The Battle for Capital of US Equities and Bond Yields

2. Jordan, Bradford D., Susan D. Jordan, and David R. Kuipers. "The Mispricing of    Callable U.S. Treasury Bonds: A Closer Look." Journal of Futures Markets 18.1 (1998): 35-51. Web.

Although business leaders may not have a crystal ball to help them plan for the future, they do have access to a wide range of Federal Reserve publications that can help identify recent and current trends and what these economists believe will take place in the coming months. Given the lingering effects of the Great Recession of 2008 on the American economy today, identifying the future economic outlook for America using this type of freely available information therefore represents a timely and valuable enterprise. To this end, this paper provides a review of relevant publications to identify the Federal Reserve's current assessment of economic activity and financial markets, its current view about inflation and various monetary tools that have been used to stabilize the economic and prices in recent years. Finally, an analysis of the economic outlook for the next 12- to 18-month period is followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

The discussion of whether the Federal Reserve should raise the federal funds rate is a highly contentious one. Members of the Federal Reserve (“Fed”) and academic economists disagree about what constitutes appropriate future macroeconomic policy for the Unites States. In the past, the Fed had been able to raise rates when the unemployment rate was under 5% and inflation was at a target of 2%. Enigmatically, since the Great Recession and despite a strengthening economy, year-over-year total inflation since 2008 has averaged only 1.4%—as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index (“PCE”). Today, PCE inflation is at 1-1.5% and has continuously undershot the Fed’s inflation target of 2% three years in a row. (Evan 2015) In the six years since the bottom of the Great Recession the U.S. economy has made great strides in lowering the published unemployment rate from about 10% back down to about 5.5%. In light of this data, certain individuals believe that the Federal Reserve should move to increase the federal funds rate in 2015 because unemployment is near 5% and inflation should bounce back on its own (Derby 2015). However, this recommendation is misguided.

Eric Rosengren, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, and John Williams, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, have both been known as “doves” in their individual monetary policy opinions and votes over the last five years. Since the summer of 2015, there has been a notable change in Rosengren’s rhetoric in the pursuit of normalization to the point where Rosengren is now actively suggesting an increase in interest rates in the very near future in order to promote growth in the economy, and as of the FOMC meeting on September 21st, 2016, was one of three dissenting votes (out of ten) for keeping rates low. Rosengren supports his new change of face with factors that will be discussed at length in this paper such as the pace of growth, the up-sides to higher rates, and the danger lurking in a prolonged low-rate economy. In similar (but not identical) fashion, John Williams is turning to the belief that rate hikes will be necessary sooner, rather than later if the Fed wishes to continue to spur growth in the United States economy, as opposed to letting the economy overheat into recession. Williams supports this point with evidence similar to Rosengren involving the pace of growth, the upside to higher rates, and the danger lurking in a prolonged low-rate economy. Eric Rosengren’s recent flip provides an interesting vantage point on both camps in the Federal Reserve. By comparing and contrasting the rhetoric of Rosengren (a former dove) and Williams

Simply put, the level of interest rates affect economic decisions at every level, whether by the individual consumer, or a major corporation, or entire countries. First, we must look at the residential and commercial real estate market. Homeowners had a golden opportunity to purchase or refinance their homes between 2008 and 2015, when 30-year rates were at unusual lows. (CITE) This was of particular help when many homeowners suffered through “underwater mortgages” on homes worth less than the mortgages owed. Refinancing at a lower interest rate ensured millions of afflicted homeowners would be able to reduce their interest payments during such a troubling economic period. (CITE) But given the Federal Reserve’s likely decision to raise rates, homeowners will be at a disadvantage. The most recent (as of 12/9/2016) average 30-year fixed

This paper presents a novel examination of the consequences of the Nixon Shock by focusing on the immediate impact of uncertainty rather than the legacy of Nixon's actions. In addition to bringing new analysis to bear on an important monetary event, our work also has significant implications for current debates surrounding monetary policy. In short, our analysis suggests that uncertainty over the course of monetary policy has a negative impact on the real economy. Thus, the novel and unprecedented approaches to monetary policy that have prevailed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis may impose real costs by engendering uncertainty among economic agents.

