Michael Reddell: Heading for 2.5% (or less) by this time next year?

There is a lot one could write about the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement and the Governor’s (sadly all-too-typical) thin-skinned and defensive responses to questions since, whether from journalists or a lone MP at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning. He never ever acknowledges a mistake and seems utterly unable to cope with criticism or disagreement whether (as reports suggests) inside the Bank or (as we can all see) outside it. In a field where there is inevitably huge uncertainty, it renders him simply unfit for office.

It remains appalling that Grant Robertson reappointed the Governor and that Nicola Willis just reappointed the chair of the board responsible for holding Orr to account and for having recommended – presumably captive to management – his reappointment. How much more honest – and frankly reassuring – had Orr simply stood up yesterday and noted ruefully that “perhaps our May MPS wasn’t one of our better efforts”. At least in my book, a bit of contrition and humility goes a long way.

While I want to focus on yesterday’s statement, the contrast with May, and the outlook from here, it is worth remembering that simply unacceptable as the huge flip-flop from May to July/August should be – the sort of episode that further undermines whatever respect the Reserve Bank, the MPC, and Orr himself, might command – in macroeconomic terms it matters much less than the really big mistakes from a few years back that still get far too little scrutiny, and for which there has been no accountability. Losing $11 billion of taxpayers’ money on an ill-considered huge punt in the bond market remains simply staggering. How much difference would $11bn make in, eg, our hard-pressed health sector? And then there was the small matter of the worst outbreak of core inflation in many decades, the most overheated economy in the advanced world, and the massive dislocations and redistributions that that glaring policy failure brought about. And if many other central banks made mistakes in similar directions (a) we can only hold our central bank to account (other central banks are the problem for their citizens/governments) and b) our central bank did a worse job than most (see “most overheated economy in the advanced world”). If you take the pay, prestige, and the power, there should be some serious accountability. There has been none. But to get back to the MPS.

Sometimes small things make you proud of your kids. My son is an honours student in economics, with a keen interest in monetary policy and macro. Within minutes of the release yesterday he’d spotted this and pointed it out to me


Click to view

Does it matter? Not in substance of course (and if you check now, they have fixed it), but it seemed revealing of an institution that struggles to even get the basics consistently right. Excellent it is not.

That there was a huge shift from May to August isn’t really in doubt. Here are the two OCR tracks

Click to view

There has been no nasty external shock in that time (global financial crisis, pandemic, collapse in commodity prices etc) but we’ve gone from a “hawkish hold” (best guess, no easing until this time next year, and possibly some tightening late this year) to not only an OCR cut now, but a really large (at peak 130 basis points) change in the projected forward track for the OCR. I can’t recall another change that large that quickly, in the absence of a major external shock, in the 27 years since the Bank started publishing these forward tracks. It was simply because Orr and the MPC badly misread how the economy was unfolding now (Orr himself made this point yesterday, when he noted that the change of stance wasn’t about the medium-term outlook, but about partial data etc about where the economy is right now.) Other commentators have used the label “U-turn”. I prefer flip-flop myself (and in reality that change wasn’t even from May to August, but was largely between May and the July OCR review just six weeks later). Getting the medium-term right is a challenge for everyone, but an MPC – delegated so much power, allegedly as technical experts – simply should not get the near-term so wrong. And its communications should be a lot of more assured and authoritative than they are (eg recall the chief economist in May attempting to blame his tools). Instead we have a central bank and MPC that no one has any confidence in or respect for – be it local observers or international markets. They wield the power of course (they still set the rates) but no one serious looks to them as an authoritative guide or interpreter, despite all the budget and analytical resource at their disposal.

What about some of the numbers? I’ve been banging on for a while about how IMF estimates suggested that New Zealand’s economy was the most overheated of any of the advanced economies in 2022. The Reserve Bank has largely avoided until now any such comparisons, so it was interesting to see this chart

Click to vew

accompanied by the explicit comment that “New Zealand’s output gap reached a higher level than other countries in our sample [wider than those shown in the chart] during the COIVD-19 pandemic, indicating higher capacity pressures relative to our sample countries.” As it happens, in this set of forecasts they revised further upwards the extent of that peak excess demand (“output gap”) – a really damning commentary on MPC’s stewardship a few years back.

Right now (September quarter) the Reserve Bank estimates that the output gap is about -1.8 per cent of GDP. That number will inevitably be revised, but it represents the MPC’s best guess of where we are now. There is a lot of slack in the economy (or so they think). And it is unusual for the easing phase to start when the MPC believe that so much excess capacity has already built up. The Bank hasn’t always published real-time quarterly output gap estimates, but I cannot think of a time when the first easing would have come so late (eg the first easing in 2008, in July, appears to have been when we thought the output gap was about zero, the easings in 2015 were against the backdrop of a zero output gap, and there was no negative output gap when the easing came in 2019).

The fact that the first easing is late, relative to real-time output gap estimates, is not itself a criticism. There had been a huge inflation shock, that wasn’t overly well understood, and anyone in the Reserve Bank’s shoes might understandably have been a little cautious. My concern is less on how we got here (there isn’t much point quibbling now as to whether – as I thought – the OCR should have been cut in July rather than August) but on where to from here.

In my commentary after the May MPS I included this chart and comment

Click to view

Quite how was growth expected to rebound was a complete mystery then.

And although the Bank has pulled down its estimates of growth for the rest of this year, in their dramatic change in OCR track, the same puzzle remains.

Here is growth in real GDP per working age population from yesterday’s MPS (red, SNZ data, green remaining 2024 quarters, and blue beyond that)

Click to view

After two years of really lousy GDP growth (sadly, needed to get inflation securely down), the Reserve Bank expects that everything on the growth front will be back to normal from the March quarter of next year. Those projected growth rates are above the Bank’s own estimates of potential GDP growth, and so the output gap is projected to close gradually.

But how? On their assumptions, the world economy remains pretty subdued, net immigration settles to a fairly low level not doing anything much to growth, reflecting the government’s numbers fiscal policy (after being slightly expansionary this year) is expected to be quite contractionary for the couple of years beyond that. Whatever useful micro reforms the government is doing don’t look large enough to make a material difference, and aren’t something cited by the Bank.

Ah, but perhaps you are thinking, monetary policy must be the answer. After all, the OCR has been cut and is projected to be cut quite a bit more over the next couple of years.

But that can’t be the answer either, because the Governor was quite explicit in his press conference yesterday that the OCR remains at or above their estimate of neutral throughout the entire forecast period (several years ahead). Easing the OCR might reduce the extent of downward pressure – and recall that the lags mean that economic activity well into next year will already be being dragged down by policy as it stood until yesterday – but it isn’t going to generate anything like above-potential growth rates. Absent other shocks (which the Bank doesn’t forecast) and by construction (the Bank’s own articulated model) you get that sort of stimulus only when the OCR is taken somewhat below neutral. (Note that as inflation expectations are likely to carry on falling as headline inflation gets back to near 2 per cent, real interest rates may still be flat or rising even when the nominal OCR is being cut).

Look back at the output gap estimates since 2000 (the period the Bank publishes for) – or even back to the 1990s – and you simply do not find a time when a negative output had emerged when it has been closed again without the OCR being taken below best estimates of neutral. It was so in the early 1990s, it was so around 2001, it was so (for far too long) after 2008, a period which encompassed the 2015/16 easings. There is simply no reason to think the economy is operating any differently now (and again the Bank has often recent years repeatedly reaffirmed that it thinks transmission mechanisms are operating normally). The economy has been taken into a hole – to get inflation down again – and to get out of the hole anything other than very very slowly needs some external intervention. That is what active discretionary monetary policy does.

And that is why, as I’ve said a few times over the last 24 hours, I wouldn’t be surprised if a year from now the OCR was 2.5 per cent, or perhaps even lower. In fact, I will be a bit bolder and say that I will surprised if it is not that low. People have looked/sounded puzzled when I’ve said it, but the logic – of the Bank’s own frameworks and projections – seems pretty clear. I don’t think it is a big call at all. On the Reserve Bank’s own numbers, the best guess of the longer-term term neutral OCR is 2.8 per cent. No one knows what the neutral OCR is with any precision whatever – it really only be revealed over time, after the event – but I don’t see any reason why, give or take say 0.5 percentage points, the Bank’s estimate should be so very wrong. My own guess is probably a bit lower, but stick with theirs for now: if neutral is 2.8 per cent then even an OCR of 2.5 per cent by this time next year is (a) barely stimulatory, and b) will have to be dealing with more disinflationary pressure that will have built up between now and then as in the meantime the OCR has been above neutral.

Frankly, it shouldn’t be a terribly controversial view (and market pricing is already well below the Bank’s projected path). Of course, there are risks to both sides, and almost inevitably some shocks (positive or negative) will change the outlook between now and then, but the simple point remains that if you run monetary policy in a highly contractionary way to get a nasty bout of inflation back down again, and in the process generate a big negative output gap, a period of stimulatory policy is likely to be required to settle back on a more normal path. On RB numbers that would mean 2.5 per cent or below, and before too long.

I’m not a big fan of central banks publishing medium-term macro forecasts – about the largely unknowable future – but when they choose to, they really should follow through on the logic of their own mental models. A significant rebound in economic growth from the start of next year simply doesn’t seem consistent – with all their other assumptions – with continued materially contractionary monetary policy settings. Stick with those settings and the recession is only even more likely to deepen.

(And finally, but fairly briefly as this post has gone long enough, could the Reserve Bank please stop playing games around fiscal policy. As I highlighted last year, they had then shifted to focusing on government consumption and investment spending, rather than deficit measures, seemingly to avoid putting any heat on the then government. They aren’t much better now. Most macroeconomic analysis around fiscal policy, here and abroad, uses measures like the cyclically-adjusted or structural balance estimates that The Treasury and the IMF/OECD produce. Those measures exist precisely to aid assessments of the impact of discretionary fiscal choices on demand, activity, and inflation pressures. On the Treasury Budget estimates, this year’s Budget means the cyclically-adjusted deficit in 24/25 is slightly larger than the estimated deficit for 23/24. It isn’t the Reserve Bank’s place normally to weigh in on what should or shouldn’t be done with fiscal policy, but they should be consistently straightforward and honest about the impact of the fiscal choices any government makes. That simply hasn’t been happening last year or this. It may be convenient for MPC members, but serving their convenience is not either our concern or their job.)

UPDATE: Finally, finally…..monetary policy (OCR) cycles, whether in New Zealand or the US, have tended to involve swings in policy rates of 500 basis points (on average, albeit with variance). We had a 525 basis point rise to deal with the inflation outbreak. We shouldn’t be at all surprised if most of that proves not something that needs to be sustained. Big lifts in policy rates are almost always followed by big cuts, and when those cuts come they usually come much more quickly than forecasters – public or private – had allowed for.

Michael Reddell spent most of his career at the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, where he was heavily involved with monetary policy formulation, and in financial markets and financial regulatory policy, serving for a time as Head of Financial Markets. Michael blogs at Croaking Cassandra - where this article was sourced.