Jim Grant est apparu sur CNBC Markets Now le 17 juin.

Il a choqué le panel lorsqu’il a déclaré qu’il pensait que la Fed allait effectivement réduire les taux lors de la réunion de cette semaine. La plupart des analystes s’attendent à ce que la banque centrale tienne bon au cours de cette réunion et qu’elle réduise éventuellement en juillet.

Qu’il ait raison ou non quant au moment choisi, peu importe , Grant offre une bonne explication sur les raisons de la baisse des taux  de la Fed et sur les résultats probables.

Il dit que la banque centrale poursuit un double mandat: pyromane et pompier.

« Je pense que la politique de la Fed  concerne moins Keynes que Pavlov. Le marché a été conditionné à exiger une réduction de taux lorsqu’il se sent un peu faible sur  ses genoux et que la Fed a été encline à accorder ce type de subvention. Je pense qu’il existe un consensus presque étrange sur le fait que la Fed doit être plus laxiste  et que cela se voit dans le duo  improbable de Larry Summers et Donald Trump.  »

Grant a déclaré qu’il pensait que ce consensus reposait dans une certaine mesure sur la forme de la courbe des taux..

Grant a déclaré que nous devions adopter une vision à plus long terme.

Lorsque la bulle technologique a éclaté, la Fed a adopté un taux de financement de 1% «dans l’espoir de faire léviter les prix des logements pour compenser la baisse des cours des actions».

Cela a fonctionné.

Mais cela a conduit plus tard à l’effondrement du marché immobilier. La Fed en est responsable car elle a organisé une décennie de «politique monétaire très laxiste ».

Nous semblons maintenant être sur le point de nous tourner de nouveau vers l’argent facile. Combien de fois cela peut-il fonctionner?

Ce que Grant a ensuite dit a choqué le panel.

Je pense qu’ils vont couper en juin, mais vous vous demandez où cela se terminera.  »

Il a poursuivi en disant qu’il pensait que la Fed allait couper plus d’une fois cette année.

Cela soulève une question clé.

Compte tenu de la tendance bien connue des taux très bas à inciter à la spéculation et en conséquence à la mauvaise affectation des ressources, et de la tendance bien établie  de la Fed à intervenir et à supprimer les tensions  sur le marché, il faut considérer que la Fed exerce  un double mandat de fait:

pyromane et pompier? »

---

---

---

 

I think this has become less about Keynes and more about Pavlov. The market has been conditioned to demand a rate cut when it feels a little weak in the knees and the Fed has been inclined to so-grant. I think that there is an almost uncanny consensus that the Fed needs to be easier and you can see it in the unlikely pair of Larry Summers and Donald Trump.”

Grant said he thinks this consensus is based to some degree on the shape of the yield curve, which has been flashing recession.

But Grant said we need to take a longer view. When the tech bubble burst, the Fed accommodated that with a 1% funds rate “in the hopes of levitating house prices to compensate for the decline in stock prices.” That worked. But it led to the housing bust, which the Fed accommodated with nearly a decade of “very concessionary monetary policy.” Now we appear to be on the verge of another turn toward easy money. How many times can this work? Peter has been saying it’s not going to work again.

What Grant said next shocked the panel.

And now I think they’re going to cut in June, but you wonder where it ends.”

He went on to say he thinks the Fed will cut more than once this year.

This raises a key question.

Given the well-known tendency of very low rates to incite speculation and misallocation of resources, and given the well-observed tendency of the Fed to intervene and quash difficulties in the market, is not the Fed operating on the defacto dual mandate of arsonist and fireman?”

Grant was asked about the trade war and what the Fed should be thinking if a deal is reached.

You wonder what monetary policy can do to something as real as trade. What the Fed could do by lowering its interest rate in the face of a non-deal is to give people the idea that rates will still go lower and it is safer to buy securities that would be unsafe at a slightly higher rate of interest, which feeds the problem of misallocation and speculation built on the Fed’s well-intended concern for the economy as a whole.”

When asked if he thought equity prices are too high, Grant said he thinks interest rates are too low.

Certainly, equity prices with respect to bond yields are not especially high. But nobody is getting paid a real rate of return as a bond-holder the world over.”

Does political pressure from Donald Trump have any effect on Federal Reserve policy?

I think that the White House is getting inside the head of the Federal Reserve. And I think these comments to a degree are warranted. I think the Fed ought not to be above politics. The Fed is a creature of the United States Congress. It ought to be answerable to the Congress, therefore to the government, therefore to the people. And I think to treat it as if it were some branch of the church would be the wrong approach. But I think the comments coming from the White House are often brutal and rhetorical … When candidate Trump in 2016 said that thanks to the zero percent rates there was a false economy and a false stock market, and just because he got a new speech writer doesn’t mean he was wrong.”