Free Trial

Half of Economists See 2 Or Fewer Fed Hikes in '18 -Survey

--Likely Impact of Bal Sheet Reduction Fairly Benign
--Negative Reviews of Trump Trade, Immigration Policies
--Pessimism Over Meaningful, Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform
By Jean Yung
     WASHINGTON (MNI) - A third of economists at big U.S. firms still say the
Federal Reserve's current monetary policy stance is too stimulative yet most are
not expecting the U.S. central bank to deliver the three interest rate hikes it
forecast for 2018, according to a new survey from the National Association of
Business Economics published Monday.  
     The panelists also viewed the likely impact of the Fed's gradual reduction
of its asset holdings as fairly benign, adding about half of a percentage point
to the 10-year Treasury yield over several years, the survey said. 
     Sixty-one percent of 176 respondents said the Fed's policy stance was
"about right," while 34% found it "too stimulative." About half expect one more
25-basis-point hike this year as forecast by the Federal Open Market Committee
in its June meeting, but the economists were split on likely scenarios for next
year. More than half of respondents expect two or fewer hikes with a plurality
of 28% seeing two. Only 17% expect three and 13% expect four. 
     "That result is not surprising to me. The Fed has been consistently more
aggressive in its expectations for future rate hikes, and the markets have
certainly been less aggressive," survey chair Richard DeKaser of Wells Fargo
said in an interview. "The overwhelming majority say policy is about right, but
there was a slight bias that some felt the Fed was too stimulative. My
interpretation is the economists think the Fed's going to retain a slightly
stimulative bias into next year." 
     Economists also had a wide range of opinions on the impact of the Fed's
plan to normalize the size of its balance sheet. Three-quarters of respondents
expect such action to boost the yield on 10-year Treasury notes, with about half
of them suggesting the increase would be 50 basis points or less.
     NABE's semiannual policy survey, conducted between July 18 and Aug. 2 with
184 members responding, revealed business economists generally felt that current
monetary and fiscal policies were appropriate to the business cycle. However,
respondents gave President Donald Trump negative reviews on trade and
immigration policy and viewed "meaningful" tax reform as unlikely. 
     A plurality of respondents, 46%, characterized current fiscal policy as
"about right," which was little changed from the March survey. More respondents
consider policy to be "too restrictive" -- 28% versus 20% -- but perspectives
were balanced. 
     The current outlook for the federal budget deficit is for it to remain in a
holding patter "consistent with neither providing a lot of gas nor stepping on
the brakes," DeKaser said. 
     "The perception is that the economy is basically at full employment and it
does not require massive stimulus to get it going or to lower the unemployment
rate," he said. 
     Looking further out on the horizon, while 62% of respondents favored a
reduction in the federal deficit share of GDP when compared with the
Congressional Budget Office's current 10-year baseline, 72% believed just the
opposite will happen. They see tax and spending policies as likely to increase
the deficit to GDP ratio. 
     "The view about fiscal prudence over the long run seems to be an
aspiration, not so much reality," DeKaser said. 
     The economists assigned a median probability of just 10% of Congress
passing "meaningful, revenue-neutral tax reform" in 2017 and a slightly higher
probability of 15% of that happening next year, reflecting much diminished hopes
for a tax overhaul compared to earlier in the administration.  
     Even in the unlikely event that revenue-neutral reform were to be passed,
it would not be a game changer for the economy, the respondents said. Over half
felt it would speed up GDP by less than 1 percentage point. About a third
projected an acceleration of between 1 and 2 points. 
     The economists were fairly certain Congress would not allow a breach of the
debt ceiling -- only 10% expecting the opposite -- but that's about where the
positive reviews end. The survey unearthed deep dissatisfaction among the
economists with the administration's trade and immigration policies as well as
the lack of action to address global warming and income inequality. 
     Asked to score the impact from recent policy decisions on a 1-to-5 scale,
with 1 being consequential in a favorable way and 5 being consequential in an
unfavorable way, the immigration executive actions garnered a 3.8 while foreign
trade actions got a 3.7, with the decision to disengage from the Trans-Pacific
Partnership receiving a 4.1.
     "There was definitely a strong tilt on actions taken thus far with regard
to trade and immigration policy that they were unfavorable and consequential,"
DeKaser said. "Economists tend to be more free-trade-oriented, and the
administration is moving the other way." 
     The desire for action among business economists on the issues of global
warming and income inequality also came as a surprise to DeKaser. Those surveyed
supported the carbon tax as well as educational policy changes to address these
problems. 
     "I think the majorities were so strong it almost reaches the level of a
call to arms to implement policies to address a problem," DeKaser said. "That
implies the problem deserves attention and that there's a willingness to engage
through policy actions."  
--MNI Washington Bureau; +1 202-371-2121; email: jean.yung@marketnews.com
[TOPICS: MMUFE$,M$U$$$,MFU$$$,MGU$$$]

To read the full story

Close

Why MNI

MNI is the leading provider

of intelligence and analysis on the Global Fixed Income, Foreign Exchange and Energy markets. We use an innovative combination of real-time analysis, deep fundamental research and journalism to provide unique and actionable insights for traders and investors. Our "All signal, no noise" approach drives an intelligence service that is succinct and timely, which is highly regarded by our time constrained client base.

Our Head Office is in London with offices in Chicago, Washington and Beijing, as well as an on the ground presence in other major financial centres across the world.