Given the steady improvement in US data, from GDP to employment, the Fed not starting its taper was a surprise, one possibility is Ben Bernanke may have thought it better to leave such a decision to his successor who, if it is Janet Yellen that gets the job, could be more dovish. Equally, when there is uncertainty over how the talks on the budget and the debt ceiling will work out between the Democrats and the Republicans, the Fed didn’t want to take a chance withdrawing stimulus by way of low interest rates. More important, as IMF’s last Article IV consultation pointed out, US needs to reduce its primary deficit by 0.9% of GDP every year till 2020—in other words, the recovery is by no means a done deal. While the Fed’s widely-awaited 2016 projections suggest the economy will be at full potential by 2016 when unemployment falls to 5.4-5.9%, what is surprising is that the FOMC’s suggested Fed funds rate at that time will be just around 2% which, in real terms, is near-zero. That suggests that while FOMC members have made their projections, they are not entirely convinced economic headwinds are going to ease in a hurry. One reason for this could be that each successive FOMC projection for GDP, going back several quarters, has had to be scaled back—in other words, getting growth back to full potential will take time. Interesting, in this context, is that while the FOMC has projected an unemployment rate of 6.4-6.8% in 2014, IMF’s projection is a higher 7.2%. Indeed, though employment has been rising, so has unemployment as more people are rejoining the work force.
For RBI, the Fed’s decision not to taper puts it in a bit of a quandary—since the taper will eventually take place, by January next year if not December this year, one school suggests RBI not cut rates for a few months till the US taper and its impact is factored in. The more immediate impact of the Fed’s decision, however, is to give RBI more room to ease policy rates, certainly to start dismantling the