Reuters blog archive
European Central Bank President Mario Draghi delivers a speech in Amsterdam which will fixate the markets following his recent statement that a stronger euro would prompt an easing of monetary policy.
Most notably via his Clint Eastwood-style “whatever it takes” declaration the best part of two years ago, Draghi has proved to be peerless in the art of verbal intervention. But even for him there is a law of diminishing returns which may require words to be backed up with action before long.
In the 12 days since he put the euro firmly on the ECB’s agenda, the currency has actually weakened a little and certainly shied away from the $1.40 mark which many in the market see as a first red line for the euro zone’s central bank. That is probably because investors expect action from the ECB soon and if so, there are good reasons to think they may be wide of the mark.
The ECB was open about its surprise at the drop in March inflation to just 0.5 percent but said it still saw no threat of deflation and expects the number to have risen in April (we’ll see next week). That would mitigate against action at the May policy meeting.
ECB Vice-President Vitor Constancio testifies to the European Parliament prior to attending the IMF Spring meeting in Washington at the back end of the week along with Mario Draghi and other colleagues. Jens Weidmann, Yves Mersch and Ewald Nowotny also speak today.
There has undoubtedly been a change in tone from the ECB, which is now openly talking about printing money if inflation stays too low for too long (no mention of deflation being the required trigger any more). Even Bundesbank chief Weidmann has done so.
Unemployment is sky high, national debt is not far short of double the size of an economy which is still shrinking and its ruling coalition has a wafer-thin majority, yet there are glimmers of hope in Greece.
Having finally struck a deal with the EU and IMF to keep bailout loans flowing, Athens is preparing to dip its toe back into the bond market with a five-year bond for up to 2 billion euros.
After two days in The Hague, Barack Obama moves on to Brussels for an EU/U.S. summit with Ukraine still casting the longest shadow.
Europe’s energy dependence on Russia is likely to top the agenda with the EU pressing for U.S. help in that regard while the standoff with Russia could give new impetus to talks over the world’s largest free trade deal.
The European Central Bank meets today with emerging market disorder high on its agenda.
It’s probably too early to force a policy move – particularly since the next set of ECB economic and inflation forecasts are due in March – but it’s an unwelcome development at a time when inflation is already uncomfortably low, dropping further to just 0.7 percent in January, way below the ECB’s target of close to but below two percent.
from Rahul Karunakar:
You should taper in December and regain lost face.
A growing but vocal minority of economists
Even if the latest Reuters poll consensus still shows the Federal Reserve will wait until March before trimming its monthly bond purchases, the clamor to do that in December - or rather later today - is rising.
Thirteen of 69 economists in the latest Reuters poll, almost one-in-five, now expect the Fed to start rolling back on their bond purchases in December: a sharp increase from the three of 62 in the previous poll.
from Expert Zone:
(Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters)
It was never expected to be permanent. Quantitative Easing (QE), designed to pep up the U.S. economy after the financial crisis of 2008-09, has survived for five years. The United States is now on a rebound and unemployment is receding. That has tempted the U.S. Federal Reserve to reconsider tapering its economic stimulus.
This was first announced on May 17 and sent tremors through global markets. Asian markets were the most affected; India was worst-hit, having come to depend on FII investment. The knee-jerk reaction of FIIs was to reduce exposure to emerging market economies in the expectation that liquidity would dry up and interest rates would harden.
When the U.S. Federal Reserve launched its third round of quantitative easing, or QE3, it was hailed as an "open-ended" policy that would last as long as needed. Most important for investors, the pace of the bond buying - which started at a somewhat arbitrary $85 billion per month - would be "data dependent." Especially throughout the spring, officials stressed they were serious about adjusting the dial on QE3 depending on changes in the labor market and broader economy. But as the unemployment rate dropped to 7.3 percent last month from 8.1 percent when the program was launched in September, 2012, the bond-buying has effectively been on auto-pilot for 14 straight months.
Now, some are wondering whether the decision not to at least tinker with the program has made the first so-called taper a bigger deal than it needed to be. "When you don't react to small changes in the data with small changes in the policy then the markets tend to read more into it when you do change policy," St. Louis Fed President James Bullard said last week after a speech in Arkansas. "It makes policy a little more rigid than it maybe should be."
The bombardment of European Central Bank interventions continues today. ECB chief Mario Draghi addresses the European Banking Congress in Frankfurt and any number of his colleagues break cover elsewhere.
Draghi shepherded a surprise interest rate cut earlier this month and consistently says that other options are on the table though yesterday he said that talk of cutting the deposit rate into negative territory to try and force banks to lend more was people “creating their own dreams”.
A round of European Central Bank policymakers speeches this week can be boiled down to this. All options, including money-printing, are on the table but it will be incredibly hard to get it past ECB hardliners and neither camp sees a real threat of deflation yet.
Reports that the ECB could push deposit rates marginally into negative territory in an attempt to force banks to lend have been played down by our sources, not least because it would distort the working of the money market.