The FED decided to carry out its bond purchasing program in August to help prevent deflation (Hauser, 2011). The article could have turned out much differently if the FED did not step up and take action. In addition the FED has the authority to adjust interest rates in accordance with the current economic condition. Currently the FED is willing to curb inflation by adjusting the interest rates at a moment’s notice (Hauser, 2011). The FED’s invisible hand can sometimes help prevent major economic disasters.

With the decline in purchasing power already intact, the drastic contraction in currency added insult to injury. This monetary interpretation concluded that the Great Depression was a byproduct of “mistaken decisions by the Federal Reserve Board,” which “raised interest rates when it should have lowered them (Glenco).” These measures insured that a rather generic recession would climax into the Great Depression known today. However, the validity of this argument can be questioned because of Friedman’s disposition to see things through a monetary lens: allowing Freidman to advocate his position “that sound monetary policy is the best way to solve economic problems (Glenco),” and ignore the drop in consumer spending and

Before making any recommendation regarding strategies, Shilling must finalize her opinion of how the economy and stock market will perform over the next few months. The date is July 2, 2007. Over the last six months the S&P 500 has ranged from 1374.12 to 1539.18, closing at 1503.35 at the end of June. Investors seem worried about an impending credit crunch, even though problems at two Bear Stearns hedge funds that own collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) based on subprime mortgage debt appear to be contained. The economy has slowed with consumer pessimism high, reflecting a weak housing market combined with credit worries. For the last two months personal income has declined after adjusting for inflation. The Federal Reserve has focused on rising inflation. The Federal Open Market Committee, the Fed's policy-setting arm, left interest rates unchanged in its June 27–28 meeting, keeping the Fed funds target level at 5.25% for the ninth time in the past twelve

Inflation has been below the Federal Reserve’s target for more than 3 and a half years. Inflation is expected to keep declining under desired target as long as the oil prices are declining as well. “Yield movements in the Treasury inflation-protected securities, or TIPS, market indicate that compensation for inflation expected in five to 10 years has dropped to 1.56% annually, according to Barclays. That is down from 1.67% when the Fed raised short-term rates in December. Moreover, it is down from 2.5% two years ago” (Leubsdorf). If less inflations is expected in the future, it could change the way people are spending their money, but if they assume that the inflation is going to keep increasing, the prices are more likely to keep rising at a faster pace.

The Federal Reserve went into action in response to the 2008 recession by rapidly reducing interest rates with the hopes of encouraging economic growth. The federal funds target rate was decreased to between zero and .25 percent. The results of the rate changes caused what is called “zero bound”, this reduced the effectiveness of monetary policy with the near non-existence of interest rates.

The recent recession lasting from 2007 until 2009, and the effects of which are still highly visible in the U.S. economy, led the Federal Reserve to use new and largely untested methods for protecting the country from a total financial collapse. The new strategy, which blurs the lines between monetary and fiscal policy, had been attempted only once before, and is open to criticism from several difference angles. This report documents the history, purpose, and controversy surrounding quantitative easing as a strategy to mitigate the effects of the recent recession. After considering these factors, the conclusion is drawn that quantitative easing was a modestly successful policy, yet one which should not be employed again. Although

In the first part of our report, we investigate if a 35 basis points yield spread represents mispricing of two bonds, both with the same maturity but one with a coupon rate of 10.625% and the other 4.25%. Our investigation also determines if the yield spread represents an arbitrage opportunity. In our investigation, we calculate the theoretical yield spread between the two bonds and compare the figure with the observed yield spread. It is cited in the case that the observed yield spread could be due to different liquidity premium for each bond or simply due to different durations. Through our calculations, we discover

Therefore, the quantitative easing adopted from 2009 was trying to gradually resume sustainable economic growth. Quantitative easing has helped to avert what could have been a second great depression (Wall Street, 2011). The US economy has been clawing its way out of the recession in 2009 and recovery has been slow compared to previous economic cycles. Regular review of the pace of securities purchase by the Federal reserve and the overall size of asset-purchase program in light of incoming information and adjusting the program as need be will help foster maximum employment and price stability.

First time this phenomenon was presented by the economists Rajnish Mehra and Edward Prescott in 1985. They discovered that the return from US equity investments in comparison to the return from a risk free government securities had been much far above during the twentieth century to be interpreted by the traditional economic theories (Siegel and Thaler, 1997).