Monday, April 25, 2016

Never Reason From A Price Change: Inflation Edition

The quote comes from Scott Sumner, and I’m not using it in the original sense (identifying causality in a supply-demand equilibrium), but there’s a certain truth to it when applied to monetary policy.

There’s a lot of speculation in the market right now that Bank Negara will cut interest rates in the next two meetings of the MPC, largely because (1) political pressure and (2) the coming drop in inflation. I think (1) is nonsense (I see no evidence of it, nor have I heard anything), and (2) is mistaken.

This post is about point 2.

What we’re going to see over the next few months is inflation dropping sharply, as measured by the growth rate of the CPI – assuming oil prices stay the same (not a given), CPI inflation could drop to as low as 1%. The speculation is that, because “inflation” is low, that gives room for BNM to cut the OPR and support GDP growth this year.

My problem with this mindset is that, just as “inflation” was high across the first quarter of this year and much of last year, “inflation” for the rest of this year will be low due to the base effect – it’s a purely mechanical artifact from the year-on-year growth calculation of the CPI. For the same reason, I’m expecting to see the inflation average for 2017 to be abnormally high. Again, it’s going to be largely due to the base effect, not any substantial change in the path of the price level.

In the presence of structural breaks such as the introduction of GST, year-on-year growth calculations will give a higly distorted view of price level changes. In other words, even with an unchanged path of increase, changes in tax regimes – and we had a few last year, not just GST – will shift the price level up (or down), without changing the path of inflation.

On that basis, don’t expect a change in monetary policy just because CPI inflation is low.

Another reason to be wary of this rate cut speculation is that, as an open economy, inflation in Malaysia doesn’t really signal anything about demand or supply pressures in the economy. Changes in domestic economic activity can leak out, and changes in global economic activity can leak in. When the pace of economic activity is high, excess demand could manifest itself not in terms of price increases, but in terms of higher imports instead. Conversely, low inflation might not signal deficient domestic demand, as this could be due to supply side factors instead.

From a policy perspective, we need to be more holistic – the output gap, unemployment, and retained imports are probably as important indicators for monetary policy direction as inflation is, and none of those are currently definitively signaling a rate cut.

If you have to look at inflation, I’d concentrate more on DOS new core inflation measure and on month-on-month growth rates, as y-o-y CPI is being driven too much by structural breaks and gyrations in global oil prices. Unlike the CPI, Core CPI has not seen anything like the same variation, and once we get past the GST base effect in April, I don’t see it dropping much below 2.0%.

9 comments:

  1. So what is Bank Negara's reason?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Unknown

      I don't expect them to make a move this year at all

      Delete
  2. What was their reason to cut SRR? And do you think we can see more SRR cuts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon

      A few banks were having difficulty in meeting the new liquidity coverage ratio at the end of last year. Rather than potentially triggering a bank run by lending them money directly, BNM cut the SRR instead.

      No, we're not likely to see another SRR cut, unless liquidity tightens further.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure I follow. SRR balances are counted as part of assets held to meet the LCR anyway (according to the published rules), so how would cutting the SRR help banks meet this requirement?

      Delete
    3. @anon

      Now you've got me confused.

      I'm possibly confusing the LCR with the New Liquidity Framework, which divides liquid assets by their maturity buckets. That fits with what I've heard, in that certain banks were short in some buckets. Under those circumstances, an SRR cut would be helpful.

      The other possibility is that it is the LCR that's an issue, but whether this is true would depend on whether stat reserves can be drawn down under stress (as far as I understand the rules). If they can't, then non-compliance with the LCR is still a valid explanation. I'm not familiar enough with our implementation of Basel III to be certain.

      I suspect the former is more likely.

      Delete
  3. Your blog is very impressive thanks for sharing such as informations
    US GDP World Economics is an organisation dedicated to producing insight, analysis and data relating to questions of key importance in understanding the world economy. .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great article sir. On the different notes, what is your take on inflation targeting?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon

      This is as good an article as any:

      http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.my/2010/03/target-cause-not-symptom.html

      Delete