The recent Bank of Japan meeting and its implications for markets
themacrocompass.substack.com
themacrocompass.substack.com
I had wondered just how long could BOJ keep their rate while US fed is now 4.5% and is signalling going up to 5% by the end of next year. As a result, the yen was getting weaker day by day and annual inflation was 3.7% in November.
Inflation was what the Japanese government wanted and they've finally got it. But the problem now is that while the Japanese companies have been getting richer thanks to weaker yen, the wage has not been gone up to match the inflation resulting in the PM asking for firms to raise the wage. [1] Without the wage raise, this series of events has made the average Japanese citizen effectively poorer - and obviously people aren't too happy about it. I'm guessing this factored into making this decision.
[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/10/04/business/econom...
EDIT: Looking more into this, this move was kinda signalled in the September meeting.
> Broadening price rises in Japan prompted some central bank policymakers to warn last month that inflation may overshoot expectations, highlighting the challenge Bank of Japan Gov. Haruhiko Kuroda faces in justifying ultralow interest rates.
> One board member went as far as saying *the BOJ must eventually communicate an exit strategy* from ultraeasy policy, a summary of opinions at the September meeting showed. [emphasis mine]
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/10/03/business/boj-in...
That's sort of hilarious, because the way that it "makes the bond market work better" is by making 10-year debt more attractive relative to other bond durations...by raising rates.
Japan's government works this way on lots of major decisions. They telegraph the change waaaaaaaay in advance via subtle (but consistent) indirect language, then make a small version of the change while denying the importance of the change, then continue making more change by using the prior change to justify the new change. They love continuity.
Adequate inflation is also a sign of a growing economy. In Japan's case, Japan had full employment for over 20 years and they had no inflation for over 40 years. So no, I don't think curbing potential mass-unemployment was in their reasoning when they had decided to start QE in 2016.
> Inflation allows companies to effectively cut everyone's wages by x% instead of firing x% of workers.
I guess? but only because inflation often is related weaker currency, which increases export (making companies richer). This works for export-led economies like SK and Japan but their export growths are slowing down.
> So the question is 1. are they right that there would be large scale layoffs absent the inflation? and 2. Is it better for everyone to get a pay cut or some people to get laid off?
Well you already have your answer. There has been no mass layoffs absent inflation for a long time.
and most central banks are small and most currencies/economies are a lot more vulnerable to exchange rate changes.
because when an economic downturn starts in export oriented smaller economies the following happens. the reversal of a lot of capital/money flows (investment projects put on hold, sovereign and corporate bond market slows/halts), and then as a consequence of this exchange rate drops (the currency of the smaller economy depreciates) ... and at the same time, basically as the other side of this is that everyone buys US assets (reverse flow!), which pushes up the price of the dollar, which is an extra problem for developing economies, makes raising new debt a big problem (servicing rollover debt is a must at least, and developing economies want to outgrow their debt, so they have a high debt load usually), makes everything instantly more expensive.
central banks act as dampers, and there are a bunch of papers about profitability of them, and they detail that by them buying assets when they are undervalued and selling when they are overvalued is their way to dampen these swings and make a profit. which in some cases gets sent to the government budget (eg. in case of Mexico).
so yes, while there are asset bubbles that are a consequence of low interest rates, they are not the purpose, nor they are the main consequence of low interest rates, the main effect is economic growth, which helps to lower unemployment, and to avoid recessions (which easily leads to an unemployment spiral).
> Without the wage raise, this series of events has made the average Japanese citizen effectively poorer - and obviously people aren't too happy about it.
and to top it off, the govt wants to raise taxes... again. they already raised sales tax to 10% from 5% previously and it hasn't gone over well afaikThe Yen carry trade has been so reliable over so long that I think many firms would be highly overleveraged on this. Fortunately its not THAT big of an overnight move in the Yen but maybe bond traders got thrown off.
Anyone care to explain in simpler terms?
Is it just that 'volatility' in the global bond market will increase because Japan will stop investing in treasuries?
I've been disappointed that she has had such low posting volume over these past months of very interesting market developments ...
But realistically, I probably won’t be carrying it around much at all, and if portability doesn’t matter I’d love to get a console piano with an excellent action like the Kawai CA99. I played that in a show room and was blown away. But it’s like 3x the price of the portable options.
The downside of Kawai is that they don’t work as USB audio interfaces, so you can’t use their built-in speakers to connect to a PC and play with VSTs. The Roland FP-90x reportedly has an excellent speaker system, and the Yamaha P-515 presumably has a respectable one as well. I haven’t been able to find either in a showroom yet, but that’s my plan for the new year.
> Q: What's the difference between a minor recession and a full blown depression?
> A: A recession is when you lose your job. A depression is when I lose my job.
They just called it The Great Recession.
It's possible this "recession" could end up being worse - but I'm not sure why you're so certain it will be.
Odds definitely aren't in your favor.
> losing money on every front
I assume you mean stocks/housing? I can't speak for housing, but regarding stocks, do you still think the company has good prospects? If so, now everything is cheaper. In fact, stocks have depreciated, so while your cash might not buy as many consumer goods, it will buy more stocks than before! I think the market still has at least 10% more to go, the S&P is only down from it's all-time pandemic-bubble high, and interest rates are 4% higher. There's been no "capitulation" as far as I can tell--two weeks ago the market went up after the Fed said that money is getting less valuable a little less quickly (that is, inflation is a little less large than before), because the Fed might stop raising rates. Well, maybe, but interest rates are still 4%... Anyway, when the market falls is a great time to buy! "Be greedy when others are fearful"
> World War I
In order to finance U.S. participation in World
War One, Congress passed the 1916 Revenue Act,
and then the War Revenue Act of 1917. The highest
income tax rate jumped from 15 percent in 1916
to 67 percent in 1917 to 77 percent in 1918. War
is expensive.
After the war, federal income tax rates took on
the steam of the roaring 1920s, dropping to 25
percent from 1925 through 1931.
> The Depression
Congress raised taxes again in 1932 during the
Great Depression from 25 percent to 63 percent
on the top earners.
> World War II
As we mentioned earlier, war is expensive.
In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on
taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in
today’s dollars3). That’s a high tax rate.
-> https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/free_resources/federal-inco...See the historical rates: https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-bracke...
In my opinion, people aren't ready for a world in which taxes are higher than what they're used to. But peace, and low taxes, are not likely to prevail in a disconnecting, increasingly partisan and hostile world, where most countries are tightening their belts, people are getting poorer and angrier, and tension and hunger for conflict is growing.
They had nothing to do with raising revenue and were not due to the war "being expensive".
They were also not progressive taxation measures and had no social welfare justification (other than, of course, avoiding war profiteering). It is incorrect to compare these wartime rates with current marginal tax rates, etc.
In fact, some portion of those taxes paid were eligible for refunds after the war.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_profits_tax#United_Stat...
I'm stocking up on popcorn and a whole variety of other dehyrated foods. And batteries. And ammunition.