Inflationary forces (and microbial soups)
The hold of central banks over inflation may be weaker than we thought
Received wisdom – from the most mundane fields to the more complex – has a habit of coming undone. Nowadays, red wine and chocolate are good for you; cutting calories no longer holds the key to losing weight.
In the arcane world of macroeconomics, central banks’ mastery of inflation looks like an orthodoxy that’s fraying too.
The conventional view is that inflation was tamed by Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker and his fellow inflation hawks in the 1980s and then domesticated by central bankers armed with clearly spelled out targets and bank independence in the 1990s.
Things don’t seem quite so simple any more. Inflation defied central bank forecasts in 2022, nearing or exceeding 10% in the EU, UK and US.
Doubts are now growing among investors about whether central bankers really have the grip they thought they did.
The chatter is that decades of low inflation may have been as much a product of circumstances as the result of clear policy and communication from the Fed and others.
In recent months inflation in developed countries has started to fall. But if the doubts are well-founded, the broader outlook could remain patchy.
Geopolitical stability, globalisation, technological innovation and demographic trends all helped keep inflation low in the 2010s. The contribution to inflation from goods, as opposed to services, in the US was effectively zero for a decade up to 2022.
But several of those helpful forces are now in reverse.
The pandemic and Ukraine war have reawakened concerns about security and thrown globalisation through a 180-degree turn.
Labour participation rates are stalling across developed markets and some think the experience of the Covid-19 pandemic may discourage workers from crossing borders for employment as readily in future. And the kind of market efficiencies brought by technological innovation – such as better price discovery through the internet – may have run their course.
Shifts elsewhere take the form of new developments rather than reversals but could be just as critical. The greening of the world economy brings a new inflationary dynamic. By definition, switching to new cleaner technologies comes at a cost. Getting to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 will require $3.5 trillion a year in extra spending, the consultancy McKinsey says.
And the rise of political populism has only added more fuel to the fire, with governments increasingly pushing companies to reverse offshoring and erecting barriers to the free movement of goods and workers.
Central banks with dual mandates must also balance inflation control with employment. With a more populist political backdrop, employment may come to dominate such determinations.
Should inflation prove harder to control in future, investors will have many reasons to fret. Chief among them is the fading hope that central banks will – or would even be able to – act when markets slide.
Now is the first time in 35 years that policy-makers have been constrained from doing whatever they want, says Benjamin Bowler, head of equity derivatives research at Bank of America.
The Bank of England’s response to last year’s gilt crisis gave a taste of what’s to come, Bowler says. In the face of collapsing prices, the central bank promised to do whatever it took to restore market stability – but only for 10 days.
That was a “bit of an oxymoron”, Bowler says, and reflects the bind central bankers find themselves in. Markets are fragile but benign inflation no longer offers them a free hand to act as they please.
Away from finance, in the field of dietary science, new research says an array of diseases – and even obesity – could be caused by the balance of a person’s microbiome – the bacterial soup alive in the guts of each one of us.
Might inflation similarly reflect a tilt in environmental forces – and more so than markets previously thought? Some think it does. And the soup of inflationary drivers is changing.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
Another post-Libor rate aims to clear Iosco bar
After two rivals were slapped down by the benchmark overseer last year, will Axi fare differently?
Nvidia is growing up. It’s not settling down
Chip maker is a mega cap that doesn’t act like one
FX forwards dealers face added challenges in P&L analysis
Mark-out tools for forwards and swaps trading may not be a panacea
Can history resolve factor investors’ p-hacking questions?
Quants seek reassurance in the far distant past
Insurance double-hatters like Apollo can expect more scrutiny
Regulators are homing in on conflicts of interests at private-equity-owned insurers
Podcast: Lorenzo Ravagli on why the skew is for the many
JP Morgan quant proposes a unified framework for trading the volatility skew premium
Quants see promise in DeBerta’s untangled reading
Improved language models are able to grasp context better
Counterparty risk model links defaults to portfolio values
Fed’s Michael Pykhtin proposes using copula models to capture effects of margin calls on default risk