We encourage you to submit comments, queries and suggestions on our blog entries. We will post them below the entry, subject to the following guidelines:
Please be brief: Comments are limited to 1500 characters.
Please be quick: Comments submitted more than 1 week after the blog entry appears will not be posted.
Please try to submit before COB on Friday: Comments submitted after that will not be posted until Monday morning.
Please be on-topic and patient: Comments are moderated and will not appear until they have been reviewed to ensure that they are substantive and clearly related to the topic of the post. The moderator will not post comments that are
abusive, harassing, or threatening;
obscene or vulgar; or
commercial in nature;
as well as comments that constitute a personal attack. We reserve the right not to post a comment; no notice will be given regarding whether a submission will or will not be posted.
The
debate over whether there’s a case for limiting capital flows has intensified
recently—both in media and academic forums. The traditional view has generally
been that the voluntary exchange of funds across borders makes everyone better
off: Borrowers have access to cheaper credit while lenders enjoy higher returns
on their investments. But, as a recent article in The Economist
highlights, this view has been revisited. In this post, we review arguments on
this issue and discuss how our recent research contributes to the debate.
An important measure of success for monetary policy is a central bank’s ability
to anchor inflation expectations; inflation expectations influence actual
inflation and, hence, the achievement of a given inflation goal. This notion has
special significance for Japan, where CPI inflation has been intermittently
negative since 1994 and where it is widely believed that expectations of future inflation have been persistently negative (that
is, ongoing deflation is expected). In this post, we describe and evaluate an
alternative, market-based measure of Japanese inflation expectations based on
international price parity conditions. We find that recent inflation
expectations have attained a level substantially higher than their previous
peaks over the past three years.
Firms must produce high-quality goods to be competitive in international markets, but how do they transition from producing low- to high-quality goods? In a new study (“Import Competition and Quality Upgrading,” forthcoming in the Review of Economics and Statistics), we focus on how tougher import competition affects firms’ decisions to upgrade the quality of their goods. Our results, which we summarize in this post, show that stiffer import competition affects quality-upgrading decisions. For firms already producing very high-quality goods, lower tariffs induce them to produce goods of even higher quality. However, for firms producing very low-quality goods, lower tariffs actually discourage quality upgrading. Ours is the first study to show a significant relationship between import competition and quality.
An oil-price spike is often used as the textbook example of a supply shock. However, rapidly rising oil prices can also reflect a demand shock. Recognizing the difference is important for central bankers. A supply-driven increase in the price of oil can result in higher unemployment and inflation, leaving central bankers with the difficult decision to loosen policy, tighten policy, or not respond at all. A demand-driven increase reflecting global growth may support the case for tighter policy. In this post, we describe an approach for decomposing oil price changes into supply and demand shocks using financial market data.
Why do large
movements in exchange rates have small effects on international goods prices? This
empirical regularity is a central puzzle in international macroeconomics. In a
new study, we show that the key to understanding this exchange rate disconnect is to take into account that the largest
exporters are also the largest importers. This is important because when exporters
import their intermediate inputs, they face offsetting exchange rate effects on
their marginal costs. For example, a depreciation of the euro relative to the U.S.
dollar makes exports in U.S. dollars cheaper—but it also makes imports in euros
more expensive. Using Belgian firm-level data, we show that exporters that
import a large share of their inputs pass on a much smaller share of the
exchange rate shock to export prices. Interestingly, import-intensive firms typically
have high export market shares and hence set high markups and actively move
them in response to changes in marginal cost, thus providing a second channel
that limits the effect of exchange rate shocks on export prices. Our results
show that a small exporter with no imported inputs has a nearly complete pass-through
of more than 90 percent, while a firm at the 95th percentile of both import
intensity and market share distributions has a pass-through of 56 percent, with
the two mechanisms playing roughly equal roles. These findings have important implications for
aggregate macroeconomic variables.
U.S. import prices of consumer goods shipped from China have been moderating in recent quarters, following an upward surge of 11 percent between mid-2010 and the end of 2011. These price changes have far-reaching consequences for U.S. businesses and consumers, because China is the largest single supplier of imports to the United States, accounting for more than 20 percent of nonoil imports and more than 30 percent of consumer goods. In this post, we track U.S. import price movements in different product categories from China by constructing import price indexes that use highly disaggregated data. We also explore various underlying factors that might explain these important trends.
Some market watchers and academic researchers are concerned about a “Balkanization” of banking, owing to a sharp decline in cross-border international banking activity (see chart below), and an increased home bias of financial transactions. Meanwhile, policy and regulatory efforts are under consideration that may further induce banks to shift away from international activity, including ring-fencing of domestic banking operations, other forms of "financial protectionism," and enhanced oversight and prudential measures.
Euro area GDP remains below its 2007 level due to the global financial meltdown
and the subsequent sovereign debt crisis in the periphery countries. Unemployment
rates make it clear that some countries have fared much worse than others—the
rates in Spain and Greece today are over 25 percent and are much higher
than rates in the next highest, Portugal (15.7 percent), and in the euro
area (11.6 percent). Quite a change from 2007, when Spain and Greece had
lower unemployment rates than the euro area as a whole. In this post, we show
that while the unemployment rates in the two countries are similar today, the
paths have been very different. The employment decline in Greece, like in the
euro area, has been proportional to the country’s steep decline in GDP; Spain’s
employment has fallen much more than output, due in part to its notable labor
market flexibility.
Foreign investors placed roughly $1.0 trillion in U.S. assets in 2011, pushing
the total value of their claims on the United States to $20.6 trillion. Over
the same period, U.S. investors placed $0.5 trillion abroad, bringing total
U.S. holdings of foreign assets to $16.4 trillion. One might expect that the
large gap of -$4.2 trillion between U.S. assets and liabilities would come with
a substantial servicing burden. Yet U.S. income receipts easily exceed payments
abroad. As we explain in this post, a key reason is that foreign investments in
the United States are weighted toward interest-bearing assets currently paying
a low rate of return while U.S. investments abroad are weighted toward multinationals' foreign operations and other corporate claims earning a much higher rate of return.
Banks increasingly move money around the world. Over the last thirty years, gross international claims of banks from all countries have grown ten-fold, reaching a peak of about $25 trillion in 2007 (see chart below). Such global banking flows have been much in the news recently, sometimes depicted as a key culprit of the transmission around the globe of the shocks following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, and more recently the European sovereign debt crisis. The discourse in the regulatory arena seems to share this sentiment, with a bias towards curbing some of the global banking activity (for example, Bank for International Settlements, CGFS 2010, and the United Kingdom Independent Commission on Banking 2011). We acknowledge that global banking has contributed to the international propagation of shocks during the 2007 to 2009 crisis, as shown in a range of recent studies (for example, Acharya and Schnabl 2010, Cetorelli and Goldberg 2011, and 2012). However, we argue that there still are many unknowns regarding the intensity and the direction of global banking flows, as well as the consequences of these flows. There is a pressing need to refine our understanding of these dynamics, not just from a positive angle, but also to inform policy analysis. We take steps in this direction in some of our research, discussed in this blog post. We show that global banks manage liquidity on a global scale and that internal funding reallocations are bank and business-model specific. This centralized liquidity management is a feature of normal times, as well as a feature of market stress periods.