Yes, Fed Policy Exacerbates Inequality. But It Doesn’t Have To Be That Way.

“It is impossible to bail out Main Street without bailing out Wall Street even more”, Nordea’s Andreas Steno Larsen writes, in the latest edition of his FX and rates weekly series, released right on schedule Sunday, despite his being busy getting married this weekend (congrats).

“Sad but true”, he added, describing an unfortunate state of affairs in which monetary policy acting on its own (i.e., without complimentary fiscal stimulus) is virtually destined to increase inequality.

I wanted to touch on this topic again not so much to beat a dead horse, but rather to remind the general public that there is some nuance to the discussion, something Jerome Powell did not do a very good job of capturing on Friday when, during an online discussion, he responded “absolutely not” when asked whether the Fed’s policies exacerbate the wealth divide.

Let’s be clear: Central bank policy operating in isolation and through primary dealers absolutely contributes to inequality.

Powell knows this just as well as Janet Yellen knows it just as well as Ben Bernanke knows it.

That the blue line in the following simple chart moves steadily higher starting at the beginning of 2009 is not a coincidence.

This is one of the least complicated aspects of the post-financial crisis monetary policy response.

In a world where conspiracy theories spread largely unchecked, the idea that central bank liquidity boosts the prices of financial assets ain’t one of them — so to speak. There’s no conspiracy here. And if you think there is, then perhaps you should consult with Ben Bernanke who, in 2010, said the following about the Fed’s crisis response in a piece for The Washington Post:

This approach eased financial conditions in the past and, so far, looks to be effective again. Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action. Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion.

If this was supposed to be some kind of a closely-held secret that only central bankers (and the fringe blog crowd which flourished after the crisis) knew about, well then Ben Bernanke is the worst co-conspirator in the world. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be in a “conspiracy” with a guy who writes an Op-Ed for The Washington Post called “What We Did And Why.”

All of what Bernanke said in his famous Op-Ed is true. The problem, though, is that central banks failed to account for the possibility that the transmission mechanism from monetary policy to the real economy might not be nearly as efficient as the channel through which the same policy actions work on financial assets.

In the simplest possible terms: Flooding the market with liquidity, driving investors out the risk curve and pushing market participants down the quality ladder is an endeavor that is guaranteed to inflate the prices of financial assets. Those assets are disproportionately concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. Have a look:

Due to that disproportionate concentration of ownership, the benefits of rising stock prices don’t accrue in linear fashion. Rather, they accrue exponentially.

On top of that, the effect of driving corporate borrowing costs lower is to encourage issuance of corporate debt. Investors, thirsty for yield, are more than happy to absorb the supply. It’s true that ensuring corporate America has ready access to capital is part and parcel of making sure the labor market is robust, but if those companies use the proceeds from debt issuance to buy back their own shares (as opposed to raising wages or investing in productive capacity), all you’ve done is levitate the value of stocks some more.

In the meantime, voracious demand for corporate supply means corporate bond portfolios rise in value too, which again disproportionately benefits the wealthy. (The share of corporate and foreign bonds concentrated in the hands of the top 10% is above 82%, which is actually down from the late 80s/early 90s, presumably because innovations in financial products have democratized access to corporate credit.)

In the final act, one has to remember that higher-income groups have a lower propensity to consume. So, gains from the simple dynamic outlined above are simply hoarded.

Powell didn’t deny any of this last week. Rather, he said simply this:

The pandemic is falling on those least able to bear its burdens. It is a great increaser of inequality. Everything we do is focused on creating an environment in which those people will have the best chance to keep their job or maybe get a new job.

That’s true. The problem isn’t Powell. Or even Fed policy, really. The problem is the setup, which is plagued by the taboo surrounding monetary financing of government debt.

If the Fed could simply buy Treasurys straight from the source, as opposed to being forced to channel the purchases through Wall Street, the entire game would change. Suddenly, quantitative easing would amount to a direct injection of money into the economy through whatever programs were being funded by the issuance of the debt the Fed bought.

Instead, trillions in conjured dollars ends up as liquidity in the financial system, which is nice to the extent it ensures the system doesn’t freeze, malfunction or totally collapse (as in 2008). But if, after 10 long years, we haven’t learned that the transmission mechanism is far too slow when it comes to producing real economic prosperity to keep up with the comparatively real-time effects on asset prices, then we are apparently doomed to inflate bubbles in those assets much faster than the underlying economy can absorb them.

Along the way, the vast majority of Americans (i.e., the “bottom” 90%) continue on an inexorable descent into financial irrelevancy.

Crucially – and I hope this is by now clear to most regular readers – the main reason this is doomed to perpetuate inequality is because we refuse to acknowledge what is obvious to everyone who knows anything about the setup. It’s debt monetization – just at arm’s length. Once we admit that, we’ll be free to remove the impediment that keeps these trillions in digitally-created dollars either parked or else trapped on the asset bubble merry-go-round.

