US ECONOMICS

TREASURY. 04/17/2017. Treasury International Capital Data for February
​
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of the Treasury today released Treasury International Capital (TIC) data for February 2017.  The next release, which will report on data for March 2017, is scheduled for May 15, 2017.

The sum total in February of all net foreign acquisitions of long-term securities, short-term U.S. securities, and banking flows was a monthly net TIC inflow of $19.3 billion.  Of this, net foreign private inflows were $30.9 billion, and net foreign official outflows were $11.6 billion.

Foreign residents increased their holdings of long-term U.S. securities in February; net purchases were $35.9 billion.  Net purchases by private foreign investors were $41.1 billion, while net sales by foreign official institutions were $5.2 billion.

TIC Monthly Reports on Cross-Border Financial Flows
			(Billions of dollars, not seasonally adjusted)
								12 Months Through
						2015	2016	Feb-16	Feb-17	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb
		Foreigners' Acquisitions of Long-term Securities
1			Gross Purchases of Domestic U.S. Securities			29904.8	29603.8	30042.2	29427.5	2798.4	2338.5	2397.5	2483.9
2			Gross Sales of Domestic U.S. Securities			29749.2	29552.5	29883.6	29317.9	2780.0	2353.8	2382.7	2448.0
3			Domestic Securities Purchased, net (line 1 less line 2) /1			155.6	51.3	158.6	109.7	18.4	-15.3	14.8	35.9
4				Private, net /2		368.0	340.3	445.3	356.0	17.3	-33.4	63.4	41.1
5					Treasury Bonds & Notes, net	205.6	3.9	307.5	-25.5	1.2	-41.1	37.7	-2.7
6					Gov't Agency Bonds, net	123.2	225.3	125.8	230.6	12.7	11.5	13.6	8.4
7					Corporate Bonds, net	137.9	130.1	138.5	126.0	8.3	5.7	-4.8	18.0
8					Equities, net	-98.7	-19.1	-126.6	24.9	-4.9	-9.5	16.9	17.4
9				Official, net /3		-212.4	-289.0	-286.6	-246.3	1.1	18.1	-48.7	-5.2
10					Treasury Bonds & Notes, net	-225.9	-329.8	-306.7	-281.0	-0.9	18.6	-44.9	-10.7
11					Gov't Agency Bonds, net	33.5	40.7	37.7	35.7	3.0	1.1	-1.2	4.3
12					Corporate Bonds, net	-3.8	-5.3	-2.3	-6.7	-1.1	-1.1	-1.1	-0.4
13					Equities, net	-16.2	5.4	-15.3	5.7	0.1	-0.5	-1.5	1.7
14			Gross Purchases of Foreign Securities from U.S. Residents			10726.6	10105.4	10646.8	10409.4	928.3	831.4	910.4	947.5
15			Gross Sales of Foreign Securities to U.S. Residents			10564.7	9918.0	10441.1	10276.6	910.8	830.2	919.3	930.1
16			Foreign Securities Purchased, net (line 14 less line 15) /4			161.9	187.5	205.7	132.8	17.5	1.1	-8.9	17.5
17					Foreign Bonds Purchased, net	276.1	258.7	307.7	214.2	17.0	19.3	0.3	26.7
18					Foreign Equities Purchased, net	-114.2	-71.3	-102.0	-81.4	0.4	-18.2	-9.2	-9.3
19			Net Long-term Securities Transactions (line 3 plus line 16):			317.5	238.8	364.3	242.4	35.8	-14.1	5.9	53.4
20			Other Acquisitions of Long-term Securities, net /5			-277.5	-273.1	-222.7	-271.8	-18.7	-16.6	-5.3	-38.6
21		Net Foreign Acquisition of Long-term Securities
					(lines 19 and 20):	40.0	-34.3	141.6	-29.3	17.1	-30.7	0.6	14.8
22		Increase in Foreign Holdings of Dollar-denominated Short-term
					U.S. Securities and Other Custody Liabilities: /6	85.2	11.5	42.2	20.0	-13.2	24.0	13.2	-13.5
23			U.S. Treasury Bills			53.1	-54.8	35.2	-63.3	0.1	11.1	2.9	-20.2
24				Private, net		51.7	-16.5	67.7	-41.9	-0.3	8.3	0.1	-16.6
25				Official, net		1.4	-38.3	-32.4	-21.4	0.4	2.8	2.8	-3.6
26			Other Negotiable Instruments
					and Selected Other Liabilities: /7	32.1	66.3	6.9	83.3	-13.3	12.9	10.3	6.7
27				Private, net		34.8	65.7	18.0	72.6	-10.6	15.4	5.9	1.5
28				Official, net		-2.6	0.6	-11.1	10.7	-2.7	-2.5	4.4	5.2
29		Change in Banks' Own Net Dollar-denominated Liabilities				-129.7	-128.6	-105.8	-147.7	11.6	-69.6	107.4	18.0
30	Monthly Net TIC Flows (lines 21,22,29) /8					-4.5	-151.4	77.9	-157.1	15.6	-76.3	121.2	19.3
		of which
31			Private, net			187.7	208.9	401.5	163.2	16.9	-91.9	154.9	30.9
32			Official, net			-192.2	-360.3	-323.6	-320.3	-1.3	15.6	-33.8	-11.6
/1			Net foreign purchases of U.S. securities (+)
/2			Includes international and regional organizations
/3			The reported division of net purchases of long-term securities between net purchases by foreign official institutions and net purchases
				of other foreign investors is subject to a "transaction bias" described in Frequently Asked Questions 7 and 10.a.4 on the TIC website.
/4			Net transactions in foreign securities by U.S. residents. Foreign purchases of foreign securities = U.S. sales of foreign securities to foreigners.
				Thus negative entries indicate net U.S. purchases of foreign securities, or an outflow of capital from the United States; positive entries
				indicate net U.S. sales of foreign securities.
/5			Minus estimated unrecorded principal repayments to foreigners on domestic corporate and agency asset-backed securities +
				estimated foreign acquisitions of U.S. equity through stock swaps -
				estimated U.S. acquisitions of foreign equity through stock swaps +
				increase in nonmarketable Treasury Bonds and Notes Issued to Official Institutions and Other Residents of Foreign Countries.
/6			These are primarily data on monthly changes in banks' and broker/dealers' custody liabilities. Data on custody claims are collected
				quarterly and published in the TIC website.
/7			"Selected Other Liabilities" are primarily the foreign liabilities of U.S. customers that are managed by U.S. banks or broker/dealers.
/8			TIC data cover most components of international financial flows, but do not include data on direct investment flows, which are collected
				and published by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. In addition to the monthly data summarized here, the
				TIC collects quarterly data on some banking and nonbanking assets and liabilities. Frequently Asked Question 1 on the TIC website
				describes the scope of TIC data collection.

FULL DOCUMENT: https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/Press%20notice%20TIC%20for%20April%202017.pdf

FED. April 17, 2017. Speech. Monetary Policy Expectations and Surprises. Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer. At the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, New York, New York

I will address the topic of central bank communications, with a particular emphasis on those times when financial markets and the central bank have different expectations about what a central bank decision will be. Such situations lead to surprises and often to market volatility.

Of course, not all surprises are equal. For one, communications that shift or solidify expectations that are diffuse or not strongly held are less likely to be disruptive than communications that run counter to strongly held market beliefs. Further, there are worse things than surprises. The central bank must provide its views regarding the likely evolution of monetary policy, even when this view is not shared by market participants. A concern for surprising the market should not be a constraint on following or communicating the appropriate path of monetary policy. That said, there are good reasons to avoid unintended surprises in the conduct of policy.1

Why should central banks avoid surprising financial markets? In recent decades, it has been increasingly acknowledged that monetary policy implementation relies importantly on the management of market expectations.2 In theory, clarity about the central bank's reaction function--that is, how the central bank adjusts the stance of monetary policy in response to changing economic conditions--allows the market to alter financial conditions smoothly. This typically helps meet the bank's policy targets, with the result that the markets are working in alignment with the policymaker's goals. Under this theory, repeated market surprises that raise questions about the central bank's reaction function could threaten to disrupt the relationship between the central bank and the markets, making the central bank's job more difficult in the future.3

How can the Fed avoid surprising markets? Clear communication of the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC's) views on the economic outlook and the likely evolution of policy is essential in managing the market's expectations. The Committee has a number of communication outlets, including the policy statement, the Chair's news conference, and the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP). The SEP in particular has been useful in providing information on policymakers' assessments of the potential growth rate of the economy and r*, the equilibrium real interest rate, both of which help guide the market's expectations of the eventual path of policy.

