One Global Shock, Different Rate Paths

The energy shock is global, but the policy response isn’t uniform. In the second of our two-part roundtable, our economists unpack the forces shaping interest rates across the U.S., Europe and Asia.
Read more morganstanley.com/insights?cid=mg-SM_CORP-insi… from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research.
Michael Gapen: I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist.
Jens Eisenschmidt: I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe Economist.
Chetan Ahya: And I’m Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.
Seth Carpenter: Yesterday, we talked about why global growth is continuing to power on, why investment is playing a larger role, and how that investment cycle is spreading across regions.
Today, we're going to take a deeper dive and think about monetary policy and what's going on.
It's Friday, October 23rd, at 10am New York.
Jens Eisenschmidt: 4pm in Frankfurt.
Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong.
Seth Carpenter: When I look around the world and think about especially developed market central banks, well, they're kind of all tightening at the same time – but maybe for somewhat different reasons.
Let's start with just a really broad policy question. Why are the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Japan all tightening policy when their economies look so different?
Mike, I'm going to start with you back here in the U.S. with the Fed. How are you thinking about what the Fed is doing right now?
Are they just recalibrating the stance of policy? Or is this a fundamental change where they're trying to rein in growth in the economy?
Michael Gapen: The way I look at it is this is a story about persistent inflation, and I would look at it as a recalibration of policy. I think the majority of participants on the FOMC know the Fed can't pump more oil or get, you know, oil through the Strait of Hormuz. So, it's about leaning against second-round effects.
Inflation is gradually moving lower. They've characterized this as dissatisfaction with the speed of convergence to the target.
So, I think the Fed is tightening based on persistent inflation, and it appears to me to be more about a recalibration than it is about meaningfully tightening policy and leaning into demand.
Seth Carpenter: All right, Jens. Same question coming to you, and I have to say the energy shock is a global shock. So how do you think about what's going on with the tightening of the ECB and the Bank of England?
Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah. No, I mean, first of all, if you sort of talk about both central banks – and here again, I guess the Fed comparison also matters. The starting point is important. The ECB was the only central bank that got inflation back to target, and so was already well advanced in its sort of rate normalization cycle, had cut back rates to 2 percent – which by most measures is sort of neutral, maybe leaning a little bit towards expansionary side of things.
And so, it was probably easiest for that central bank, when the supply shock came to tighten again, simply by getting a little bit towards the restrictive end of the neutral range, say. I think that is probably what has happened here, more than anything else.
And for the Bank of England, of course, the discussion is a different one. They were running for a long time a relatively restrictive monetary policy. And so there was more scope to wait it out, essentially. A little bit like the Fed, essentially. This is where the similarities come in.
Now, if you look ahead, essentially, it becomes a question of how strong is your economy holding up? And, you know, the strength of that holding up in the face of a certain given energy shock will determine how much of the inflation that you experience today will be inflation of tomorrow, carried to the next period through stronger wage agreements.
I think that's basically the policy problem facing both central banks here. And I guess that in the end results in essentially a resolve to at least gradually further tighten the stance. I think that has to be the expectation. And so, from that perspective, this is where we arrive at essentially a current positioning that is not super hawkish, if you think about it.
So, it's not like we have to gung ho every sequential meeting increase rates. But we see a gradual increase in rates. And so, for instance, for the ECB, we have a meeting around the corner next week. We don't think there will be an increase. But the risks have sort of stacked up and are really to the upside for inflation.
So, it will be very hard to avoid a tightening for the ECB in the December meeting. So that's the gradual pace I was just referring to.
Seth Carpenter: Got it. Ok, Chetan, the developed market central bank in Asia that most people are staring at is the Bank of Japan. So big change there. 25 years of essentially stagnant nominal in GDP growth to now we're on a clear hiking path.
How far do you think the Bank of Japan is likely to go? What's driving it? And how important is this global energy shock to the Bank of Japan's plans?
Chetan Ahya: We expect the BOJ to hike its policy rate twice, first in December and then again in March next year. This compares with market pricing of three more rate hikes. So, what explains our dovish forecast? Well, we think that Japan's inflation has been largely driven by FX weakness and higher commodity prices and not due to demand-side pressures. To elaborate, Japan's real consumption is still one percent below pre-COVID levels. Hence, we think BoJ will avoid taking up more aggressive policy tightening.
Seth Carpenter: So, Mike, let me come back to you for the U.S. We have seen globally a rise in interest rates. The long end of the curve has sold off everywhere. Some of that is being driven by energy prices. We've seen credit spreads in the U.S. start to widen.
Some of that's being driven by hyperscaler debt issuance, among other factors. But I guess what's important is when Chair Warsh first took over the helm of the Fed, his characterization of how restrictive monetary policy and financial conditions were – was not particularly forceful, right? He said it's hard-pressed to say that it's uniformly restrictive.
But the world feels a little bit different now than it did when Chair Warsh took over. So how does the Fed need to react to the fact that longer-term interest rates have sold off and that credit spreads are starting to widen?
Michael Gapen: Financial conditions have tightened. We would characterize financial conditions as, let's call it moderately restrictive.
So, I think the Fed needs to look at that and then ask itself essentially, "Where is this inflation coming from? What inflation are we trying to stop?" I don't think there's a tremendous amount of evidence that points to an overheating labor market. Rates have risen, but long-run inflation expectations remain stable.
So, I still think the right answer is to lean against potential second-round effects from the energy price shock. And here, I think that would show up in airfares, apparel, new and used cars, motor vehicles and parts.
We got some evidence in the September inflation report that these other goods prices were firm. We'll see if that continues, and this is an early sign of energy pass-through into other parts of core. But with financial conditions already moderately restrictive, it doesn't suggest they have a tremendous amount of work to do unless there's evidence that AI spending is broadening out to greater labor demand and higher wages. Then it would be a different story.
For now, I think a few more rate hikes – we have two more rate hikes penciled in, and 75 basis points of rate hikes in total – is probably where we think the Fed will be going by March of next year.
Seth Carpenter: Jens, let me turn that to you as well because rates in Europe have also gone up. And importantly, we've seen spreads for French sovereign …