The Unexpected Implications of Expectations

As Market Monetarists, we always stress that expectations matter. But how can we test this hypothesis? One way we do this is to use financial evidence such as TIPS spreads to show how changes in monetary policy expectations directly affect market conditions. Evan Soltas recently tried to use a different method: surveys. He put together a series of graphs documenting changes in forecaster expectations around the time of the financial crisis, and claims that the graphs suggest that a "sudden collapse of short-to-medium expectations...could be more important than current-quarter NGDP."

But I disagree with Evan on how we should interpret such results. I took a look at the Survey of Professional forecaster data and restrict my analysis to the Great Moderation period since 1990. I also focus in on the 1 year forward NGDP forecast, as the 1 quarter forecasts give qualitatively similar results.

Like Evan, I too observe that current nominal GDP expectations are related to real variables, such as unemployment. However, the overall relationship is quite weak. NGDP expectations can only explain about 5% of the variation in unemployment. Moreover, the slope estimate is likely to be biased downwards as autocorrelation means the true slope is even closer to zero.

However, even if the correlation were stronger, it still would not say anything about the causal effect of future expectations on current conditions. Any observed correlation could simply be rational expectations at work, with causation running from unemployment to NGDP. Because unemployment is high now, it would be rational to assume that future nominal GDP will be slightly lower. Even if the Fed were more powerful, there would still be some imperfection in the implementation of monetary policy that would cause expectations to shift downwards.

To control for this, we need to look not at the change in expectations, but rather changes in surprises. A big theme in nominal GDP disucssions is that nominal prices are sticky. Therefore, when NGDP falls below trend, because past nominal contracts were set under the expectation of the higher trend, markets fail to clear and we have a fall in real growth. Therefore, if this transmission channel were true, when NGDP falls below what was expected, we should expect to see a significant impact on unemployment.

In other words, we should consider whether actual nominal GDP hit forecasts or if it fell short. This way we can construct an error index that measures to what extent forecasters over or underestimated. Positive numbers denote when actual nominal GDP outperformed the forecast, and thus the dramatic fall into negative territory during the financial crisis reflects the unexpected nature of the nominal GDP shock.

While it certainly did fall during the financial crisis, if you use ordinary least squares regression on this index against variables of interest, such as unemployment, you will not find any kind of systematic correlation. However, if you consider only the extreme cases in which the forecast undershot reality by more than 4%, then you do get a significant negative correlation:

Perhaps this evidence suggests that expectations have a nonlinear impact on unemployment, but at that point we are drawing epicycles that the regression evidence does not warrant.

Does this all mean that expectations are useless? On the contrary. When investigating these expectation surveys, I did manage to uncover the following chart comparing forecasts and actual nominal GDP growth. I lagged the actual NGDP by 1 year, so it is easier to compare how the forecast compares with actual growth.

What we can see is that the forecasters, while not perfect, still do a rather good job of identifying times of distress. Given that forecasts do carry information, then this opens up a role for policy to lean against the wind. The Fed, instead of waiting for all the data to come in, could use a joint forecast-contemporary data criterion. If the forecasters are projecting slow future growth, then the Fed could announce that it is aware of a potential problem and prepare the necessary policy machinery, conventional or otherwise, to combat that threat.

Expectations matter, but we need to be clear on why. While they may have a direct impact on growth, expectations also serve as a crucial lens into the future and can carry information content for policy makers. Armed with such tools, monetary policy can turn towards the future, lean against the wind, and in doing so remedy demand shocks before they start to hurt. 

Forward Looking Markets in Japan

Even though Shinzo Abe has not yet cemented in a new era of Japanese monetary policy, markets have already been preparing for such an event. The market response is a good illustration of how markets act in a forward looking manner.

First, we need to identify when the international community started to focus in on Shinzo Abe. For this, we can look at Google's international search intensities:

From here, we can identify the time around December 15th to be the starting point. Now let's take a look at how markets have responded since then.

First, the exchange rate. Easier monetary policy raises aggregate demand, accelerating NGDP growth and depreciates the currency. Even though the statutory monetary policy framework hasn't changed, the yen has already lost around 7% of its value relative to the dollar since December 14th:



Exhibit 2, the Stock Market. In the same time period, the Nikkei 225 index has risen over 9%. To give this some perspective, almost one-third of the gains over the course of the past year have been the result of the past month of advances.



These statistics are quite striking when you think about the policy controversy surrounding Japan's "lost decade" and the hundreds of trillions of yen that went into public works programs.

Also, these statistics are quite interesting for the "long and variable leads" perspective on monetary policy. Historically, the money supply has not had a large effect on real variables such as GDP. In fact, if you really dug into the 5 year rolling correlations, you would find that, most of the time, quarterly money supply growth actually had a negative correlation with quarterly real GDP growth in that period.



Yet just in the past month, a few "open mouth operations" have seemed to dramatically change market perceptions of monetary policy. This suggests that the mechanical money printing is quite powerless without effective expectations management. As such, there should be significant gains to Shinzo Abe's drive to change the Japanese monetary regime.

On a separate non-economic, purely speculatory note, I'm not sure how the nationalism issues brought up by Noah Smith would interact with this drive to make monetary policy more inflationary. On one hand, if monetary policy is seen as a driver to achieve national ambitions, then the nationalist drive may reinforce the increase in aggregate demand. That would be good. But the worrisome possibility, which worries me more than the possibility that Shinzo Abe will give up on monetary policy, would be that the monetary policy stimulus will be too effective and further stoke nationalist ambitions. The last thing we need is some stupid quibble over the Diaoyu islands that leads to a face-losing and economy destroying outcome for everybody.

Update 1/19/13:

Scott Sumner emails me with the following comment:

"Abe actually started pushing for a 2% inflation target during the campaign, in mid-November. The day of his first speech is the exact the the huge stock rally began, and the exact day the yen began falling sharply. I did a post that day, or perhaps the next. 

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=17736 

It's hard to disentangle money printing and expectations. Think of the following thought experiment: The central bank doubles the money supply and is expected to cut it in half 3 days later. Everyone agrees that there is little effect on markets or AD. So in some sense we are always implicitly making assumptions about monetary policy. On the other hand, I can easily envision where big changes in the money supply also contain information about future expected monetary policy, even if not made explicit. So I can envision QE "working" at least to some extent, even w/o an explicit promise regarding future policy."

Looking back at the data, I should have been more careful with the timing issue. Although the November 15th spike looks minimal, it is only because the December spike was much larger. Focusing in on that one month of the Google data yields the following graph:




On the relationship between money printing and expectations management, I agree with Scott that money "printing" policies, such as QE, can have significant effects even without explicit open mouth operations. The Fed doesn't need to announce a NGDP target for those policies to have effect. But the point with Japan is that effective communications policy can enhance monetary policy. Given that money supply expansion hasn't been sufficient in the past, perhaps a more powerful target will do the trick.

Very Quick Thoughts on (Chinese) Healthcare

The problems consumers face in the Chinese health care system may suggest that the information asymmetries and uncertainties in the provision of health care are much more difficult that we think.

In China, a significant issue that I hear complaints about is that there never is enough capacity. Hospitals are crowded, and it's hard to get adequate care. Instead, doctors spend minimal time with the patient, medicate them to the maximal extent, and then send the patient on his way.

Even when you do get medicines, there's no guarantee that they are the best value for the patient. Many Chinese doctors get commission from companies based on the prescriptions they push forward to their patients, and are thus incentivized to recommend the more expensive imported medicines.

Why does this persist? I suspect it is a combination of both government failure and market failures.

Let us start with the market failures. First, it seems clear that the market is not competitive. Otherwise, perhaps more hospitals could be built to help mitigate the overcapacity. But the most obvious solution -- encouraging more entry by lowering regulatory barriers -- may not be the most effective. In such a world, there would be two tiers of health care, the first being the traditional system that we have now, the second being the new deregulated system.

In the second system, I fear that it may become dominated with fraudulent medicines and unscrupulous doctors. In China, it's already a common frustration that goods that you buy never seem to be real, and whenever there is a profit opportunity, fake goods appear. At best, this wastes money. At worst, this wastes lives. As a result, I have a hard time imagining that deregulation would go off without a hitch.

I also doubt word of mouth would do much to solve these information problems in the second tier. It's hard to tell the differences between charlatans, and as such it would be much easier for consumers (who are predominantly old) to group the entire second tier collectively as ineffective. The difficulty consumers face in evaluating the quality of care also makes it harder for the market to converge on a fraud-free equilibrium. Moreover, if consumers need relatively limited amounts of healthcare, then it's hard for them to learn from experience.

As such, while deregulating the provision of health care in this way could improve health care by giving much more choice to consumers, it does not seem sufficient. The lack of competition seems to be the result of these information asymmetries, and to address the lack of competition you have to first address the problems in getting information.

Yet this story of market failures may instead be a story of government failures. In the case of overmedication, the government does have laws on the book in order to mitigate it. Their solution is to control the prices of individual drugs as well as limit the total monetary value of drugs that a doctor can prescribe in a single visit. However, doctors then respond to this by reducing the length of prescriptions, and then having patients come to the hospital more often. This contributes to the capacity issue because patients are forced to come to the hospital more often.

Also, because prices are controlled, patients have to "walk the back door" (走后门) and pay additional bribes to doctors to get care. This exacerbates the imported drug problem, because if doctors cannot earn as much money through conventional means, it is natural that they find ways to work around the system to make the money.

Price controls are also problematic because they make investing in new medicines very risky. Even if a given company can create a drug, it's always uncertain how the government will regulate it.

Based on these competing narratives, I draw two broad conclusions.

First, crude price regulation is rarely an answer. In such a world, it's too easy for people to work outside the system (in the case of bribes) or for doctors to subtly change their work inside the system (in the case of overmedication). Instead, if regulation is to work, it needs to address reasons, like asymmetric information, why health care provision hasn't been working like in a regular market.

Second, consumer choice is insufficient. As healthcare consumption becomes dominated more and more by the elderly, it strikes me as very odd that the most feeble in society are now tasked with identifying the best form of healthcare in an environment that is growing increasingly complex. There is just too much uncertainty, both ex-ante and ex-post, about the quality of care, for the standard word of mouth and experienced buyer mechanisms to work.

Voter and Consumer Irrationality: An Extension

Questioning rational choice is not a sufficient basis for arguing for government intervention. But my past few posts questioning standard market propositions in the case of health care are not meant to promote every single government regulation. Rather, I wonder if we can try to further the study of economics and public policy by reversing the typical way public choice economics is applied.

When I think of public choice economics, I think of papers about how the marginal costs and benefits of lobbying lead to poor government policies or how decentralizing the functions of governments leads to a competitive equilibrium with better governmental policies. At its core, I interpret this line of analysis as using the success of markets to explain why governments fail. Markets succeed because marginal costs line up with marginal benefits, and thus governments fail because these costs and benefits are distorted. Markets succeed because there is competition between firms, and thus governments fail because there is no competition. What I want to propose is that we change the direction of this line of thought, and start from the vast literature on why governments fail, and see if that can teach us about why certain markets fail. 

This is why I think behavioral economics is so important. By reducing biases down to core psychological first principles, it highlights the connection between government and market failure. But we should also make sure to avoid thinking that policy makers themselves are perfectly rational. As John Papula pithily points out:

Why in the world do behavioral economists who study our flaws and irrational quirks advocate centralized power in the hands of a small group of flawed overlords? If people are irrational, so are government regulators, only they have corrupting monopoly power.

As such, I agree that it is important that behavioral economists grasp the concept of public choice, but also for public choice to grasp the concept of behavioral economics. There exist reasons for why the market often overcomes behavioral biases, but then there also exist markets in which those mechanisms don't function well. And most likely, we can trace these mechanism failures to arguments past public choice economists have made about the failure of government. That is my conjecture, and I hope to be able to pursue further analysis of health care under this framework.

Voter and Consumer Irrationality: Two Sides of the Same Coin

One strong argument against the government provision of services is that democracy is a very imperfect substitute for markets. As noted by Bryan Caplan, voters have a hard time rationally evaluating policy options, and thus the public choice economy may be a very bad one. The natural conclusion of this argument is that, to the greatest extent possible, the provision of goods should be pulled away from government and the responsibility should instead be allocated to the market. Yet this line of logic contains its own contradiction: if voters cannot rationally choose the right public policy, how can they be expected to make the right private choice?

Now, I don't mean to say markets never work. I am very happy with the way capitalism has treated me, both in terms of the large historic liberalizations that brought me to this country as well as in the small conveniences that improve my everyday life. I don't mean to reject this. But what I want to suggest is that the acceptance of the irrational voter hypothesis suggests that we should take a closer look at our acceptance of the perfect market equilibrium in many different sectors, in particular health care.

Bryan Caplan, in his work on voter irrationality, outlines four main biases: the anti-market bias, anti-foreign bias, make-work bias, and pessimistic bias. 

Anti-market bias refers to the public's systematic bias towards policies that interfere with prices and profits, such as farm subsidies or rent control. I like to think of it as the public's bias against simple supply and demand explanations of the market. 

Anti-foreign bias refers to the way the public tends to see people from other countries as fundamentally different from itself, and thus the bias causes people to under-estimate the benefit of free trade and immigration. People focus on the auto jobs outsourced by free trade and the native fast food restaurant replaced by immigrants, while paying little attention to the new opportunities and technologies granted by interaction with foreigners.

Make-work bias refers to the way the public confuses productivity with having a job. As Caplan cleverly states, "For an individual to prosper, he only needs to have a job. But society can prosper only if individuals  do a job, if they create goods and services that someone else wants." People tend to make the classic luddite fallacy, that new technology destroys more jobs than it creates, and that, as a result, technological growth actually worsens the standard of living.

The fourth and final bias, pessimistic bias, refers to the way the public tends to overemphasize the things the get worse over time, and forget the ways that life improves. Recession is confused for regression, and the massive technological advances of the markets, such as improvements in information technology and energy infrastructure, are forgotten.

Yet when I think about these biases, I would argue that they all are manifestations of a more fundamental psychological bias: a bias towards salience.

Salience refers to the way certain effects or phenomenon are more apparent and more obvious. We should be familiar with this idea of salience in our everyday lives. It's easy for me to enjoy the concentrated fun of watching old episodes of scrubs, it takes more effort to remind myself of the dispersed benefits of working hard on math homework. It's easy for me to catch up on the extra hour of sleep, it takes more effort to remind myself of the long-term benefits of exercising in the morning. As Katherine Baicker, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Joshua Schwartzstein like to joke, "Our research has definitively determined that running is unpleasant and donuts are tasty," and as such, people tend to choose the salient joy of tasty donuts and the immediate avoidance of hard running instead of the long term benefits of consistent exercise. Or as Thaler and Sunstein put it in their book Nudge, very rarely do people ever make new years resolutions to smoke more cigarettes or drink more alcohol.

I would argue that salience forms the basis of Caplan's irrational voter biases. Salience means that people tend to see the direct negative impacts of market liberalization, and neglect the role of the fallacy of composition in hiding the harms that arise from government intervention. In the case of the anti-market bias, the benefit from paying farmers is salient, whereas the cost of higher food prices are dispersed and not as apparent. In the case of the anti-foreign bias, the closed steel mills down the street are immediately visible, whereas the newly created jobs in the software industry and management consulting are not as visible. In the case of the make-work bias, people directly observe the seamstresses fired and don't see the new women, who on count of greater general prosperity, are then given the chance to go to college for a better life. And finally, in the context of the pessimistic bias, people tend to worry about the bad changes more than the good. People complain more about the rising price of gas and food, which they buy everyday, and not the fall in computer prices, which they rarely have the chance to purchase.

Re-framing the issue in terms of fundamental psychological first principles adds to the way we should interpret the irrational voter hypothesis. Rather than seeing the phenomenon of the irrational voter as an isolated problem that makes government policy ineffectual, we should see the irrational voter as a more general irrational person. As such, there may be certain (not all) markets, such as health care, that do not liberalize in the way other markets do. In the case of health care, because certain differences between doctors, such as bedside manner, are more salient than others, such as improved recovery times, a simple market liberalization may not always promote the best health outcomes. We need to think again, again, about why we need reform. Promoting price disclosure makes the costs consumers pay more salient. Moving away from an employer provided health care system towards individual insurance with an individual mandate makes the costs of choosing bad insurance more salient. But just kicking back and "letting the market (not) work", and treating healthcare just like "consumer electronics, telecommunications, computers" or cars is not a sufficient answer. And if we can move away from fiery rhetoric about socialism and capitalism and towards a grounded and pragmatic analysis of psychology and behavioral economics, only then can a meaningful dialogue on healthcare can occur.

........................
Update 11/18: I extended some of my thoughts on public choice and health care here.

Healthcare and Cars are Not Isomorphic

I've recently been doing some thinking about health care, and my thoughts aren't yet complete. However, when reading many of the conservative commentaries on health care, I was very peeved by their treatment of the market for health care just like the market for any other good or service, and this was aggravated by the fact that I agreed with most of their other arguments. As a result, I wrote the following NextGen article to collect my thoughts on this issue before I move on to more substantive analyses of some recent posts.

..................................................
"Healthcare and Cars: Why They're Not the Same"


How is the market for health care different from that for cars? And how does this difference change our understanding of health care policy?

Let us start from the basics: health care is a service, while a car is a good. While this does not prevent market competition from improving society's welfare on the margin, it does mean that there are fundamental limits to how far the market can improve. In particular, it means that one productive hospital cannot simply “export” its health care services across the country. And as we know from the car industry and international trade theory, that lack of export markets and distant competitors can impede the creative destruction that makes markets work.

But this is an incomplete justification. Haircuts are also services, but few people think barbershops require regulation. Yet, they differ in one key respect. While it is easy for me  to determine the quality of my haircut, it is much more difficult for me to determine what counts as “good” health care. A large part of this is linked to the uncertainty inherent in any kind of biological process. How does one determine if one is receiving sufficient care? Of course, if there is any gross negligence, it can be detected. Yet if the care is just slightly worse than it should be, there's no real way for the consumer to know. The problem is compounded by the fact that most people rarely get sick. If you go to get a haircut every month, you can quickly determine which barbershop is the best. Unfortunately for neoclassical economists but fortunately for society as a whole, people need catastrophic care substantially less often than they need haircuts, thereby impeding the market from finding the most efficient solution.

Chronic care does change the calculation, but it introduces other factors that again prevent the market for health care from functioning like the market for cars. To take a concrete example, consider the 40 million elderly individuals who suffer from arthritis. Does it make sense to ask them to “shop around” to find the perfect hospital? Does it make sense to ask them to trust in an online service like Yelp to decide where to get care? And when they are fatigued by chronic pain, does it make sense to think they can make the “optimal” choice, and not just the most convenient?

Other problems make it difficult for the market for health care insurance to function like a regular competitive market. Again, a parallel to the market for cars, in particular used cars, is helpful. A problem with used car markets is that it's not entirely clear whether the car you wish to purchase is good or bad. This depresses the market value of used cars, both good and bad. But then producers of the more expensive good cars exit the market, further lowering the average quality of a used car until the market spirals out of existence. The market for health care is subject to similar pressures, but in the opposite direction. For insurers, they cannot easily tell whether an applicant is healthy or not. As a result, they charge the same premium to all individuals, which leads to healthy individuals dropping out of the market because they value the insurance less. This process repeats itself until premiums spiral upwards and no market for health care insurance exists.

This describes what economists call adverse selection, and although it is a market failure, it doesn't mean the government always needs to step in. However, understanding how the market circumvents the problem helps us understand why a simple solution for the health insurance does not exist. For example, markets for used cars can exist because the salesmen can offer warranties, so that if the car does break down you can “turn back the clock” on the purchase and return the car. This reduces the incentive for used car salesmen to trick you into buying lemons, because if the car does turn out to be a lemon you can always return it.

But what would a similar system mean for health care insurance? In that market, it's the consumer who has the private knowledge, therefore it falls to the consumer to make the “warranty”. This would mean the consumer would have to be able to guarantee that he or she won't become more unhealthy in the future – an impossible task. Alternatively, insurance companies can “turn back the clock” and refuse to pay for the consumer on the ground that the consumer was unhealthier than was expected. This hardly seems like an efficient or moral outcome, and is precisely the reason why the protections for preexisting conditions is so popular in the ACA.

With these stylized facts, it should be abundantly clear that the markets for health care and insurance are very different from what the standard competitive model predicts. Hence, we need to be very cautious when we draw glib analogies from health care to cars. However, the implications for policy are mixed. On one hand, certain regulatory reforms such as cutting the employer health care deduction, reducing occupational licensing barriers, and relaxing privacy laws can result in substantial advances towards improving health care. Yet the presence of these government failures does not mean that there is no role for the government to ameliorate the market pathologies that I have listed above.

A notable example of this is the individual mandate. The individual mandate, by forcing people to purchase insurance, massively expands the market for health care. In doing so, this increases the incentive for firms to pursue innovative new projects to increase productivity. And even though consumers still rarely need catastrophic care, the larger market allows transparency and reputation to have an effect as hospitals are at greater risk to lose customers. For the insurance market, an individual mandate can help pull us away from the adverse selection death spiral by preventing self selection and thereby keeping most of the population insured.

In other words, the government is not perfect, but neither is the market. By noting that the market for health care is fundamentally different from that for other goods such as cars, we can recognize why the standard assumptions for regular markets may not apply in the case for health care. As such, we must move forward with caution, with an understanding that true reform lies not with complete liberalization or complete regulation, but rather with a judicious mix of the two.
......................

Update 10/24/12 -- I was pleasantly surprised to find that this post was heavily discussed in Reddit. I just wanted to put a few points to defend myself from a series of very informative critiques.

• I never oppose market reforms like HSA's or cutting the employer healthcare tax deduction. That's not in my post at all.
• The point of the post is to highlight some frictions in the healthcare market that justify some sort of intervention -- market based (preferably) or command and control (not ideal).

Nominal GDP Targeting: An Introduction with Market Applications

A few weeks ago, I joined Michigan Interactive Investments, the premier finance club at the University of Michigan. Every week during our meetings, we have a market update during which we sound off our opinions on recent market events. And, as readers know, I take a great interest in monetary policy and have been very vocal about the positives behind the Federal Reserve's recent moves in terms of QE3 and conditional forward guidance.

However, I find that there's a disconnect between my understanding and perception of monetary policy and that of my fellow peers at MII. My suspicion is that it has something to deal with the differences between practitioners and academics, but I am still unsure of the specific difference. As a result, I prepared a presentation on this issue and wanted to share it with the rest of the blogosphere. I consider this different from Evan's excellent post on the layman's guide to NGDP targeting for two key reasons. First, this is targeted for those who are already financially literate -- ie they know what treasury bonds and other financial indicators are. Second, it's meant to be more visual to drive the point home in a presentation.

Considering I used quite a few graphs that have been inspired by debates I've encountered through blogging, I thought it would be apropos to present it here first. I hope it is useful for explaining nominal GDP targeting to a more technical financial crowd or undergraduate economics students. As always, comments are encouraged, and I'm happy to revise the presentation if I missed something.