However, avoiding unintended market reactions has not always been easy. The example that immediately comes to mind is the taper tantrum of mid-2013. To recap, over the course of May and June in 2013, the yield on 10-year Treasury securities increased almost 1 percentage point amid increased market discussion of the eventual tapering of Fed asset purchases and some key communications on the topic (figure 1).4 In particular, the 10-year yield rose about 10 basis points after then Chairman Bernanke discussed tapering in public for the first time during the question-and-answer session of his Joint Economic Committee testimony on May 22, commenting that the FOMC could reduce the pace of purchases "in the next few meetings" if it saw continued improvement in the labor market that it was confident would be sustained.5 Yields rose even more sharply after the June FOMC meeting, when, during his postmeeting press conference, Chairman Bernanke noted that if the economy evolved as expected, the FOMC anticipated reducing the pace of purchases in the latter part of 2013 and halting purchases altogether by the middle of 2014.6

Information gathering is an important part of managing market expectations--for the simple reason that you do not know if you are going to surprise the market unless you have a good estimate of what the market is expecting. A remarkable feature of the taper tantrum is that it was a surprise that should not have been a surprise, at least from the perspective of the information the FOMC had at the time.

In assessing market expectations for policy, the FOMC reviews a variety of market indicators and also draws heavily on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Survey of Primary Dealers, whose respondents are the market makers in government securities and the New York Fed's trading counterparties. This survey, conducted about one week prior to each FOMC meeting, gauges primary dealers' expectations about the economy, monetary policy, and financial market developments.7

In the June 2013 primary dealer survey, the median expectation was for tapering to start in December 2013, with purchases ending in June 2014, a path not significantly different from that laid out by Chairman Bernanke in his postmeeting press conference. Thus, one could view Chairman Bernanke's remarks during his June 2013 press conference as consistent with "market expectations."

Why did markets react so sharply to the apparent confirmation of the median expectation? One simple possibility is that the median expectation of the primary dealers was not reflective of the median expectation of a wider range of market participants. Respondents to the primary dealer survey are more likely to be Fed watchers and therefore more likely in tune with Fed thinking than the average market participant. For example, as seen in figure 2, a comparison of the June 2013 primary dealer survey with the contemporaneous Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey, which draws from a wider sample of forecasters, reveals that Blue Chip respondents were more likely to expect a later start of tapering and thus more likely to have been surprised by Chairman Bernanke's communications.

In a related argument, former Federal Reserve Board Governor Jeremy Stein gave an insightful speech in May 2014 addressing how diversity in market expectations could have contributed to the taper tantrum.8 Jeremy pointed out that it is unhelpful to view the "market" as a single individual, a theme that has been explored by Hyun Song Shin of the Bank for International Settlements.9 Rather, the market is a collection of agents that can have widely divergent but perhaps strongly held beliefs at the individual level. Jeremy attributes the taper tantrum to the existence of highly leveraged quantitative easing optimists--in other words, individuals who expected the Federal Reserve to continue to accumulate assets much longer than the median expectation and who put little weight on the median market expectation. Once Chairman Bernanke affirmed the median expectation, these optimists had to quickly unwind their trades, with consequent sharp movements in asset prices.

Where does that leave us? The problem, to quote Jeremy at length, "is that in some circumstances there are very real limits to what even the most careful and deliberate communications strategy can do to temper market volatility. This is just the nature of the beast when dealing with speculative markets, and to suggest otherwise--to suggest that, say, 'good communication' alone can engineer a completely smooth exit from a period of extraordinary policy accommodation--is to create an unrealistic expectation."10

Jeremy was speaking about ending the accumulation of assets onto the Fed's balance sheet. As reported in the minutes for the March 2017 meeting, the FOMC is now discussing a different inflection point, the phasing out of reinvestment and the shrinking of the balance sheet.11 Question: How concerned should we be about a repeat of the taper tantrum as we move through this new inflection point?

We should start answering such a question by recognizing that there is always a chance of some market volatility. Nonetheless, we need to take into account that the New York Fed's Open Market Desk enhanced its information-gathering efforts after and, in part, as a response to the experience of the taper tantrum along two important dimensions. First, in 2014, the Desk augmented its Survey of Primary Dealers with a Survey of Market Participants, going some way to addressing concerns that primary dealers alone were not providing sufficient coverage of market beliefs.12 Second, more recently, questions have been added to the surveys to identify uncertainty about reinvestment policy for each individual survey respondent and not just the dispersion of beliefs about the expected change across respondents.

Starting with the market participant survey, as I noted earlier, one informational constraint that complicated the Fed's understanding of market dynamics around the taper tantrum was the possible divergence of beliefs between the primary dealers, who were surveyed, and the market at large. The differences between the expectations of the primary dealers and those of the panel for the Blue Chip Economic Indicators, shown in figure 2, provide some support for the view that the primary dealers' views may well have differed from those of a wider range of market participants, but it would have been preferable to have a poll of market participants rather than forecasters. Not long after the taper tantrum, in January 2014, the Desk began its separate Survey of Market Participants. The survey panel currently consists of 30 so-called buy-side firms, including hedge funds and asset managers.

Turning now to measures of individual uncertainty, in the April 2013 primary dealer survey, just prior to the taper tantrum, dealers were mostly questioned on their point estimates regarding the timing and conditions under which tapering would commence. Respondents were asked to provide their expectation for the monthly pace of asset purchases after each of several upcoming policy meetings. They were also asked to provide point estimates, or estimates of single particular values, for the quarter and year during which they expected asset purchases in Treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities to be completed. While these questions did provide some notion of the variation in beliefs across respondents, they did not provide much information on how strongly these beliefs were held by the individual respondents, nor on the extent to which their individual beliefs might have been reflected in the size of their market positions and, in particular, the amount of leverage underlying those positions.13

In contrast, the most recent primary dealer and market participant surveys, conducted prior to the March 2017 FOMC meeting, asked survey participants to indicate their view of their own uncertainty over several different aspects of policy. For example, in addition to their point estimates, participants were asked to indicate the percent chance they assigned to the federal funds rate being at various levels when the FOMC first announces a change to the reinvestment policy. They were also asked to assign probabilities to different dates for the first announced change in reinvestment policy.

Why is this information important? To go back to Jeremy Stein's argument about the taper tantrum, Jeremy pointed out that market participants' expectations for tapering varied widely, but he conjectured that some of the participants were very certain in their expectations and that it was primarily their reaction that fueled the taper tantrum. When the surveys reported only point estimates, we had a measure of dispersion across market participants, but we were in the dark on how firmly held these beliefs were. By asking participants to provide a distribution of outcomes, we also obtained a measure of how certain they are of a particular outcome.

To highlight some results from the March 2017 surveys, as shown in figure 3, the primary dealers' median projection for the level of the target federal funds rate when the FOMC first announces a change in its reinvestment policy was reported to be 1.63 percent. The 25th percentile of the distribution across respondents was 1.38 percent, and the 75th percentile was 1.88 percent, suggesting a fairly tight range around the median expectation. The reported range was even tighter for the market participants around a median projection of 1.63 percent.

However, it would be a mistake to infer from the narrowness of these ranges a firmness in expectations. As shown in figure 4, when respondents of each survey were asked to indicate the percent chance assigned to different fed funds target levels when the change in policy is announced, the average of all of their reported distributions was wide and flat. The primary dealer survey places roughly equal weight on rates between 1.26 and 2.00 percent. In the underlying nonpublic data for the individual responses, the reported distributions were somewhat narrower but still reflected significant uncertainty, with no primary dealer placing more than 50 percent probability on any particular target range. Like the dealers, the market participants also report wide individual distributions of beliefs.

