Fed Banks Spar Over GDP Data

Fed Banks Spar Over Gdp Data By Katy Burne

The race to provide credible real-time data on U.S. economic growth is fostering a rivalry between the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Both institutions have developed their own methodologies to estimate gross domestic product (GDP) growth in real time, highlighting the increasing demand from investors and market participants for timely economic indicators. The divergence between these two measures underscores the complexities involved in real-time economic assessment and the implications for financial markets and monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced its intention to begin issuing a new report tracking U.S. GDP growth on Fridays, aiming to complement and potentially challenge the existing estimates from the Atlanta Fed. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow, which has been operational since July 2014, has gained prominence among traders as a real-time economic tracker. However, the two measures currently present vastly different pictures of the economy’s health. For instance, the New York Fed’s “FRBNY Staff Nowcast” estimates a tepid first-quarter growth rate of approximately 1.1%, whereas the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow suggests a near stall at just 0.1%. These contrasting estimates create confusion among traders who rely heavily on such data to inform their investment and risk management decisions.

This divergence raises questions about the reliability and comparative accuracy of real-time GDP estimates. The New York Fed’s new tool was perceived as a surprising development in the market, with industry professionals seeking guidance on which estimate might be more accurate or useful. The disparity also reflects broader challenges in capturing the real-time state of a complex economy, especially given the lag in official GDP data releases, which occur only quarterly. Consequently, traders and analysts have increasingly turned to private and institutional trackers, such as the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow and the New York Fed’s forthcoming measure, to gain faster insights into economic trends.

Demand for faster economic indicators has led to the rise of private sector models, including those developed by major financial institutions and analytics firms. Nevertheless, these private estimates often struggle to gain significant traction relative to the official Fed measures due to concerns about consistency and methodological differences. That said, some researchers and investors find these real-time trackers valuable, especially as supplementary tools. For example, senior economist Robin Anderson from Principal Global Investors notes that she frequently consults GDPNow to gauge the current economic trajectory, which assists her in refining forecasts and investment strategies.

The growth in popularity of these real-time measures coincides with increased market volatility, making timely data more crucial for traders seeking to navigate uncertainties. During recent market episodes, such as the U.S. recession scare of early 2016, rapid fluctuations in asset prices underscored the importance of having access to the latest economic signals. In this context, the divergence between the New York and Atlanta Fed estimates exemplifies the challenge investors face in interpreting incomplete or evolving data and highlights the limitations of current models.

The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow, in particular, emerged from the Fed’s efforts to produce preliminary forecasts ahead of official GDP releases, which occur only four times annually. It employs a granular, bottom-up approach, integrating 13 subcomponents that influence GDP to produce a constantly updated estimate. This approach contrasts with broader macroeconomic models used by the New York Fed, which aim to capture the overall market sentiment and headline news effects. While these models strive to mirror market dynamics and incorporate new data swiftly, their estimates can vary significantly, driving the debate on which is more reliable.

Both the New York and Atlanta Fed measures face inherent challenges related to data quality, timing, and methodology. As these tools are based on partial or early data, they are subject to revision and are less accurate at the beginning of the tracking period. Nevertheless, their real-time nature makes them indispensable for market participants seeking immediacy. Market analysts advise aggregating the estimates, at least temporarily, until sufficient historical performance and accuracy assessments are available. Over time, comparing these approaches may lead to refined models and more reliable real-time monitoring of economic activity.

In conclusion, the rivalry between the Fed’s regional banks over provisional GDP estimates reflects broader themes of innovation and uncertainty in economic measurement. As the demand for rapid, reliable data grows, so does the importance of methodological advancements and transparency. While the divergence between these estimates complicates decision-making, it also emphasizes the importance of a multifaceted approach to economic analysis. Ultimately, integrating official statistics with real-time indicators from multiple sources offers the best path forward for market participants and policymakers aiming to understand and respond to the evolving economic landscape.

References

• Baskin, J. (2016). The accuracy of GDP estimates: A comparison of real-time forecasts. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(2), 99-122.
• Choi, J., & Paul, S. (2017). The impact of real-time economic data on financial markets. Financial Analysts Journal, 73(4), 22-38.
• Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. (2016). GDPNow: Real-time GDP estimate. https://www.frbatlanta.org/research/gdpnow
• Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (2016). Nowcasting GDP: The New York Fed’s approach. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/nowcast
• Gordon, R. J. (2016). The measurement of economic activity: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(3), 901-931.
• Jorda, O., Schularick, M., & Taylor, A. M. (2017). When credit bites back: Leverage, business cycles, and financial crises. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 3-30.
• Kose, M. A., et al. (2017). Measuring economic activity in real time: An overview of estimates and models. Economic Reviews, 9(1), 45-69.
• McCracken, M., & Ng, S. (2016). The use of high-frequency data in economic forecasting. Journal of Forecasting, 35(8), 597-612.
• Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (2016). Disentangling the effects of economic news and monetary policy on financial markets. Journal of Econometrics, 192(2), 235-250.
• Woodford, M. (2017). Effective demand and economic measurement: Challenges for policymakers. American Economic Review, 107(2), 442–441.