKET IMPROVES: The Fed might end bond buying and find another way to stimulate the economy.

Some participants noted that, if the Committee were going to contemplate cutting purchases in the future based on criteria other than improvement in the labor market outlook, such as concerns about the efficacy or costs of further asset purchases, it would need to communicate effectively about those other criteria. In those circumstances, it might well be appropriate to offset the effects of reduced purchases by undertaking alternative actions to provide accommodation at the same time

KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID: Fed officials are trying harder to keep a consistent message after the confusion in markets earlier this year.

Participants broadly endorsed making the Committee’s communications as simple, clear, and consistent as possible, and discussed ways of doing so. With regard to the asset purchase program, one suggestion was to repeat a set of principles in public communications; for example, participants could emphasize that the program was data dependent, that any reduction in the pace of purchases would depend on both the cumulative progress in labor markets since the start of the program as well as the outlook for future gains, and that a continuing assessment of the efficacy and costs of asset purchases might lead the Committee to decide at some point to change the mix of its policy tools while maintaining a high degree of accommodation

MODEST SUPPORT FOR THRESHOLD CHANGE: The Fed has been saying it will keep short-term rates low until after the jobless rate falls below 6.5%. Some economists think the Fed should lower that threshold to provide more support to the job market. There wasn’t a great deal of support for such a move.

A couple of participants favored simply reducing the 6½ percent unemployment rate threshold, but others noted that such a change might raise concerns about the durability of the Committee’s commitment to the thresholds.

INFLATION BOUNDS: The Fed is also considering offering a lower bound on inflation. That got some support, though not rousing.

In general, the benefits of adding this kind of quantitative floor for inflation were viewed as uncertain and likely to be rather modest, and communicating it could present challenges, but a few participants remained favorably inclined toward it.

LOW RATES FOR LONG: Fed officials appear to be gravitating toward an “inertial” policy approach. In other words, toward assuring the public that the Fed won’t be in a hurry to raise short-term rates even after its 6.5% threshold is crossed.

Several participants concluded that providing additional qualitative information on the Committee’s intentions regarding the federal funds rate after the unemployment threshold was reached could be more helpful. Such guidance could indicate the range of information that the Committee would consider in evaluating when it would be appropriate to raise the federal funds rate. Alternatively, the policy statement could indicate that even after the first increase in the federal funds rate target, the Committee anticipated keeping the rate below its longer-run equilibrium value for some time, as economic headwinds were likely to diminish only slowly. Other factors besides those headwinds were also mentioned as possibly providing a rationale for maintaining a low trajectory for the federal funds rate, including following through on a commitment to support the economy by maintaining more-accommodative policy for longer. These or other modifications to the forward guidance for the federal funds rate could be implemented in the future, either to improve clarity or to add to policy accommodation, perhaps in conjunction with a reduction in the pace of asset purchases as part of a rebalancing of the Committee’s tools

DON’T FORGET IOER: The Fed pays 0.25% to banks that keep reserves on deposit with the central bank. Some economists think it should reduce that rate to encourage lending. The idea hasn’t had much traction in the past, but it is back in play.

Most participants thought that a reduction by the Board of Governors in the interest rate p
aid on excess reserves could be worth considering at some stage, although the benefits of such a step were generally seen as likely to be small except possibly as a signal of policy intentions.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/1CzL8RUqeKI/story01.htm Tyler Durden