Likewise, when primary dealers were asked about the timing of the announced change in reinvestment policy, the average of their responses was a relatively flat distribution of possible dates, with almost equal probability on the announcement occurring in the fourth quarter of 2017, the first two quarters of 2018, or the second half of 2018 (figure 5). Again, the individual distributions were narrower but still showed a significant amount of uncertainty. Highlighting the usefulness of also surveying market participants, expectations in the market survey are distinctly shifted toward an early announcement date relative to the expectations of the primary dealers.

The surveys reveal that while beliefs are dispersed across participants, importantly individual survey participants are also significantly uncertain--in other words, any given participant does not appear to have firmly decided on the likely path of policy. The general point is that while we often measure and report differences in views across individuals, the uncertainty that individuals feel internally is also relevant. Recent survey results that show that market participants assign a positive probability to a wide range of outcomes also suggest that the factors that exacerbated the taper tantrum--dispersed but firmly held beliefs--may be less pronounced in current circumstances than they were at the time of the taper tantrum.

The market reaction to the release of the minutes of the March 2017 FOMC meeting supports this interpretation of the interaction of uncertainty and Fed policy communications. The minutes reported that, "provided that the economy continued to perform about as expected, most participants anticipated that gradual increases in the federal funds rate would continue and judged that a change to the Committee's reinvestment policy would likely be appropriate later this year."14 As was shown in figure 5, in the March 2017 surveys, respondents placed the most weight, 71 percent for the primary dealers and 57 percent for the market participants, on an announced change in reinvestment policy not occurring until 2018 at the earliest. Presumably, the April survey will reveal a shift in these distributions.

It is noteworthy, however, that even though the statement in the minutes of the March FOMC meeting regarding Committee members' expectations for announcing changes in the reinvestment policy was not aligned with market expectations, there was only a muted market reaction.15 Perhaps in part, that is because the market participant survey actually revealed a considerable amount of weight, though not the majority, on an announcement occurring this year. Or it is also possible that the diffuse expectations on timing prior to the release of the minutes were a factor in tamping down market volatility as market participants adjust their expectations.16

My tentative conclusion from market responses to the limited amount of discussion of the process of reducing the size of our balance sheet that has taken place so far is that we appear less likely to face major market disturbances now than we did in the case of the taper tantrum. But, of course, as we continue to discuss and eventually implement policies to reduce our balance sheet, we will have to continue to monitor market developments and expectations carefully.

I would like to conclude by briefly discussing two issues. First, a question: Can the Fed be too predictable? And, second, I will add a short comment on the SEP, the quarterly Summary of Economic Projections of the participants in the FOMC.

With regard to whether the Fed can be too predictable, it is hard to argue that predictability in our reaction to economic data could be anything but positive. To reference the beginning of my talk, clarity about the Fed's reaction function allows markets to anticipate Fed actions and smoothly adjust along with the path of policy.

But there is a circumstance where it might be reasonable to argue that the Fed could be too predictable--in particular, if the path of policy is not appropriately responsive to the incoming economic data and the implications for the economic outlook. Standard monetary policy rules suggest that the policy rate should respond to the level of economic variables such as the output gap and the inflation rate. As unexpected shocks hit the economy, the target level of the federal funds rate should adjust in response to those shocks as the FOMC adjusts the stance of policy to achieve its objectives. Indeed, it is these unexpected economic shocks that give rise to the range of uncertainty around the median federal funds rate projection of FOMC participants, represented through fan charts, which was recently incorporated into the SEP. The Federal Reserve could be too predictable if this type of fundamental uncertainty about the economy does not show through to uncertainty about the monetary policy path, which could imply that the Federal Reserve was not being sufficiently responsive to incoming data bearing on the economic outlook.

Let me conclude with a few words on the SEP results as portrayed in the dot plots. The SEP is a highly useful vehicle for providing information to market participants and others for whom Fed actions are important. But we need to remind ourselves that the SEP data for an individual show that person's judgment of the appropriate path of future fed funds rates and the corresponding paths of other variables for which the SEP includes forecasts.

Thus, one may say that the SEP shows the basis from which each participant in the FOMC discussion is likely to start. But the task of moving from that information to an interest rate decision is not simple and requires a great deal of analysis and back-and-forth among FOMC participants at each meeting.

References

• Bernanke, Ben S. (2004). "The Logic of Monetary Policy," speech delivered at the National Economists Club, Washington, December 2.
• -------- (2013a). "Communication and Monetary Policy," speech delivered at the National Economists Club Annual Dinner, Herbert Stein Memorial Lecture, Washington, November 19.
• -------- (2013b). "Statement of Hon. Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC (PDF)," in The Economic Outlook, hearing before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, May 22, Senate Hearing 113-62, 113 Cong. Washington: Government Printing Office.
• -------- (2013c). "Transcript of Chairman Bernanke's Press Conference (PDF)," June 19.
• Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2017). "Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee, March 14-15, 2017," press release, April 5.
• Shin, Hyun Song (2017). "How Much Should We Read into Shifts in Long-Dated Yields?" speech delivered at the U.S. Monetary Policy Forum, New York, March 3.
• Spicer, Jonathan (2017). "Fed Could Promptly Begin Shedding Bonds This Year: Dudley," U.S. News, March 31, http://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2017-03-31/fed-could-begin-trimming-bond-portfolio-this-year-dudley.
• Stein, Jeremy C. (2014). "Challenges for Monetary Policy Communication," speech delivered at the Money Marketeers of New York University, New York, May 6.
• Woodford, Michael (2005). "Central Bank Communication and Policy Effectiveness (PDF)," in The Greenspan Era: Lessons for the Future, proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, held in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Aug. 25-27. Kansas City, Mo.: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pp. 399-474.

1. I am grateful to Joseph Gruber and Don Kim of the Federal Reserve Board for their assistance. The views expressed are mine and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. 
2. Bernanke (2004, 2013a) and Woodford (2005) underscore how central bank efforts to shape market expectations can enhance policy effectiveness. The critical role of market expectations in determining asset prices and reactions to policy changes has long been recognized; it is the explicit recognition of this link in formal models and the analysis of policy that is the recent major achievement. 
3. Historically, there have been times when central banks have preferred to surprise markets--most notably, when changing the value of exchange rate pegs during the era of fixed exchanges. Indicating that a change in the peg was coming would invite an immediate run on the currency, at a significant cost to the central bank's foreign reserves--even in economies with extensive capital controls. 
4. Also notably, Eurodollar futures rates and OIS (overnight index swap) forward rates for intermediate horizons rose sharply, likely in part because some investors who were surprised by the tapering news also revised their expectations about the path of the policy rate. 
5. See Bernanke (2013b), p. 11. 
6. See Bernanke (2013c). 
7. The responses to the survey are received by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Markets Group typically by the penultimate Monday before the FOMC meeting. At the time of the taper tantrum, there were 21 primary dealer participants. Currently, there are 23 primary dealers. Past survey results can be found on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's website at https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/primarydealer_survey_questions.html. 
8. See Stein (2014). 
9. For a recent example, see Shin (2017). Shin suggests using caution when extrapolating "market" expectations from movements in asset prices, pointing to examples where technical factors likely complicate the interaction of market participants' actions relative to their expectations. 
10. See Stein (2014), paragraph 12. 
11. See Board of Governors (2017). 
12. Past market participant surveys can be found on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's website at https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/survey_market_participants.html. 
13. Participants in the April 2013 survey were asked for their probability distribution across the total holdings of the System Open Market Account portfolio at year-end 2013 and year-end 2014, providing some, though incomplete, indication of the extent of uncertainty among market participants. 
14. See Board of Governors (2017), p. 3. 
15. The immediate reaction in yields was a slight rise, but the action quickly reversed, and yields ended the afternoon down 3 to 4 basis points. 
16. Of note, Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley's comments on March 31, mentioning "sometime later this year or sometime in 2018" (as quoted in Spicer (2017), paragraph 2)) for the timing of a reinvestment policy change, may also have been a factor behind the muted market reaction to the March FOMC minutes. 

FULL TEXT: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/files/fischer20170417a.pdf

FED. 04/17/2017. Industrial Production 

Industrial production increased 0.5 percent in March after moving up 0.1 percent in February. The increase in March was more than accounted for by a jump of 8.6 percent in the output of utilities—the largest in the history of the index—as the demand for heating returned to seasonal norms after being suppressed by unusually warm weather in February. Manufacturing output fell 0.4 percent in March, led by a large step-down in the production of motor vehicles and parts; factory output aside from motor vehicles and parts moved down 0.2 percent. The production at mines edged up 0.1 percent. For the first quarter as a whole, industrial production rose at an annual rate of 1.5 percent. At 104.1 percent of its 2012 average, total industrial production in March was 1.5 percent above its year-earlier level. Capacity utilization for the industrial sector increased 0.4 percentage point in March to 76.1 percent, a rate that is 3.8 percentage points below its long-run (1972–2016) average.

Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization: Summary

Seasonally adjusted

Industrial production	2012=100						Percent change
	2016			2017			2016			2017			Mar. '16 to Mar. '17
	Oct.[r]	Nov.[r]	Dec.[r]	Jan.[r]	Feb.[r]	Mar.[p]	Oct.[r]	Nov.[r]	Dec.[r]	Jan.[r]	Feb.[r]	Mar.[p]
Total index	103.2	103.0	103.8	103.5	103.5	104.1	.2	-.2	.8	-.3	.1	.5	1.5
Previous estimates	103.2	103.0	103.8	103.6	103.7		.2	-.2	.7	-.1	.1
Major market groups
Final Products	100.5	99.8	101.1	100.4	100.0	100.8	.0	-.6	1.3	-.7	-.4	.8	1.3
Consumer goods	104.7	103.7	105.2	104.0	103.3	104.6	-.1	-1.0	1.4	-1.1	-.7	1.2	1.2
Business equipment	99.0	98.9	99.8	99.8	99.9	99.5	.3	-.1	.9	.0	.1	-.4	.7
Nonindustrial supplies	104.2	104.6	104.9	104.9	105.3	105.8	.0	.4	.2	.0	.4	.4	1.8
Construction	108.2	109.3	109.0	110.6	112.2	111.3	.6	1.0	-.3	1.4	1.4	-.8	2.3
Materials	104.8	104.7	105.3	105.3	105.6	106.0	.4	.0	.5	.0	.4	.4	1.7
Major industry groups
Manufacturing (see note below)	102.2	102.4	102.6	103.0	103.3	102.9	.2	.2	.2	.4	.3	-.4	.8
Previous estimates	102.2	102.4	102.5	103.1	103.6		.2	.2	.1	.6	.5
Mining	102.3	102.3	101.8	103.1	106.1	106.2	2.0	.0	-.5	1.3	2.9	.1	2.9
Utilities	102.7	99.3	106.1	99.0	93.2	101.3	-1.9	-3.2	6.9	-6.8	-5.8	8.6	4.6

Capacity utilization	Percent of capacity												Capacity growth
	Average 1972- 2016	1988- 89 high	1990- 91 low	1994- 95 high	2009 low	2016 Mar.
							2016			2017			Mar. '16 to Mar. '17
							Oct.[r]	Nov.[r]	Dec.[r]	Jan.[r]	Feb.[r]	Mar.[p]
Total industry	79.9	85.2	78.8	85.0	66.7	75.4	75.7	75.5	76.0	75.7	75.7	76.1	.6
Previous estimates							75.8	75.6	76.0	75.9	75.9
Manufacturing (see note below)	78.4	85.6	77.3	84.6	63.7	75.2	75.0	75.1	75.2	75.4	75.6	75.3	.7
Previous estimates							75.0	75.1	75.1	75.5	75.8
Mining	87.0	86.1	83.8	88.6	78.4	78.4	79.4	79.4	79.0	79.8	82.0	81.9	-1.6
Utilities	85.6	93.2	84.7	93.2	78.1	73.7	77.1	74.5	79.5	74.0	69.7	75.7	1.9
Stage-of-process groups
Crude	86.1	87.7	84.5	90.1	76.3	78.6	79.4	80.0	79.6	80.2	81.5	81.5	-1.0
Primary and semifinished	80.5	86.5	78.1	87.8	63.8	74.6	75.2	74.8	75.9	75.0	74.6	75.6	1.0
Finished	76.9	83.4	77.3	80.6	66.7	75.1	74.8	74.6	74.9	74.9	74.8	74.6	.7

r Revised. p Preliminary.

Market Groups

In March, the jump in the output of utilities contributed substantially to gains in the indexes for consumer goods, business supplies, and materials through their energy components. Among the non-energy market groups, consumer durables posted a decline of 1.7 percent as a result of large decreases for automotive products and for appliances, furniture, and carpeting. The output of consumer non-energy nondurables moved up 0.2 percent, with gains in chemical products and paper products partly offset by losses in foods and tobacco and in clothing. Despite an increase for information processing equipment, decreases for transit equipment and for industrial and other equipment caused the index for business equipment to decline 0.4 percent. The output of defense and space equipment slipped 0.2 percent. The indexes for construction supplies and non-energy business supplies moved down 0.8 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively. As a result of large increases in the previous months, the output of construction supplies rose at an annual rate of 9.5 percent for the first quarter; the index for non-energy business supplies rose 2.1 percent. The production of non-energy materials declined 0.6 percent in March, with losses in most of its components.

Industry Groups

Manufacturing output decreased 0.4 percent in March, and the gains in January and February are now reported to have been smaller than stated earlier. The decline in the manufacturing index in March was its first loss since August 2016; nevertheless, factory output increased at an annual rate of 2.7 percent in the first quarter. The production of durables moved down 0.8 percent in March. Among its major components, only computer and electronic products registered an increase, about 1 percent, and motor vehicles and parts recorded the largest decrease, 3.0 percent. The index for nondurables edged up, as gains in petroleum and coal products, in chemicals, and in paper products offset losses elsewhere. The output of other manufacturing (publishing and logging) fell 0.4 percent.

Mining output edged up 0.1 percent in March, with continuing gains in oil and gas extraction and in drilling and support activities slightly outweighing large decreases in coal mining and in nonmetallic mineral mining. After advancing 6.6 percent at an annual rate in the fourth quarter, the index for mining jumped 12.1 percent in the first quarter.

Capacity utilization for manufacturing fell 0.3 percentage point in March to 75.3 percent, a rate that is 3.1 percentage points below its long-run average. The operating rate for durables declined 0.7 percentage point, to 74.6 percent, and was 2.3 percentage points below its long-run average. The rates for nondurables and for other manufacturing (publishing and logging), little changed in March at 77.0 percent and 63.6 percent, respectively, remained substantially below their long-run averages. Utilization for mining edged down 0.1 percentage point to 81.9 percent, and the rate for utilities jumped 6.0 percentage points to 75.7 percent. 

Introduction of Reliability Estimates for Industrial Production Indexes

With the current monthly G.17 statistical release, the Federal Reserve Board began publishing estimates of the reliability of the levels and the rates of change (monthly and quarterly) of the reported production indexes for total industry, manufacturing, mining, and utilities. The reliability estimates are designed to give data users a sense of the typical range into which a statistic will likely end up after its final (fifth) revision in a monthly release. The reliability estimates are based on the revision history for the indexes back to 2008; each G.17 release will include estimates for those months and quarters for which either new or updated estimates were issued that month. A detailed explanation is available on the Board's website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/revisions/Current/DefaultRev.htm.

The reliability estimates are issued in table 15 of the G.17 release, available on the Board's website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm. A text file that contains the estimates is also available on the Federal Reserve's website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/ipdisk/revh_sa.txt.

Revision of Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization

The Federal Reserve Board issued its annual revision to the index of industrial production (IP) and the related measures of capacity utilization on March 31, 2017. New annual benchmark data for 2015 for manufacturing were incorporated, as well as other annual data, including information on the mining of metallic and nonmetallic minerals (except fuels). The updated IP indexes included revisions to the monthly indicator (either product data or input data) and to seasonal factors for each industry. In addition, the estimation methods for some series were changed. Modifications to the methods for estimating the output of an industry affected the index from 1972 to the present.

Capacity and capacity utilization were revised to incorporate data through the fourth quarter of 2016 from the U.S. Census Bureau's Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity along with new data on capacity from the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other organizations.


Note. The statistics in this release cover output, capacity, and capacity utilization in the U.S. industrial sector, which is defined by the Federal Reserve to comprise manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities. Mining is defined as all industries in sector 21 of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS); electric and gas utilities are those in NAICS sectors 2211 and 2212. Manufacturing comprises NAICS manufacturing industries (sector 31-33) plus the logging industry and the newspaper, periodical, book, and directory publishing industries. Logging and publishing are classified elsewhere in NAICS (under agriculture and information respectively), but historically they were considered to be manufacturing and were included in the industrial sector under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. In December 2002 the Federal Reserve reclassified all its industrial output data from the SIC system to NAICS.

FULL DOCUMENT: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/g17.pdf

________________

CANADA ECONOMICS

GLOBAL AFFAIRS. April 13, 2017. Reminder – International Trade Minister to lead a lumber mission on his first official visit to China

The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Canada’s Minister of International Trade, will conduct his first official visit to China, from April 21 to 26, 2017. With a priority emphasis on growing Canadian wood exports to China, the Minister will be accompanied on his visit by representatives of the ‎wood and forest industry from Canada in order to diversify their markets, as well as by representatives of key government agencies, including Export Development Canada and the Canadian Commercial Corporation.

The Government of Canada is committed to strengthening commercial ties with China in order to open new opportunities for Canadian companies of all sizes, which can lead to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians and Canada’s middle class.

While in China, Minister Champagne will meet with Chinese government and business leaders, including woman entrepreneurs, to discuss ways to expand the bilateral relationship, increase connections between Canadian and Chinese business communities and promote tourism.

In particular, the Minister will focus on promoting the use of Canadian wood and wood products in China. In the company of Canadian wood sector representatives, Minister Champagne will engage with Chinese influencers and industry leaders—including ministerial counterparts, importers and buyers of wood products, forest sector investors and representatives of Canada Wood Group—to showcase the high quality of Canadian lumber, pulp and innovative wood-building systems. As well, he will underscore Canada’s innovation and leadership in the modernization of mass-timber construction and the reliable supply of legal and environmentally responsible forest products.

On April 23, Minister Champagne will lead the Canadian delegation at the 2017 China Green Companies Summit in Zhengzhou, where he will focus on best practices in corporate governance and sustainability and will participate in the Canadian panel session organized by the Canada China Business Council.

On April 25, Minister Champagne will join Finance Minister Bill Morneau to co-chair the launch of the Canada-China Economic and Financial Strategic Dialogue in Beijing, a key commitment made during the reciprocal official visits of the two countries’ leaders.

Minister Duclos will also be traveling to the United Kingdom on April 23, and will engage with forest product importers to support the Canadian industry.

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, will travel to Vietnam, Singapore and Brunei, from April 22 to 28, to further explore opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region for Canadian exporters in the forest industry.

Before leaving Canada, on April 20, Minister Champagne will lead a green-sector round table in Montréal with local Canadian business representatives, regarding Canada-China trade. This is part of the Government of Canada’s ongoing public consultations regarding a possible Canada-China free-trade agreement.

Quotes

“Expanding trade with large, fast-growing markets is a priority for the Government of Canada since so many jobs in Canada are tied to our open, export-oriented economy. As the world’s second-largest economy, China presents many new opportunities to increase and diversify Canadian exports, including in the wood sector.

“The Canada-China relationship is vast and dynamic and provides new opportunities for our businesses, which will translate into growth, well-paying jobs and opportunities for our middle class.”

- François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of International Trade

Quick facts

• Canada’s bilateral trade with China reached a value of $85 billion in 2016, and Canada and China’s two-way foreign direct investment reached $33 billion at the end of 2015.
• Canada’s merchandise exports to China in 2016 were worth $21 billion, up 4 percent over 2015, with the top exports being forest products, agricultural products, ores and motor vehicles.
• Canadians of Chinese descent make up approximately 4.5 percent of Canada’s population.
• Approximately 118,000 Chinese students are studying in Canada, making them the largest group of international students on Canadian campuses.
• China is an important tourism market for Canada. More than 610,000 Chinese tourists visited Canada in 2016. China is Canada’s third-largest source of tourists.

________________

IMF. 04/18/2017. WORLD ECONOMIC OUTLOOK. World Economic Outlook, April 2017: Gaining Momentum?

Global economic activity is picking up with a long-awaited cyclical recovery in investment, manufacturing, and trade, according to Chapter 1 of this World Economic Outlook. World growth is expected to rise from 3.1 percent in 2016 to 3.5 percent in 2017 and 3.6 percent in 2018. Stronger activity, expectations of more robust global demand, reduced deflationary pressures, and optimistic financial markets are all upside developments. But structural impediments to a stronger recovery and a balance of risks that remains tilted to the downside, especially over the medium term, remain important challenges. Chapter 2 examines how changes in external conditions may affect the pace of income convergence between advanced and emerging market and developing economies. Chapter 3 looks at the trend in the declining share of income that goes to labor and the root causes. Overall, this report stresses the need for credible strategies in advanced economies and emerging market and developing ones to tackle a number of common challenges in an integrated global economy.

FULL DOCUMENT: http://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WEO/2017/April/pdf/text.ashx?la=en

FMI. PORTAL G1. 18/04/2017. FMI eleva previsão de crescimento do PIB do Brasil em 2018, mas condiciona retomada a reformas. Para o órgão, perspectivas macroeconômicas do país estão submetidas a "ambiciosas reformas estruturais de caráter econômico e fiscal".
Por Agencia EFE

O Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) estima que neste ano o Brasil sairá da recessão ao crescer 0,2%, e que em 2018, a economia do país terá um desempenho ainda melhor, com elevação de 1,7%, ante previsão de 1,5% em janeiro.
No relatório "Perspectivas Econômicas Globais" divulgado nesta terça-feira, o FMI aponta que a melhora da situação do Brasil é fruto de "uma menor incerteza política, a distensão da política monetária e o avanço do programa de reforma".
Mas o FMI também advertiu que, no final de 2016, "o investimento e o PIB ainda não tinham chegado ao ponto mais baixo" e que em alguns dos estados do país" a crise fiscal continua se aprofundando".
Além disso, o FMI constatou que "a inflação continua surpreendendo por seu baixo nível, o que aumenta as perspectivas de aceleração da expansão monetária".
"Prevê-se que o crescimento se recupere gradualmente e se mantenha moderado. Com este pano de fundo, as perspectivas macroeconômicas do Brasil estão submetidas à implementação de ambiciosas reformas estruturais de caráter econômico e fiscal", acrescenta o relatório.
O FMI recomendou "reformas que abordem as obrigações de gastos insustentáveis, entre outras no sistema de previdência social" e a adoção de "medidas que consigam uma redução do déficit fiscal no início do período".
Neste ano, o FMI prevê para o Brasil uma inflação de 4,4%, e para 2018, de 4,3%. Já o índice de desemprego, segundo as estimativas do órgão, subirá para 12,1% em 2017 e cairá para 11,6% em 2018.

FMI. REUTERS. 18/04/2017. Brasil crescerá menos que a média da América do Sul em 2017 e 2018, diz FMI

SÃO PAULO (Reuters) - O Brasil crescerá menos do que a média dos países da América do Sul em 2017 e em 2018, com desempenho apenas melhor do que a Venezuela e o Equador, países que vêm sofrendo fortemente com a queda nos preços do petróleo.

O cálculo é do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI), que manteve a projeção de expansão de apenas 0,2 por cento para o Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) brasileiro neste ano, depois de dois anos seguidos de recessão, e melhorou a expectativa de 2018 para 1,7 por cento, ante 1,5 por cento previstos em janeiro.

