立即打开
长期利率飙升,会造成衰退吗?还是美国经济强劲的标志?

长期利率飙升,会造成衰退吗?还是美国经济强劲的标志?

PHILIPP CARLSSON-SZLEZAK,PAUL SWARTZ 2023-10-17
对经济来说长期利率上升不一定是坏消息。

图片来源:TIMOTHY A. CLARY - AFP - GETTY IMAGES

各界纷纷担心加息之际,不应该忘记加息可能是经济实力的象征,而且我们认为多数情况下确实如此。听起来可能有争议,但之前确实有过类似情况。2022年短期利率大幅上升,引发了衰退“不可避免”的论调,然而并未出现。美国经济一直很强劲,经受住了加息的严峻考验。

现在到了2023年,随着短期利率接近峰值,长期利率继续大幅上升,最近几天达到4.89%。这是不是承压的信号,最终人们长期担心的经济衰退变成现实?亦或是强劲的迹象,迫使货币政策采取新的平衡行动然后美国经济能继续扩张?若想找到答案,可以重点看看悲观的论调以及探索经济实力向更高利率传导的机制。

无效的流行叙事

随着利率走高,关于美国债务危机即将到来,乃至甚至最终违约的新闻流传甚广。然而,认为美国将出现债务飙升和赤字激增没什么根据。诚然,债务正在飙升,继续维持巨额赤字也不明智。然而,主权债务危机的说法与货币持续且明显强势的实际情况并不相符。美元不仅势头异常强劲,而且利率上升时美元仍然大幅走高。可能以后会成为威胁,但肯定不是现在。

有个更温和、不那么悲观的版本说法是“债券义勇军”已重返市场,所谓“债券义勇军”是指为回应不负责任的财政政策抛售债务和推高收益率的债券交易员。尽管当前义勇军们可能很活跃,但不可能像1980年一样迫使吉米·卡特总统撤回预算计划。

当年是漏洞百出的通胀体制让债券义勇军有机可乘,特别是困扰上世纪70年代的放任的通胀预期。如今,通胀预期已然锚定,所以债券义勇军的后辈们实力不强。政策制定者并没有被债券市场否决,而是争取更高的利率,并且顺利实现。

当然,过去两年里上世纪70年代成了另一个无效的流行叙事。美联储非但没有打破通胀机制,反而打破了通胀热。2022年6月达到可怕的9.1%峰值,8月降至3.7%。而且,所有通胀预期指标均未出现不健康的突破性上涨,或许可以解释债券收益率为何飙升。

尽管我们认为这一现象与债务和赤字(或债券供应)关系不大,但更高利率很可能反映出不同类型的风险溢价。可能预示着长期债券的保险价值已经下跌。长期以来,长期债务是抵御风险的可靠手段:因为股票下跌时,债券会上涨(即收益率下降)。现在,美联储提升利率以减缓经济增速没发挥作用,此类对冲手段在行话中被称为债券-股票负相关。之前愿意因保险价值而为债券支付高价的投资组合经理现在不太可能继续照此操作,收益率也因此走高。

更高利率带来风险,但仍然是实力的标志

投资组合经理必须适应更高利率的后果,公司也一样。高利率通常只能从风险的角度看待,比如一连串商业违约或银行系统内更多破产案例。相关担心没那么容易消除。从Bed Bath and Beyond到Party City,企业破产增多真实存在(如果跟非常低的利率水平相比的话)。同样,2023年初硅谷银行(SVB)崩溃表明,金融系统很容易受到利率环境变化影响。

然而要记住,财务压力和企业倒闭正是货币政策发挥作用的渠道。信贷紧缩减缓经济增长。破产之后资源——尤其是劳动力——重新分配向更高效的领域。虽然目标不是恶化财务脆弱状况,但推动破产确实可以被纳入收紧货币政策的目标。保罗·沃尔克曾经被问及货币政策具体如何降低通胀,他的回答是“增加破产”。

实际和当前微观经济承受的压力和痛苦不应掩盖一个事实,即长期高利率是宏观经济实力的结果和标志。

长期高利率的第一个驱动因素是周期性的强势。之前市场错误地估计2023年很可能出现经济衰退,利率也随之迅速下降。随着此前不受欢迎的软着陆叙事越发受欢迎,短期利率大幅下降的前景渺茫。由于长期利率反映了对短期利率的预期(加上期限溢价),同样意味着长期利率更高。

第二个驱动因素反映了结构强度。尽管通胀率大幅回落,但未来几年仍可能保持在2%的目标之上。这表明,行事谨慎的美联储只会逐步将政策调整回中性利率。因此,短期利率将在更长时间内保持较高水平。政策制定者这一说辞已经持续一段时间,不过市场刚开始相信。

第三,人们对所谓“中性”利率的看法也在向上调整。即使通胀回到目标,政策制定者愿意将政策利率降至中性,最终的利率也可能高于最近预期。尽管中性利率(术语中也称为r-star)数值未知而且不断变化,对长期利率肯定有影响。

接下来会发生什么?

尽管短期利率和长期利率的变化方式不同,但都能体现政策制定者希望控制宏观经济实力。事实证明,提高政策利率有效(通胀率下降),但比多数人想象中要低(经济衰退未出现)。现在,美联储较难施加影响力的长期利率上升将变成下一步追求平衡的举措。

经济很有可能继续摸索前进。增长将保持温和,且仍保持弹性。通胀进一步缓和,但无法完全做到缓和。最终货币政策将趋于正常化,不过要非常谨慎。这表明长期利率仍在上升,只是未来几年会适度放缓。

又或者,如果经济过于强劲,通胀放缓过于温和甚至再次加速,当今高利率对强劲的经济制动力太弱,那么利率势必更高。然而即便如此,也不一定意味着经济危机,只是反映出抑制强劲经济防止过热面临着持续挑战。

与此同时,真正的衰退总会来袭,拖累增长导致通胀,促使政策比预期中更快也更大幅度地削减开支。届时可能切实降低利率。降息幅度取决于市场相信通胀缓解的程度,以及经济衰退的严重程度。

不过相关路径都与债务驱动的危机、结构性通胀或信贷危机无关。虽然种种可能性都存在,但长期利率上升并没有变成风险中心。(财富中文网)

菲利普·卡尔森·斯泽尔扎克(Philipp Carlsson Szlezak)是波士顿咨询公司(BCG)纽约办事处董事总经理兼合伙人,也是该公司全球首席经济学家。保罗·斯沃茨(Paul Swartz)是纽约BCG亨德森研究所主任兼高级经济学家。

Fortune.com上评论文章中表达的观点仅代表作者个人观点,并不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

译者:梁宇

审校:夏林

各界纷纷担心加息之际,不应该忘记加息可能是经济实力的象征,而且我们认为多数情况下确实如此。听起来可能有争议,但之前确实有过类似情况。2022年短期利率大幅上升,引发了衰退“不可避免”的论调,然而并未出现。美国经济一直很强劲,经受住了加息的严峻考验。

现在到了2023年,随着短期利率接近峰值,长期利率继续大幅上升,最近几天达到4.89%。这是不是承压的信号,最终人们长期担心的经济衰退变成现实?亦或是强劲的迹象,迫使货币政策采取新的平衡行动然后美国经济能继续扩张?若想找到答案,可以重点看看悲观的论调以及探索经济实力向更高利率传导的机制。

无效的流行叙事

随着利率走高,关于美国债务危机即将到来,乃至甚至最终违约的新闻流传甚广。然而,认为美国将出现债务飙升和赤字激增没什么根据。诚然,债务正在飙升,继续维持巨额赤字也不明智。然而,主权债务危机的说法与货币持续且明显强势的实际情况并不相符。美元不仅势头异常强劲,而且利率上升时美元仍然大幅走高。可能以后会成为威胁,但肯定不是现在。

有个更温和、不那么悲观的版本说法是“债券义勇军”已重返市场,所谓“债券义勇军”是指为回应不负责任的财政政策抛售债务和推高收益率的债券交易员。尽管当前义勇军们可能很活跃,但不可能像1980年一样迫使吉米·卡特总统撤回预算计划。

当年是漏洞百出的通胀体制让债券义勇军有机可乘,特别是困扰上世纪70年代的放任的通胀预期。如今,通胀预期已然锚定,所以债券义勇军的后辈们实力不强。政策制定者并没有被债券市场否决,而是争取更高的利率,并且顺利实现。

当然,过去两年里上世纪70年代成了另一个无效的流行叙事。美联储非但没有打破通胀机制,反而打破了通胀热。2022年6月达到可怕的9.1%峰值,8月降至3.7%。而且,所有通胀预期指标均未出现不健康的突破性上涨,或许可以解释债券收益率为何飙升。

尽管我们认为这一现象与债务和赤字(或债券供应)关系不大,但更高利率很可能反映出不同类型的风险溢价。可能预示着长期债券的保险价值已经下跌。长期以来,长期债务是抵御风险的可靠手段:因为股票下跌时,债券会上涨(即收益率下降)。现在,美联储提升利率以减缓经济增速没发挥作用,此类对冲手段在行话中被称为债券-股票负相关。之前愿意因保险价值而为债券支付高价的投资组合经理现在不太可能继续照此操作,收益率也因此走高。

更高利率带来风险,但仍然是实力的标志

投资组合经理必须适应更高利率的后果,公司也一样。高利率通常只能从风险的角度看待,比如一连串商业违约或银行系统内更多破产案例。相关担心没那么容易消除。从Bed Bath and Beyond到Party City,企业破产增多真实存在(如果跟非常低的利率水平相比的话)。同样,2023年初硅谷银行(SVB)崩溃表明,金融系统很容易受到利率环境变化影响。

然而要记住,财务压力和企业倒闭正是货币政策发挥作用的渠道。信贷紧缩减缓经济增长。破产之后资源——尤其是劳动力——重新分配向更高效的领域。虽然目标不是恶化财务脆弱状况,但推动破产确实可以被纳入收紧货币政策的目标。保罗·沃尔克曾经被问及货币政策具体如何降低通胀,他的回答是“增加破产”。

实际和当前微观经济承受的压力和痛苦不应掩盖一个事实,即长期高利率是宏观经济实力的结果和标志。

长期高利率的第一个驱动因素是周期性的强势。之前市场错误地估计2023年很可能出现经济衰退,利率也随之迅速下降。随着此前不受欢迎的软着陆叙事越发受欢迎,短期利率大幅下降的前景渺茫。由于长期利率反映了对短期利率的预期(加上期限溢价),同样意味着长期利率更高。

第二个驱动因素反映了结构强度。尽管通胀率大幅回落,但未来几年仍可能保持在2%的目标之上。这表明,行事谨慎的美联储只会逐步将政策调整回中性利率。因此,短期利率将在更长时间内保持较高水平。政策制定者这一说辞已经持续一段时间,不过市场刚开始相信。

第三,人们对所谓“中性”利率的看法也在向上调整。即使通胀回到目标,政策制定者愿意将政策利率降至中性,最终的利率也可能高于最近预期。尽管中性利率(术语中也称为r-star)数值未知而且不断变化,对长期利率肯定有影响。

接下来会发生什么?

尽管短期利率和长期利率的变化方式不同,但都能体现政策制定者希望控制宏观经济实力。事实证明,提高政策利率有效(通胀率下降),但比多数人想象中要低(经济衰退未出现)。现在,美联储较难施加影响力的长期利率上升将变成下一步追求平衡的举措。

经济很有可能继续摸索前进。增长将保持温和,且仍保持弹性。通胀进一步缓和,但无法完全做到缓和。最终货币政策将趋于正常化,不过要非常谨慎。这表明长期利率仍在上升,只是未来几年会适度放缓。

又或者,如果经济过于强劲,通胀放缓过于温和甚至再次加速,当今高利率对强劲的经济制动力太弱,那么利率势必更高。然而即便如此,也不一定意味着经济危机,只是反映出抑制强劲经济防止过热面临着持续挑战。

与此同时,真正的衰退总会来袭,拖累增长导致通胀,促使政策比预期中更快也更大幅度地削减开支。届时可能切实降低利率。降息幅度取决于市场相信通胀缓解的程度,以及经济衰退的严重程度。

不过相关路径都与债务驱动的危机、结构性通胀或信贷危机无关。虽然种种可能性都存在,但长期利率上升并没有变成风险中心。(财富中文网)

菲利普·卡尔森·斯泽尔扎克(Philipp Carlsson Szlezak)是波士顿咨询公司(BCG)纽约办事处董事总经理兼合伙人,也是该公司全球首席经济学家。保罗·斯沃茨(Paul Swartz)是纽约BCG亨德森研究所主任兼高级经济学家。

Fortune.com上评论文章中表达的观点仅代表作者个人观点,并不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

译者:梁宇

审校: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.

热读文章
热门视频
扫描二维码下载财富APP