Yield curve rotations, monetary shocks, and Greenspan’s Conundrum

Victor J. Valcarcel; Victor J. Valcarcel

doi:10.3934/QFE.2019.1.1

Quantitative Finance and Economics

2019, Volume 3, Issue 1: 1-21. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2019.1.1

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Yield curve rotations, monetary shocks, and Greenspan’s Conundrum

Victor J. Valcarcel ^,

School of Economics, Political, and Policy Sciences (EPPS), University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA

Received: 27 October 2018 Accepted: 17 January 2019 Published: 26 February 2019
JEL Codes: E44, E50

Between June 2004 and December 2005 the Federal Reserve conducted a relatively aggressive contractionary policy that saw a steady increase in the effective federal funds rate of over 300 basis points. Yet the 10-year treasury rate fluctuated little over 60 basis points and ultimately declined slightly over the period. This was dubbed Greenspan's Conundrum after a famous speech by the former chairperson in February 2005. This highlights the importance of understanding the efficacy with which the central bank may impact term premia through changes in the short-term rate. I find hikes in interest rates lead to reductions in rate spreads at first, before turning positive roughly about a year post shock. These findings are statistically significant for a variety of interest rate spreads over two different samples. Following a contractionary monetary policy action, the yield curve experiences a clockwise tilt at first and an eventual counterclockwise rotation after some delay. A counterfactual analysis suggests that augmenting the federal funds rate hike of 2004 with a similar action to the Fed's 2011 Operation Twist—but conducive to contraction rather than expansion—could have mitigated Greenspan's Conundrum of 2004–2005.
- Structural Vector Autoregressions (SVARs),
- sign restrictions,
- yield curve,
- Greenspan’s Conundrum,
- Operation Twist,
- unexpected monetary policy shocks
Citation: Victor J. Valcarcel. Yield curve rotations, monetary shocks, and Greenspan’s Conundrum[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2019, 3(1): 1-21. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2019.1.1

Related Papers:

Abstract

Between June 2004 and December 2005 the Federal Reserve conducted a relatively aggressive contractionary policy that saw a steady increase in the effective federal funds rate of over 300 basis points. Yet the 10-year treasury rate fluctuated little over 60 basis points and ultimately declined slightly over the period. This was dubbed Greenspan's Conundrum after a famous speech by the former chairperson in February 2005. This highlights the importance of understanding the efficacy with which the central bank may impact term premia through changes in the short-term rate. I find hikes in interest rates lead to reductions in rate spreads at first, before turning positive roughly about a year post shock. These findings are statistically significant for a variety of interest rate spreads over two different samples. Following a contractionary monetary policy action, the yield curve experiences a clockwise tilt at first and an eventual counterclockwise rotation after some delay. A counterfactual analysis suggests that augmenting the federal funds rate hike of 2004 with a similar action to the Fed's 2011 Operation Twist—but conducive to contraction rather than expansion—could have mitigated Greenspan's Conundrum of 2004–2005.

References

[1]	Arias JE, Caldara D, Rubio-Ramirez JF (2016) The systematic component of monetary policy in svars: An agnostic identification procedure. Working Paper.
[2]	Arias JE, RubioRamirez JF, Waggoner DF (2018) Inference based on structural vector autoregressions identified with sign and zero restrictions: Theory and applications. Econometrica 86: 685-720. doi: 10.3982/ECTA14468
[3]	Baker SR, Bloom N, Davis SJ (2016) Measuring economic policy uncertainty. Q J Econo* 131: 1593-1636. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjw024
[4]	Baumeister C, Hamilton JD (2015) Sign restrictions, structural vector autoregressions, and useful prior information. Econometrica 83: 1963-1999. doi: 10.3982/ECTA12356
[5]	Bekaert G, Hodrick RJ, Marshall DA (1997) On biases in tests of the expectations hypothesis of the term structure of interest rates. J Financ Econ 44: 309-348. doi: 10.1016/S0304-405X(97)00007-X
[6]	Bernanke BS, Blinder AS (1992) The federal funds rate and the channels of monetary transmission. Am Econ Rev 82: 901-921.
[7]	Campbell JY, Shiller RJ (1991) Yield spreads and interest rate movements: A bird's eye view. Rev Econ Stud 58: 495-514. doi: 10.2307/2298008
[8]	Christiano LJ, Eichenbaum M, Evans CL (1999) Chapter 2 Monetary policy shocks: What have we learned and to what end? Handb Macroecon 65-148.
[9]	Cochrane JH, Piazzesi M (2005) Bond risk premia. Am Econ Rev 95: 138-160. doi: 10.1257/0002828053828581
[10]	Cook T, Hahn T (1989) The effect of changes in the federal funds rate target on market interest rates in the 1970s. J Monetary Econ 24: 331-351. doi: 10.1016/0304-3932(89)90025-1
[11]	Eickmeier S, Hofmann B (2013) Monetary policy, housing booms, and financial (im) balances. Macroecon dyn 17: 830-860. doi: 10.1017/S1365100511000721
[12]	Ellingsen T, Soderstrom U (2001) Monetary policy and market interest rates. Am Econ Rev 91: 1594-1607. doi: 10.1257/aer.91.5.1594
[13]	Gagnon J, Raskin M, Remache J, et al. (2010) Large-scale asset purchases by the Federal Reserve: did they work? Econ Policy Rev 41-59.
[14]	Inoue A, Kilian L (2013) Inference on impulse response functions in structural var models. J Econom 177: 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2013.02.009
[15]	Jarocinski M, Smets FR (2008) House prices and the stance of monetary policy. Fed Reserve Bank St Louis Rev 90: 339-365.
[16]	Jurado K, Ludvigson SC, Ng S (2015a) Measuring uncertainty. Am Econ Rev 105: 1177-1216.
[17]	Jurado K, Ludvigson SC, Ng S (2015b) Measuring uncertainty. Am Econ Rev 105: 1177-1216.
[18]	Keating JW, Kelly LJ, Smith AL, et al. (2019) A model of monetary policy shocks for financial crises and normal conditions. J Money Credit Bank 51: 227-259. doi: 10.1111/jmcb.12522
[19]	Kilian L, Lutkepohl H (2017) Structural Vector Autoregressive Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
[20]	Krishnamurthy A, Vissing-Jorgensen A (2011) The effects of quantitative easing on long-term interest rates. Brook Pap Econ Act 2: 215-265.
[21]	Romer CD, Romer DH (2000) Federal reserve information and the behavior of interest rates. Am Econ Rev 90: 429-457. doi: 10.1257/aer.90.3.429
[22]	Rubio-Ramirez JF, Waggoner DF, Zha T (2010) Structural vector autoregressions: Theory of identification and algorithms for inference. Rev Econ Stud 77: 665-696. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00578.x
[23]	Rudebusch GD, Swanson ET, Wu T (2006) The bond yield'conundrum'from a macro-finance perspective. Working Paper.
[24]	Sarno L, Thornton DL, Valente G (2007) The empirical failure of the expectations hypothesis of the term structure of bond yields. J Financ Quant Anal 42: 81-100. doi: 10.1017/S0022109000002192
[25]	Svensson LEO (1999) Inflation targeting as a monetary policy rule. J Monetary Econ 43: 607-654. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3932(99)00007-0
[26]	Swanson ET,Williams JC (2014) Measuring the effect of the zero lower bound on medium-and longerterm interest rates. Am Econ Rev 104: 3154-3185. doi: 10.1257/aer.104.10.3154
[27]	Wu JC, Xia FD (2016) Measuring the macroeconomic impact of monetary policy at the zero lower bound. J Money Credit Bank 48: 253-291. doi: 10.1111/jmcb.12300

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)