Economic Letter

When the Federal Reserve raises short-term interest rates, the rates on longer-term Treasuries are generally expected to rise. However, even though the Fed has raised short-term interest rates three times since December 2016 and started reducing its asset holdings, Treasury yields have dropped instead. This decoupling of short-term and long-term rates is reminiscent of the “Greenspan conundrum” of 2004–05. This time, however, evidence suggests compelling explanations—a lower “normal” interest rate, the risk of persistently low inflation, and fiscal and geopolitical uncertainty—may account for the yield curve flattening.

History suggests that extreme run-ups in the cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio are a signal that the stock market may be overvalued. A simple regression model using a small set of macroeconomic explanatory variables can account for most of the run-up in the CAPE ratio since 2009, offering some justification for its current elevated level. The model predicts a modest decline in the ratio over the next decade. All else being equal, such a decline would imply lower stock returns relative to those in recent years when the ratio was rising.

Potential output—the maximum amount an economy can produce over the long run—is an important indicator policymakers use to gauge a country’s current economic health and expectations for future growth. However, potential output can’t be observed directly, and estimating it is difficult, even with modern, sophisticated methods. Monetary policymakers are well advised to account for the perennial problem of uncertainty surrounding these estimates in devising and carrying out policy strategies.

When products disappear from the market with no substitutes from the same manufacturer, they may have been replaced by cheaper or better products from a different manufacturer. Official measurements typically approximate price changes from such creative destruction using price changes for products that were not replaced. This can lead to overstating inflation and, in turn, understating economic growth. A recent estimate suggests that around 0.6 percentage point of growth is missed per year. The bias has not increased over time, however, so it does not explain the slowdown in productivity growth.

Although the labor market has steadily strengthened, wage growth has remained slow in recent years. This raises the question of whether the wage Phillips curve—the traditional relationship between labor market slack and wage growth—has weakened. Estimating a causal link from slack to wage growth using national data is difficult. However, using city-level data over the past 25 years shows that the cross-city relationship has weakened since the Great Recession. Explanations consistent with this timing suggest that the Phillips curve may return to a steeper curve in the future.

The Federal Reserve is moving towards more normal monetary policy, which means rising interest rates. But factors including the real natural rate of interest, a slower sustainable pace of growth, and inflation all point to a new normal where interest rates are lower than in the 1990s and early 2000s. The following is adapted from a speech by the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco to the Community Banking in the 21st Century Research and Policy Conference in St. Louis on October 5.

Interest rates have been trending down for more than two decades. One possible explanation is the dramatic worldwide demographic transition, with people living longer and population growth rates declining. This demographic transition in the United States—particularly the steady increase in life expectancy—put significant downward pressure on interest rates between 1990 and 2016. Because demographic movements tend to be long-lasting, their ongoing effects could keep interest rates near the lower bound longer. This has the potential to limit the scope for central banks to respond to future recessionary shocks.

During the recession and recovery, hiring has been slower than might be expected considering the large numbers of vacant jobs and unemployed individuals. This raises some concern about structural changes in the process of matching job seekers with employers. However, the standard measures account for only the unemployed and not those who are out of the labor force. Including other non-employed groups in the measured pool of job seekers while adjusting for different job finding rates among these groups shows that the decline in matching efficiency is similar to earlier declines.