No período, a América do Sul deve crescer 0,6 e 1,8 por cento, respectivamente, mostrou o FMI nesta terça-feira ao divulgar seu relatório "Perspectiva Econômica Global". Na região, o Brasil só ganha da Venezuela e do Equador, que deverão ver suas economias encolhendo 7,4 e 1,6 por cento neste ano, respectivamente. O melhor desempenho deve vir da Bolívia, com crescimento de 4 por cento em 2017.

Quando se olha para a América Latina toda, o crescimento médio calculado pelo FMI deve ser de 1,1 e 2 por cento em 2017 e 2018, com destaque para o México, cujo PIB deve ter expansão de 1,7 e 2 por cento, respectivamente.

"No Brasil, o ritmo de contração diminuiu, mas o investimento e a produção ainda estavam começando a sair do fundo do poço no fim de 2016", informou o FMI no relatório.

O crescimento do Brasil em 2017 também será inferior ao das economias emergentes, cuja alta esperada é de 4,5 por cento.

Ao esperar recuperação gradual para a economia brasileira neste e no próximo ano, o FMI considera fundamental a realização de "ambiciosas" reformas econômicas e fiscal.

"Para reforçar a consolidação fiscal no médio prazo, as reformas deveriam incidir sobre as despesas insustentáveis, incluindo o sistema de seguridade social, mas também devem ser adotadas medidas para conseguir redução mais direta do déficit orçamentário", informou o FMI no relatório.

O FMI também destacou a necessidade de reformas que possam impulsionar o crescimento potencial do Brasil e que poderiam melhorar a qualidade de vida da população, após a longa recessão enfrentada pelo país.

A estimativa do FMI para o PIB brasileiro é mais pessimista do que a apurada pelo relatório Focus do Banco Central, que ouve semanalmente uma centena de economistas e indica avanço de 0,4 por cento em 2017 e de 2,5 por cento para 2018.

Para a economia global, o FMI estima crescimento de 3,5 por cento em 2017 e de 3,6 por cento no ano que vem.

(Por Luiz Guilherme Gerbelli)

________________

BACEN. 18/04/2017. O Banco Central divulgou as Notas da 206ª reunião do Copom, realizada nos dias  11 e 12 de abril de 2017.

DOCUMENTO: http://www.bcb.gov.br/htms/copom/not20170412206.pdf

BACEN. REUTERS. 18/04/2017. BC chegou a avaliar corte maior nos juros, mostra ata do Copom

BRASÍLIA (Reuters) - Os membros do Comitê de Política Monetária (Copom) do Banco Central chegaram a discutir que a conjuntura econômica já permitiria corte maior na Selic do que o adotado na semana passada, mas acabaram optando por uma redução mais modesta em função do cenário de incertezas e riscos, segundo ata do Copom divulgada nesta terça-feira.

"Os membros do Copom também argumentaram que, dado o caráter prospectivo da condução da política monetária, a continuidade das incertezas e dos fatores de risco que ainda pairam sobre a economia tornaria mais adequada a manutenção do ritmo imprimido nessa reunião", informou o BC no documento.

Na quarta-feira passada, o BC cortou a Selic em 1 ponto percentual, a 11,25 por cento ao ano, acelerando o passo em linha com o esperado pelo mercado em meio ao cenário de desinflação e fraqueza da economia. Até então, havia feito dois cortes de 0,25 ponto cada e outros dois de 0,75 ponto.

(Por Marcela Ayres)

BACEN. REUTERS. 18/04/2017. BC chegou a avaliar corte maior nos juros, mostra ata do Copom
Por Marcela Ayres

BRASÍLIA (Reuters) - O Banco Central chegou a discutir que a conjuntura econômica já permitiria corte maior na Selic do que o adotado na semana passada, mas acabou optando por redução mais modesta em função do cenário de incertezas e riscos, segundo ata do Comitê de Política Monetária (Copom) divulgada nesta terça-feira.

"Os membros do Copom também argumentaram que, dado o caráter prospectivo da condução da política monetária, a continuidade das incertezas e dos fatores de risco que ainda pairam sobre a economia tornaria mais adequada a manutenção do ritmo imprimido nessa reunião", acrescentou.

Na quarta-feira passada, o BC cortou a Selic em 1 ponto percentual, acelerando o passo de redução dos juros em linha com o esperado pelo mercado em meio ao cenário de desinflação e fraqueza da economia. Até então, havia feito dois cortes de 0,25 ponto cada e outros dois de 0,75 ponto.

A quinta tesourada veio acompanhada da avaliação de que o comitê considera adequado o atual ritmo de corte de 1 ponto, mas que "a atual conjuntura econômica recomenda monitorar a evolução dos determinantes do grau de antecipação do ciclo".

O BC repetiu a mensagem pela ata, também reforçando que o ritmo de flexibilização dependerá da extensão do ciclo pretendido e do grau de sua antecipação, que por sua vez dependerá da evolução da atividade econômica, dos demais fatores de risco e das projeções e expectativas de inflação para 2018 e 2019. Entre os fatores de risco, o BC incluiu o avanço das reformas, principalmente de cunho fiscal.

"Há um temor em dar sinais de que vai antecipar muito o ciclo e o mercado precificar a Selic abaixo de 8,5 por cento, e com isso piorar as expectativas de inflação", disse o economista-chefe Votorantim Corretora, Roberto Padovani. "O BC não acelerou o ritmo porque aparentemente não está tão confortável com a trajetória de inflação no médio prazo".

O BC informou ainda haver pequena melhora na perspectiva de retomada em relação à leitura feita pelo Copom na reunião de fevereiro. Mas ressaltou que os desafios nesse processo permanecem e que a recuperação econômica ao longo do ano deverá ser gradual.

Analistas veem expansão do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) de 0,4 por cento em 2017 conforme pesquisa Focus mais recente, avanço mais tímido que a estimativa oficial de 0,5 por cento do governo. Já para 2018, as projeções tanto da equipe econômica quanto do mercado são de crescimento de 2,5 por cento do PIB.

Segundo o mesmo boletim Focus, a avaliação majoritária era de que o BC cortará novamente os juros em 1 ponto percentual na próxima reunião do Copom, em maio, diante das expectativas cadentes para a inflação e de projeções modestas para a recuperação da economia.

A perspectiva do mercado para a inflação em 2017 medida pelo IPCA caiu a 4,06 por cento. Para o ano que vem, recuou a 4,39 por cento.

Nos dois casos, os números seguem abaixo do centro da meta de inflação, que é de 4,5 por cento, com margem de 1,5 ponto percentual tanto para 2017 quanto para 2018.

A respeito da trajetória de inflação, o BC comentou na ata que a consolidação da desinflação no setor de serviços "aumenta a confiança de que a desinflação corrente terá efeitos duradouros".

(Por Marcela Ayres)

BACEN. PORTAL G1. 18/04/2017. BC vê inflação na meta e indica que juro pode cair para 8,5% ao ano no fim de 2017. Autoridade monetária diz que atual ritmo de corte, de 1 ponto percentual, é adequado, mas não descarta acelerar o passo e promover reduções maiores nos juros.
Por Alexandro Martello, G1, Brasília

O Comitê de Política Monetária (Copom) informou que está prevendo a inflação na meta tanto neste ano quanto no próximo mesmo se a taxa de juros, atualmente em 11,25% ao ano, recuar para 8,5% ao ano no fechamento de 2017. A informação consta na ata da última reunião do Copom, realizada na semana passada, e divulgada nesta terça-feira (18).
Para este ano, a estimativa de inflação do BC, com os juros estimados pelo mercado (8,5% ao ano no fim de 2017) está em 4,1% e, para 2018, em 4,5%. A meta central de inflação para estes dois anos, com base no IPCA, é de 4,5%, mas o teto é de 6%. O mesmo cenário pressupõe taxa de câmbio de R$ 3,23 no fechamento deste ano e de R$ 3,37 no fim de 2018.
"Os membros do Comitê reafirmaram o entendimento de que, com expectativas de inflação ancoradas, projeções de inflação em torno da meta para 2018 e um pouco abaixo da meta para 2017, e elevado grau de ociosidade na economia, o cenário básico do Copom prescreve antecipação do ciclo de distensão da política monetária [corte da taxa de juros]", informou o BC na ata do Copom.
Sobre o ritmo de redução da taxa de juros até o fim deste ano, a autoridade monetária informou que isso dependerá da evolução da atividade econômica, de outros fatores de risco (como a aprovação das reformas e de ajustes na economia brasileira, entre outros).
Acrescentou que considera o atual ritmo de redução dos juros, de 1 ponto percentual - que foi adotado na semana passada - como "adequado". Mas acrescentou que a "atual conjuntura econômica recomenda monitorar a evolução dos determinantes do grau de antecipação do ciclo", ou seja, não descartou a possibilidade de cortar os juros mais rapidamente nos próximos meses.
O mercado financeiro acredita que os juros cairão para 10,25% ao ano no final de maio, para 9,5% ao ano em julho, para 9% ao ano no início de setembro, para 8,75% ao ano em outubro e, na última reunião deste ano, em dezembro, para 8,5% ao ano.
O Comitê de Política Monetária também deu informações sobre a possibilidade de continuar a cortar os juros em 2018. Até o momento, o mercado financeiro acredita que, depois de os juros chegarem a 8,5% ao ano no fim de 2017, a taxa será mantida neste patamar no ano que vem.
Segundo o BC, a "extensão" do ciclo de corte de juros em 2018 dependerá da evolução da atividade econômica, dos demais fatores de risco e das projeções e expectativas de inflação para 2018 e 2019, mas também das estimativas da taxa de juros estrutural da economia brasileira.
"Essas estimativas naturalmente envolvem incerteza e poderão ser reavaliadas pelo Comitê ao longo do tempo", informou a instituição.
Inflação e PIB
Os integrantes do Copom (diretoria e presidente do BC) concordaram que as perspectivas para a inflação evoluíram de maneira favorável e, em boa parte, em linha com o esperado desde a reunião do Copom em fevereiro.
"A dinâmica da inflação permanece favorável. O processo de desinflação se difundiu e houve consolidação da desinflação nos componentes mais sensíveis ao ciclo econômico e à política monetária. Isso aumenta a confiança de que a desinflação corrente terá efeitos duradouros. A desinflação dos preços de alimentos constitui choque de oferta favorável", acrescentou.
Ao mesmo tempo, também avaliaram que a "economia segue operando com alto nível de ociosidade dos fatores de produção, refletido nos baixos índices de utilização da capacidade da indústria e, principalmente, na taxa de desemprego".

BACEN. REUTERS. 18/04/2017. Ilan estima que inflação chegará ao nível mais fraco no 3º tri
REUTERS/Ueslei Marcelino

SÃO PAULO (Reuters) - O presidente do Banco Central, Ilan Goldfajn, destacou nesta terça-feira a evolução favorável da inflação no Brasil, estimando que ela chegará ao seu nível mais baixo no terceiro trimestre.

Ao participar de evento em São Paulo, Ilan projetou que a alta dos preços retomará força nos últimos meses do ano, porém ainda terminará 2017 abaixo do centro da meta do governo, de 4,5 por cento pelo IPCA.

Em março, o IPCA desacelerou a alta a 0,25 por cento ante o mês anterior, acumulando em 12 meses avanço de 4,57 por cento, nível mais fraco desde agosto de 2010.

Segundo Ilan, a inflação enfrentará alguma volatilidade em abril e maio devido ao impacto dos encargos provenientes da usina Angra III, mas isso não afetará o resultado em 12 meses.

"Essa ida e volta da inflação mexe muito com indicadores mensais, mas não mexe para o ano nem para a política monetária", disse ele.

Ilan enfatizou o fato de as expectativas de inflação estarem ancoradas neste momento, o que, junto ao elevado grau de ociosidade da economia, traz um cenário para o Comitê de Política Monetária (Copom) do BC de antecipação do ciclo de afrouxamento monetário.

O BC cortou a Selic em 1 ponto percentual na quarta-feira passada, acelerando o passo. A ata desse encontro divulgada nesta terça-feira mostrou que os membros chegaram a discutir que a conjuntura econômica já permitiria corte maior na taxa básica de juros, mas acabou optando por redução mais modesta em função do cenário de incertezas e riscos.

O presidente do BC voltou a destacar o cenário de incerteza externa dando como exemplo a saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia e as eleições presidenciais na França. Mas afirmou que o Brasil tem se beneficiado de uma recuperação econômica cíclica externa e que a agenda de reformas internas também é favorável.

"A política econômica doméstica mudou de direção, as reformas já mostram resultados positivos", afirmou, destacando que o risco-Brasil diminuiu.

Porém, ele lembrou que a aprovação e a implementação das reformas, notadamente as de cunho fiscal, também trazem um cenário de incertezas.

FIESP. 18/04/2017. INDÚSTRIA PAULISTA GERA 13,5 MIL VAGAS NO 1º TRIMESTRE DO ANO. Março apresentou variação positiva de 0,45%, com criação de 9,5 mil postos de trabalho
Cristina Carvalho, Agência Indusnet Fiesp

O nível de emprego da indústria paulista apresentou variação positiva de 0,45% em março, com a geração de 9,5 mil postos de trabalho, sem ajuste sazonal. Com ajuste, há recuo de 0,12%. Os dados são da Pesquisa de Nível de Emprego do Estado de São Paulo, feita pelo Departamento de Pesquisas e Estudos Econômicos da Fiesp e do Ciesp (Depecon) e divulgada nesta terça-feira (18 de abril).

O resultado positivo, registrado após um mês de quedas, foi influenciado principalmente pelo setor de açúcar e álcool, que está aquecido por conta do período de safra agrícola. Com os dados apresentados, o primeiro trimestre do ano acumula saldo positivo de 13,5 mil vagas na indústria paulista (o equivalente à variação de 0,62%). No ano passado, esta variação foi de -1,33% no período de janeiro a março/16.

De acordo com o gerente do Depecon Guilherme Moreira, o emprego industrial aponta para a estabilidade neste ano. “ O resultado positivo de março mais que compensou a queda verificada em fevereiro. Essas oscilações são normais e mostram que o emprego tende a se estabilizar”, detalha Moreira.

Setores e regiões

Entre os 22 setores acompanhados pela pesquisa para o mês de março, 8 ficaram positivos, 12 negativos e 2 permaneceram estáveis. Entre os positivos, o destaque fica por conta do segmento de coque, petróleo e biocombustíveis (7,31%) e produtos alimentícios (2,47%). Do lado negativo, o segmento que mais demitiu foi o de produtos diversos (-1,82%) e o de impressão e reprodução de gravações (-0,98%).

A pesquisa apura também a situação de emprego para as grandes regiões do Estado de São Paulo e em 36 Diretorias Regionais do Ciesp. Por grande região, a variação no mês ficou positiva no Estado de São Paulo (0,45%) e no interior paulista (0,82%). Na Grande São Paulo, houve recuo de 0,53%.

O dado positivo foi percebido também em 16 diretorias regionais. Em Piracicaba (3,13%), o resultado foi influenciado pelo setor de produtos alimentícios (11,47%) e máquinas e equipamentos (1,30%), em Jaú (2,98%), por produtos alimentícios (6,41%) e artefatos de couro e calçados (3,09%), e em Limeira (2,56%), por produtos diversos (15,63%) e coque, petróleo e biocombustíveis (8,09%).

Já as variações mais negativas foram registradas em Botucatu (-1,58%), influenciada por produtos de metal (-40,00%); Santa Barbara D’Oeste (-1,54%), no rastro de produtos de metal (-7,21%) e de produtos de borracha e plástico (-5,20%); Sorocaba (-1,49%), seguido por máquinas e equipamentos (-16,74%) e produtos de metal (-5,21%).