Coming full circle, Nordea’s Andreas Steno Larsen is correct to say that given the current setup, it’s “impossible to bail out Main Street without bailing out Wall Street even more”.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Politicians can fix this situation with legislation, and once the taboo around debt monetization and direct deficit financing is gone, the situation described above will be flipped on its head. Instead of having to wait for the trickle-down “wealth effect” to take hold, money conjured from thin air will go directly into the economy. Wall Street (and financial assets) will benefit as a second-order effect. Just the way it should be.

I’ll leave you with the whole passage from Nordea’s Steno Larsen:

There are still reasons to expect another leg lower in equities once we enter the solvency phase. Bankruptcies in the US recently reached a high not seen since May-09. Markets are aware of it, but the question is if the market is wrong-footed by a prolonged solvency phase. If 42% of furloughed workers aren’t able to return to work at all (as a Becker-Friedman institute study shows), then consumption will take a prolonged hit and leave margins under pressure for a long time. There are limits to how long the Fed can prop up the equity market while unemployment is skyrocketing, even if the Fed’s PR department and now also Jay Powell is trying to convince us that inequality is not driven by asset purchases. Bollocks (Pardon our French)! It is impossible to bail out Main Street, without bail-outing Wall Street even more. Sad but true.


Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

8 thoughts on “Yes, Fed Policy Exacerbates Inequality. But It Doesn’t Have To Be That Way.

  1. We will monetize debt! sounds like a very catchy slogan for 2020 elections. Not!
    Most people don’t even know where money comes from and don’t even care.

    1. Good point. I think while it is obvious to a few, and this report does lots to educate the extremely curious, it may never be explainable to the masses. If anyone can figure out how to do that it can become a realistic platform. Maybe incorrectly I see this as MMT which the wealthy are already working to gin up zingers to stop. Easier to gin up zingers than to create real education.

  2. ” There are limits to how long the Fed can prop up equity markets.”…….I agree …but are we dealing with objective or subjective criteria when we say/assume something like that…??? Seriously , it is an important issue…

  3. Really appreciated this post. In the short term it’s nice to see the IRA go up and pension funds remain a little less insolvent, but in the long term this issue destroys the country. The bottom 90% feels a genuine pinch as asset inflation jacks up housing prices. So it’s not just a matter of relative disparity (e.g., I was feeling great until you cruised by in your BMW). Housing costs have mirrored financial assets since the Fed started their easing programs, and that has been lethal to regular folks’ budgets.

  4. Riots, looting by the elites of our riches, and the sources of racial injustice, don’t mean anything to the eiltes of a country that has obviously lost it’s way. Fools. All eyes now on the “solvency crisis.” As the stock market is a fabled machine that brings future events into the present, I, for one, can’t wait to hear how all the businesses and jobs lost to bankruptiy are better than “concensus estimates,” resulting in untold riches for “investors” in $SPX.

    Barring the U.S. losing a war, or a cataclysm, there is not going to be reform. it’s going to be like this for a while. More families will become “financially irrelevant.” 30-year mortgages at 3.05%, Zero percent out to the the new 20-year Treasury, and real economic growth of 1.2% if we’re lucky. It was ours to lose.

    The money printer goes Brrrrr.

  5. A great post Mr. H. And in pictures too, so that even the financially uneducated masses (including myself), can understand the situation and hopefully seek a solution by voting for someone who will enact change, like disallowing deductibility of lobbying expenses, admitting publically to the cause and inequality of the asset bubble and direct debt financing. The last one I am not crazy about, but in this case, it has to be done.

  6. Our wealth disparity is the result of free market capitalism. It is imperfect and by its very nature there are winners and losers. There are always more Sheep than sheep herders, and more herders than land owners. Trying to alleviate this disparity is called communism. Last I checked this failed miserably in Russia, and China is the oxymoronic free market dictatorship where wealth disparity between winners and losers is even greater than in the US, the government decides who gets rich. Did someone in US government give Zuckerberg permission to create Facebook? No, and I don’t want an environment where the government gets to decide who the winners and losers are.

    I don’t know the solution but I don’t trust the government to get this right. It is a classic agency issue where the government perpetuating itself becomes the priority over putting constituents first. Focusing on government redistribution only creates a more bloat and A dependency On central government for support That is antithetical to capitalism. MMT and direct payments to constituents is a slippery slope and won’t solve the wealth disparity issue anyway. Only make it a bit more palatable to the masses. E.G., Better to encourage companies to share profits with employees as an incentive to work. Or pay people to clean up city streets.

    I want the government to support small businesses, support creativity, Support new business formation, To provide the foundation that a thriving capitalistic society needs.

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints