
各界紛紛擔心加息之際,不應該忘記加息可能是經濟實力的象征,而且我們認為多數情況下確實如此。聽起來可能有爭議,但之前確實有過類似情況。2022年短期利率大幅上升,引發了衰退“不可避免”的論調,然而并未出現。美國經濟一直很強勁,經受住了加息的嚴峻考驗。
現在到了2023年,隨著短期利率接近峰值,長期利率繼續大幅上升,最近幾天達到4.89%。這是不是承壓的信號,最終人們長期擔心的經濟衰退變成現實?亦或是強勁的跡象,迫使貨幣政策采取新的平衡行動然后美國經濟能繼續擴張?若想找到答案,可以重點看看悲觀的論調以及探索經濟實力向更高利率傳導的機制。
無效的流行敘事
隨著利率走高,關于美國債務危機即將到來,乃至甚至最終違約的新聞流傳甚廣。然而,認為美國將出現債務飆升和赤字激增沒什么根據。誠然,債務正在飆升,繼續維持巨額赤字也不明智。然而,主權債務危機的說法與貨幣持續且明顯強勢的實際情況并不相符。美元不僅勢頭異常強勁,而且利率上升時美元仍然大幅走高。可能以后會成為威脅,但肯定不是現在。
有個更溫和、不那么悲觀的版本說法是“債券義勇軍”已重返市場,所謂“債券義勇軍”是指為回應不負責任的財政政策拋售債務和推高收益率的債券交易員。盡管當前義勇軍們可能很活躍,但不可能像1980年一樣迫使吉米·卡特總統撤回預算計劃。
當年是漏洞百出的通脹體制讓債券義勇軍有機可乘,特別是困擾上世紀70年代的放任的通脹預期。如今,通脹預期已然錨定,所以債券義勇軍的后輩們實力不強。政策制定者并沒有被債券市場否決,而是爭取更高的利率,并且順利實現。
當然,過去兩年里上世紀70年代成了另一個無效的流行敘事。美聯儲非但沒有打破通脹機制,反而打破了通脹熱。2022年6月達到可怕的9.1%峰值,8月降至3.7%。而且,所有通脹預期指標均未出現不健康的突破性上漲,或許可以解釋債券收益率為何飆升。
盡管我們認為這一現象與債務和赤字(或債券供應)關系不大,但更高利率很可能反映出不同類型的風險溢價。可能預示著長期債券的保險價值已經下跌。長期以來,長期債務是抵御風險的可靠手段:因為股票下跌時,債券會上漲(即收益率下降)。現在,美聯儲提升利率以減緩經濟增速沒發揮作用,此類對沖手段在行話中被稱為債券-股票負相關。之前愿意因保險價值而為債券支付高價的投資組合經理現在不太可能繼續照此操作,收益率也因此走高。
更高利率帶來風險,但仍然是實力的標志
投資組合經理必須適應更高利率的后果,公司也一樣。高利率通常只能從風險的角度看待,比如一連串商業違約或銀行系統內更多破產案例。相關擔心沒那么容易消除。從Bed Bath and Beyond到Party City,企業破產增多真實存在(如果跟非常低的利率水平相比的話)。同樣,2023年初硅谷銀行(SVB)崩潰表明,金融系統很容易受到利率環境變化影響。
然而要記住,財務壓力和企業倒閉正是貨幣政策發揮作用的渠道。信貸緊縮減緩經濟增長。破產之后資源——尤其是勞動力——重新分配向更高效的領域。雖然目標不是惡化財務脆弱狀況,但推動破產確實可以被納入收緊貨幣政策的目標。保羅·沃爾克曾經被問及貨幣政策具體如何降低通脹,他的回答是“增加破產”。
實際和當前微觀經濟承受的壓力和痛苦不應掩蓋一個事實,即長期高利率是宏觀經濟實力的結果和標志。
長期高利率的第一個驅動因素是周期性的強勢。之前市場錯誤地估計2023年很可能出現經濟衰退,利率也隨之迅速下降。隨著此前不受歡迎的軟著陸敘事越發受歡迎,短期利率大幅下降的前景渺茫。由于長期利率反映了對短期利率的預期(加上期限溢價),同樣意味著長期利率更高。
第二個驅動因素反映了結構強度。盡管通脹率大幅回落,但未來幾年仍可能保持在2%的目標之上。這表明,行事謹慎的美聯儲只會逐步將政策調整回中性利率。因此,短期利率將在更長時間內保持較高水平。政策制定者這一說辭已經持續一段時間,不過市場剛開始相信。
第三,人們對所謂“中性”利率的看法也在向上調整。即使通脹回到目標,政策制定者愿意將政策利率降至中性,最終的利率也可能高于最近預期。盡管中性利率(術語中也稱為r-star)數值未知而且不斷變化,對長期利率肯定有影響。
接下來會發生什么?
盡管短期利率和長期利率的變化方式不同,但都能體現政策制定者希望控制宏觀經濟實力。事實證明,提高政策利率有效(通脹率下降),但比多數人想象中要低(經濟衰退未出現)。現在,美聯儲較難施加影響力的長期利率上升將變成下一步追求平衡的舉措。
經濟很有可能繼續摸索前進。增長將保持溫和,且仍保持彈性。通脹進一步緩和,但無法完全做到緩和。最終貨幣政策將趨于正常化,不過要非常謹慎。這表明長期利率仍在上升,只是未來幾年會適度放緩。
又或者,如果經濟過于強勁,通脹放緩過于溫和甚至再次加速,當今高利率對強勁的經濟制動力太弱,那么利率勢必更高。然而即便如此,也不一定意味著經濟危機,只是反映出抑制強勁經濟防止過熱面臨著持續挑戰。
與此同時,真正的衰退總會來襲,拖累增長導致通脹,促使政策比預期中更快也更大幅度地削減開支。屆時可能切實降低利率。降息幅度取決于市場相信通脹緩解的程度,以及經濟衰退的嚴重程度。
不過相關路徑都與債務驅動的危機、結構性通脹或信貸危機無關。雖然種種可能性都存在,但長期利率上升并沒有變成風險中心。(財富中文網)
菲利普·卡爾森·斯澤爾扎克(Philipp Carlsson Szlezak)是波士頓咨詢公司(BCG)紐約辦事處董事總經理兼合伙人,也是該公司全球首席經濟學家。保羅·斯沃茨(Paul Swartz)是紐約BCG亨德森研究所主任兼高級經濟學家。
Fortune.com上評論文章中表達的觀點僅代表作者個人觀點,并不代表《財富》雜志的觀點和立場。
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
各界紛紛擔心加息之際,不應該忘記加息可能是經濟實力的象征,而且我們認為多數情況下確實如此。聽起來可能有爭議,但之前確實有過類似情況。2022年短期利率大幅上升,引發了衰退“不可避免”的論調,然而并未出現。美國經濟一直很強勁,經受住了加息的嚴峻考驗。
現在到了2023年,隨著短期利率接近峰值,長期利率繼續大幅上升,最近幾天達到4.89%。這是不是承壓的信號,最終人們長期擔心的經濟衰退變成現實?亦或是強勁的跡象,迫使貨幣政策采取新的平衡行動然后美國經濟能繼續擴張?若想找到答案,可以重點看看悲觀的論調以及探索經濟實力向更高利率傳導的機制。
無效的流行敘事
隨著利率走高,關于美國債務危機即將到來,乃至甚至最終違約的新聞流傳甚廣。然而,認為美國將出現債務飆升和赤字激增沒什么根據。誠然,債務正在飆升,繼續維持巨額赤字也不明智。然而,主權債務危機的說法與貨幣持續且明顯強勢的實際情況并不相符。美元不僅勢頭異常強勁,而且利率上升時美元仍然大幅走高。可能以后會成為威脅,但肯定不是現在。
有個更溫和、不那么悲觀的版本說法是“債券義勇軍”已重返市場,所謂“債券義勇軍”是指為回應不負責任的財政政策拋售債務和推高收益率的債券交易員。盡管當前義勇軍們可能很活躍,但不可能像1980年一樣迫使吉米·卡特總統撤回預算計劃。
當年是漏洞百出的通脹體制讓債券義勇軍有機可乘,特別是困擾上世紀70年代的放任的通脹預期。如今,通脹預期已然錨定,所以債券義勇軍的后輩們實力不強。政策制定者并沒有被債券市場否決,而是爭取更高的利率,并且順利實現。
當然,過去兩年里上世紀70年代成了另一個無效的流行敘事。美聯儲非但沒有打破通脹機制,反而打破了通脹熱。2022年6月達到可怕的9.1%峰值,8月降至3.7%。而且,所有通脹預期指標均未出現不健康的突破性上漲,或許可以解釋債券收益率為何飆升。
盡管我們認為這一現象與債務和赤字(或債券供應)關系不大,但更高利率很可能反映出不同類型的風險溢價。可能預示著長期債券的保險價值已經下跌。長期以來,長期債務是抵御風險的可靠手段:因為股票下跌時,債券會上漲(即收益率下降)。現在,美聯儲提升利率以減緩經濟增速沒發揮作用,此類對沖手段在行話中被稱為債券-股票負相關。之前愿意因保險價值而為債券支付高價的投資組合經理現在不太可能繼續照此操作,收益率也因此走高。
更高利率帶來風險,但仍然是實力的標志
投資組合經理必須適應更高利率的后果,公司也一樣。高利率通常只能從風險的角度看待,比如一連串商業違約或銀行系統內更多破產案例。相關擔心沒那么容易消除。從Bed Bath and Beyond到Party City,企業破產增多真實存在(如果跟非常低的利率水平相比的話)。同樣,2023年初硅谷銀行(SVB)崩潰表明,金融系統很容易受到利率環境變化影響。
然而要記住,財務壓力和企業倒閉正是貨幣政策發揮作用的渠道。信貸緊縮減緩經濟增長。破產之后資源——尤其是勞動力——重新分配向更高效的領域。雖然目標不是惡化財務脆弱狀況,但推動破產確實可以被納入收緊貨幣政策的目標。保羅·沃爾克曾經被問及貨幣政策具體如何降低通脹,他的回答是“增加破產”。
實際和當前微觀經濟承受的壓力和痛苦不應掩蓋一個事實,即長期高利率是宏觀經濟實力的結果和標志。
長期高利率的第一個驅動因素是周期性的強勢。之前市場錯誤地估計2023年很可能出現經濟衰退,利率也隨之迅速下降。隨著此前不受歡迎的軟著陸敘事越發受歡迎,短期利率大幅下降的前景渺茫。由于長期利率反映了對短期利率的預期(加上期限溢價),同樣意味著長期利率更高。
第二個驅動因素反映了結構強度。盡管通脹率大幅回落,但未來幾年仍可能保持在2%的目標之上。這表明,行事謹慎的美聯儲只會逐步將政策調整回中性利率。因此,短期利率將在更長時間內保持較高水平。政策制定者這一說辭已經持續一段時間,不過市場剛開始相信。
第三,人們對所謂“中性”利率的看法也在向上調整。即使通脹回到目標,政策制定者愿意將政策利率降至中性,最終的利率也可能高于最近預期。盡管中性利率(術語中也稱為r-star)數值未知而且不斷變化,對長期利率肯定有影響。
接下來會發生什么?
盡管短期利率和長期利率的變化方式不同,但都能體現政策制定者希望控制宏觀經濟實力。事實證明,提高政策利率有效(通脹率下降),但比多數人想象中要低(經濟衰退未出現)。現在,美聯儲較難施加影響力的長期利率上升將變成下一步追求平衡的舉措。
經濟很有可能繼續摸索前進。增長將保持溫和,且仍保持彈性。通脹進一步緩和,但無法完全做到緩和。最終貨幣政策將趨于正常化,不過要非常謹慎。這表明長期利率仍在上升,只是未來幾年會適度放緩。
又或者,如果經濟過于強勁,通脹放緩過于溫和甚至再次加速,當今高利率對強勁的經濟制動力太弱,那么利率勢必更高。然而即便如此,也不一定意味著經濟危機,只是反映出抑制強勁經濟防止過熱面臨著持續挑戰。
與此同時,真正的衰退總會來襲,拖累增長導致通脹,促使政策比預期中更快也更大幅度地削減開支。屆時可能切實降低利率。降息幅度取決于市場相信通脹緩解的程度,以及經濟衰退的嚴重程度。
不過相關路徑都與債務驅動的危機、結構性通脹或信貸危機無關。雖然種種可能性都存在,但長期利率上升并沒有變成風險中心。(財富中文網)
菲利普·卡爾森·斯澤爾扎克(Philipp Carlsson Szlezak)是波士頓咨詢公司(BCG)紐約辦事處董事總經理兼合伙人,也是該公司全球首席經濟學家。保羅·斯沃茨(Paul Swartz)是紐約BCG亨德森研究所主任兼高級經濟學家。
Fortune.com上評論文章中表達的觀點僅代表作者個人觀點,并不代表《財富》雜志的觀點和立場。
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
Amid all the fear about higher interest rates, we should not forget that they can be–and we think they mostly are–a sign of economic strength. That may sound controversial, but we’ve been here before. In 2022, sharply higher short rates motivated calls of an “inevitable” recession, yet no recession has landed. The U.S. economy has been so strong that it has withstood the blistering path of rate hikes.
Now in 2023, with short rates near their peak, long-term interest rates have continued to move sharply higher, reaching 4.89% in recent days. Is this a sign of stress that finally delivers the long-feared recession? Or is it again a sign of strength that will force a new balancing act for monetary policy but allow U.S. economic expansion to live on? The answer can be found by checking the gloomy narratives and exploring the mechanics of how strength delivers higher rates.
Popular narratives that failed to pan out
As rates have risen, headlines of an impending U.S. debt crisis–and even eventual default–have steadily percolated. Yet, the idea that soaring debt and burgeoning deficits have finally caught up with the U.S. is ill-founded. It is true that debt is soaring and that running large deficits is unwise. However, the narrative of a sovereign debt crisis is incompatible with sustained and significant currency strength. The dollar not only remains exceptionally strong–it has rallied sharply with rising rates. One day, this may be the threat. Today is not that day.
A softer, less gloomy, version of this narrative is that the “bond vigilantes” have returned–bond traders that respond to irresponsible fiscal policy by selling off debt and sending yields higher. Though the vigilantes may be stirring today, they no longer have the kind of power that forced President Jimmy Carter’s budget to be withdrawn in 1980.
It was a broken inflation regime that conferred power on bond vigilantes, specifically unanchored inflation expectations that underpinned the ugly 1970s. Today, inflation expectations are anchored, making the vigilantes’ descendants weaker. Rather than being vetoed by bond markets, policymakers are seeking higher rates–and getting what they want.
Of course, the 1970s have been another popular narrative over the last two years that hasn’t panned out. Rather than breaking the inflation regime, the Fed has broken the inflation fever. Peaking at a fearsome 9.1% in June of 2022, it has fallen to 3.7% in August. And no measures of inflation expectations indicate an unhealthy break higher that would explain surging bond yields.
Although we don’t think it’s primarily about debt and deficits (or the supply of bonds), higher rates may well reflect a different kind of risk premium. They may signal that the insurance value of long-dated bonds has fallen. For a long time, long-dated debt was a reliable hedge against risk: when equities fell, bonds rose (i.e., yields fell). Now that the Fed raised rates to slow the economy, that hedge, known as negative bond-equity correlation in the jargon, has not worked. Portfolio managers who previously paid high prices for bonds because of that insurance value are now less likely to do so, driving up yields.
Higher rates bring risks–but remain a sign of strength
Just as portfolio managers must adjust to the consequences of higher rates, so must firms. Higher rates are often seen only through a lens of risk, such as a cascade of business defaults or more failures in the banking system. These fears should not be dismissed lightly. The rise in business bankruptcies, from Bed Bath and Beyond to Party City, is real (if from very low levels). Likewise, the collapse of SVB early in 2023 showed that the financial system is vulnerable to shifts in the rate environment.
However, we need to remember that financial stress and business failure are the very channels through which monetary policy works. Curtailed credit slows down growth. And bankruptcies lead to a reallocation of resources–particularly labor–to more productive uses. While financial fragility is not the goal, rolling bankruptcies can be seen as part of the objective of tightening monetary policy. Paul Volcker was once asked how monetary policy worked to bring down inflation, “by causing bankruptcies,” he answered.
Real and present microeconomic stress and pain should not obscure the fact that high long rates are a result–and a sign–of macroeconomic strength.
The first driver of high long rates comes from cyclical strength. Markets had mistakenly placed a high probability on a 2023 recession and with it the chance that rates would move quickly lower. As the previously unpopular soft-landing narrative gained traction, the prospect of much lower short rates dimmed. And because long rates reflect expectations of short rates over their horizon (combined with a term premium), this also meant higher long rates.
The second driver reflects structural strength. Despite inflation’s substantial retreat, it will likely remain above the 2% target in the years ahead. This points toward a cautious Fed that will only gradually adjust policy back toward a neutral rate. As a result, short rates will remain higher for longer. Policymakers have been saying this for some time, but markets are starting to believe them.
Third, perceptions of the “neutral” rate are also drifting–upward. Even when inflation gets back to target and policymakers are comfortable lowering the policy rate to neutral, that rate may be higher than recently supposed. While this neutral rate (also called r-star in the jargon) is unknown and is moving around, it is influential on long-term interest rates.
What comes next–and why
Though the shifts in short and long rates reflect different dynamics, they both speak to macroeconomic strength that policymakers are looking to restrain. Pushing the policy rate higher has proven effective (inflation is down), but less than most thought (the recession didn’t arrive). Now, the rise in long rates, which the Fed has less influence over, is the next balancing act.
The economy stands a good chance of muddling along. Growth will prove modest but can remain resilient. Inflation will moderate further but not completely. Monetary policy will eventually look to normalize, but very cautiously. This points toward long rates remaining elevated, and only moderating modestly over the coming years.
Alternatively, if the economy proves too strong, inflation moderation is too modest or even reaccelerates, and today’s high rates prove too little headwind for the strong economy, then rates must move even higher. Yet even that would not necessarily be a sign of economic crisis but rather a reflection of the continued challenges of restraining a strong economy to prevent it from overheating.
Meanwhile, a true recession could always hit, undermining growth and inflation, motivating policy to cut more quickly and more significantly than expected. This would likely move rates down decisively. The degree to which they would fall depends on the mix of how convincingly inflation continues to ease, as well as the severity of the downturn.
But none of these pathways are about debt-driven crisis, structural inflation, or a credit crisis. And while each of those is possible, the shift higher in long rates has not moved them to the center of the risk distribution.
Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak is a managing director and partner in BCG’s New York office and the firm’s global chief economist. Paul Swartz is a director and senior economist at the BCG Henderson Institute in New York.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.