DOCUMENTO: http://www.fiesp.com.br/indices-pesquisas-e-publicacoes/nivel-de-emprego/

BOA VISTA SERVIÇOS DE CONSULTORIA. SPC-BRASIL. 18/04/2017. Apenas 16% dos consumidores das classes C, D e E conseguiram poupar em fevereiro, mostra SPC Brasil e CNDL. Entre os poupadores, média geral reservada foi de R$ 414. 48% precisaram utilizar parte da reserva financeira

Com o Brasil ainda em recessão, os consumidores ainda não estão conseguindo poupar dinheiro em 2017. O Indicador de Reserva Financeira, calculado pelo Serviço de Proteção ao Crédito (SPC Brasil) e pela Confederação Nacional de Dirigentes Lojistas (CNDL) mostra que 20% dos consumidores guardaram alguma quantia em fevereiro – dentre as classes A e B essa proporção foi maior, de 34%. Já nas classes C, D e E, apenas 16% conseguiram poupar.

O Indicador mostra que a quantidade de consumidores que dizem não ter guardado compõe a grande maioria: nas classes A e B, 62% não conseguiram poupar em fevereiro. Quando se considera as classes C, D e E, o número sobe para 78%. No total, 74% não conseguiram poupar – no mês anterior, o percentual fora de 80%, uma diferença de 6 pontos percentuais.

Em média, aqueles que conseguiram poupar guardaram R$ 414 em fevereiro, sendo que, os consumidores das classes A e B pouparam, em média, R$ 588 enquanto os das classes C, D e E pouparam R$ 323. “A significante diferença entre os estratos de renda reflete o fato de que, entre os que ganham menos, os gastos básicos tomam uma parte maior orçamento, deixando pouca margem para a poupança”, explica Roque Pellizzaro, presidente do SPC Brasil.

Renda baixa é principal motivo para não poupar

Entre os consumidores que não pouparam em fevereiro, a principal justificativa foi a renda baixa, mencionada por 46% dos entrevistados. Os imprevistos também se destacaram, citados por 13% e outros 13% disseram estar sem renda no momento. Além destes motivos, 8% citaram o fato de não conseguirem controlar os gastos; 7% a falta de disciplina e 4% disseram que gostam de aproveitar o presente e que guardar dinheiro não é sua prioridade.

“A renda é, de fato, algo que limita a capacidade de poupança do brasileiro, mas o valor a ser poupado não precisa ser elevado”, afirma a economista-chefe do SPC Brasil, Marcela Kawauti. “Aos consumidores de menor renda, mais importante que o valor poupado é o hábito de poupar, que inibe o mau comportamento de gastar mais do que se ganha”, diz Kawauti, “Por outro lado, a mencionada falta de controle e disciplina, bem como a imprevidência com relação ao futuro, são comportamentos que podem trazer graves consequências para a vida financeira”, completa. Para a economista, a constituição de uma reserva financeira é garantia contra imprevistos, além de um meio para a realização de planos de consumo. “O consumidor que, nesses casos, não pode se valer de recursos próprios, tem de recorrer a bancos e instituições financeiras, arcando com juros geralmente bastante elevados.”

Entre os entrevistados que dizem poupar habitualmente, a maior parte (33%) se diz motivada por imprevistos como doenças, mortes e problemas diversos. Há também 28% que falam em garantir um futuro melhor para a família e 26% que mencionam a reserva para o caso de desemprego. A realização de sonho de consumo foi citada por 24% e 20% mencionam a reforma da casa. A lista de finalidades da poupança também inclui viagens, a compra de imóveis, os estudos e até a abertura de negócios. A preocupação com a aposentadoria não é algo que se destaca, citada somente por 13% dos que pouparam.

55% utilizaram parte da reserva financeira em fevereiro. 12% para pagar despesas extras e 11% para dívidas

O indicador ainda mostra que, em fevereiro, entre aqueles que possuem reserva financeira, mais da metade (55%) fizeram uso dos recursos poupados. Em janeiro, esse número foi 48%. Os principais motivos foram o pagamento de despesas extras (12%), pagamento de dívidas (12%) e imprevistos (11%).

A economista Marcela Kawauti também lembra que ter o hábito de poupar é algo valioso, mas que o poupador precisa se atentar também para o lugar em que destina seus recursos. “A depender de onde coloque, poderá obter maior ou menor rendimento. Também poderá retirar esses recursos com maior ou menor facilidade. Esses dois aspectos precisam ser levados em conta na hora de escolher a aplicação”, afirma. A opção de expressivos 28% dos entrevistados é por manter o dinheiro guardado na própria casa. “Essa é a opção mais líquida, isto é, que mantém o dinheiro mais acessível. O rendimento, porém, é negativo, se considerarmos a inflação, além do risco da segurança” explica Kawauti.

O único destino que supera a própria casa é a caderneta de poupança, mencionada por 54%. Em seguida, aparecem os fundos de investimento (12%); a Previdência Privada (8%); o CDB (5%); e o Tesouro Direto (4%), entre outras modalidades de investimentos. “As modalidades menos comuns, como CDB e Tesouro Direto, geralmente oferecem retorno superior ao da caderneta de poupança. No entanto, essas modalidades exigem mais conhecimento e tempo dos aplicadores, o que implica num esforço de pesquisa. Para fazer a boa escolha, o consumidor precisa ter em vista com que propósito está poupando”, indica a economista. Para Kawauti, se objetivo é a aposentadoria, por exemplo, o rendimento será uma variável mais importante que a liquidez; já se o objetivo é proteger-se contra imprevistos, a facilidade para sacar a reserva passa a ser requisito importante.”

Metodologia

O indicador calcula a poupança do brasileiro baseada no dinheiro guardado no mês anterior a pesquisa. A pesquisa abrangeu 12 capitais das cinco regiões brasileiras: São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, Curitiba, Recife, Salvador, Fortaleza, Brasília, Goiânia, Manaus e Belém. Juntas, essas cidades somam aproximadamente 80% da população residente nas capitais. A amostra, de 800 casos, foi composta por pessoas com idade superior ou igual a 18 anos, de ambos os sexos e de todas as classes sociais. A margem de erro é de 3,5 pontos percentuais.

DOCUMENTO: https://www.spcbrasil.org.br/wpimprensa/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Release-Indicador-de-Reserva-Financeira-_-mar-17-2.pdf

SCPC. PORTAL G1. 18/04/2017. Movimento do comércio cresce 2,5% em março, mas tem queda de 3,5% em 12 meses, diz SCPC. Órgão espera que indicador para 12 meses volte a crescer até o fim do 1º semestre.
Por G1

O movimento do comércio aumentou 2,5% em março ante fevereiro, já considerando ajustes sazonais. De abril de 2016 até o mês passado, porém, o indicador acumula queda de 3,5% na comparação com o 12 meses anteriores.
Os dados são da Boa Vista SCPC (Serviço Central de Proteção ao Crédito) e foram divulgados nesta terça-feira (18). Em fevereiro, o indicador havia registrado queda de 1%.
O movimento do varejo vem se recuperando desde novembro. O órgão espera que até o término do primeiro semestre o indicador volte a ficar positivo para 12 meses, "com a perspectiva de melhoria do cenário econômico, como a diminuição de preços e juros, aumento do consumo das famílias e dos investimentos".
Por setor
Dos cinco setores analisados dentro do varejo, quatro apresentaram alta no movimento no mês, já considerando ajustes sazonais, e um ficou estável.
O segmento de móveis e eletrodomésticos foi o que apresentou o maior crescimento, de 5,9%. A categoria "outros artigos" aparece na sequência, com 3,7%.
Depois vêm a de supermercado, alimentos e bebidas (1%) e a de tecidos, vestuários e calçados (0,6%). A de combustíveis e lubrificantes não apresentou variação.
No acumulado de 12 meses, sem ajustes sazonais, todos os setores apresentam recuo. O mais forte foi observado em tecidos, vestuários e calçados (8,7%), seguido por combustíveis e lubrificantes (5%); móveis e eletrodomésticos (2,9%); supermercados, alimentos e bebidas (2,6%); e outros artigos do varejo (2,4%).

________________

LGCJ.: