Six methods of unconventional monetary policy

In a recent response to questions, The Reserve Bank of Australia has listed six options of unconventional monetary policy that is considered in an event of extreme policy implementation. Westpac economists have also talked about potential unconventional monetary policy tools applicable to the NZ case here – this is worth a read, but is a different list!

In this post I would like to outline the RBA’s options and hopefully make them easy to understand.

Read more

What is the difference between sterilized and unsterilized intervention?

Recently I’ve been trying to get my head around the difference between a “sterilized” asset purchase by a central bank and an “unsterilized” purchase. Here is where I’ve gotten to – happy for any comments or clarifications!

Read more

Investment, uncertainty, and monetary policy: Part II

As per my earlier post, this follow up aims to understand how uncertainty influences monetary policy. Although we will use the lens of investment, these arguments hold for planned expenditure in the economy more generally.

Read more

How does uncertainty affect economy? What about monetary policy?

Why uncertainty matters?

The OECD has been warning everyone (Economic outlook 2019) , that the trade policy tension and uncertainty around it hit global economy hard. My question is, how can we think about uncertainty and its influence on monetary policy?

Read more

What is secular stagnation and why do we care?

I’ve heard the arguments that secular stagnation refers to a situation with low long-term interest rates – reaching the zero lower bound on nominal rate often – low inflation and low output growth.  But what does this really mean?

Read more

Neo-fisherism and unconventional monetary policy- is it a solution to low inflation?

It took me a while to convince myself to write about “neo-fisherism” as a solution to low trend inflation.

The motivation behind neo-fisherism is relatively intuitive – we have observed nominal interest rates and inflation move together, and require an explanation that supports that stylised fact.  Furthermore, the idea behind neo-fisherism is that there is the Fisher effect describes how inflation expectations must move when nominal interest rate goes changes – allowing us to keep our assumption of “neutrality” in the long run with a fixed real interest rate, rather than relying on changes in the neutral real rate of interest.

However, at face value this completely contradicts the conventional monetary policy set up, where we were taught that inflation rate and nominal interest rate follow the Taylor principle, so that when you cut the nominal interest rate, then inflation (and inflation expectations) goes up.  Given this way of thinking, and the empirical regularity that inflation and nominal interest rates DO move together, does this overturn conventional monetary economics?

Read more