SPEECH
The euro area hiking cycle: an interim
assessment
Dow Lecture by Philip R. Lane, Member of the Executive Board of the
ECB, at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research
London, 16 February 2023
Introduction
It is an honour to deliver this year's Dow Lecture. Christopher Dow had a distinguished career as an
applied macroeconomist, both in the United Kingdom (at the Bank of England, the Treasury and here at
1 ]
NIESR) and internationally (as OECD Chief Economist from 1963 to 1973).[ Moreover, he extensively
analysed my topic today - the impact of interest rate movements on the financial system, the economy
2 ]
and inflation - including in the context of the cost-push inflation pressures of the 1970s and 1980s.[
While the current inflation environment is quite different in many respects - having been driven
predominantly by extraordinary external factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, supply bottlenecks and
energy shocks - much can still be learned by re-visiting the analysis by Christopher Dow of the
macrofinancial dynamics and policy challenges associated with cost-push inflation.
3 ]
My aim today is to provide an interim analysis of the ECB's current policy rate tightening cycle.[ I will first
describe the projected impact of monetary policy in the range of macroeconomic models maintained by
the ECB. Next, I will report on the accumulating evidence about the impact of the policy tightening cycle on
the financial system, the economy and inflation. In view of the long and differential lags in the transmission
of monetary policy, this evidence is necessarily partial and of an interim nature. Still, it is essential to
monitor closely the incoming evidence, since the efficient calibration of monetary policy must take into
account the feedback loops between monetary policy, the financial system, the economy and inflation.
Beginning in December 2021, the ECB unwound its highly accommodative monetary policy stance in
several phases. First, the pace of net asset purchases was reduced, including through the ending of net
purchases under the pandemic emergency purchase programme in March 2022. Net asset purchases
under the asset purchase programme further shifted down from April 2022 and concluded in June 2022. In
July 2022, we began raising the ECB key interest rates. The €STR forward curve - the benchmark for key
overnight lending in the euro area - began shifting up in December 2021, as markets began pricing in the
start of ECB policy normalisation. This induced a tightening impulse even before we began raising actual
policy rates.
The speed and the scale of the back-to-back rate adjustments since July stand out in the history of the
monetary union (Chart 1). By now, we have raised rates by a cumulative 300 basis points, bringing the
deposit facility rate - which, in the current conditions of ample excess liquidity, constitutes the main
instrument for steering the monetary policy stance - to 2.5 per cent. Furthermore, we have also signalled
that we intend to raise the deposit facility rate by another 50 basis points at our March meeting and we will
then evaluate the subsequent path of our monetary policy. This evaluation will necessarily turn on two
basic considerations: first, an updated assessment of the medium-term inflation outlook (both the modal
path and the risks to this outlook) second, an updated assessment of the appropriate monetary policy
stance to make sure that inflation returns to our two per cent target in a timely manner. In turn, both parts
of this assessment involve judgements on the impact of the monetary policy adjustments that have already
occurred since December 2021.
Chart 1
Changes in the key ECB policy rates
(percentage point changes)
Source: ECB.
Note: The latest observation is for 8 February 2023.
Calibrating changes in the policy stance and monitoring the transmission to the financial system, the
economy and inflation presents policymakers with three challenges. The first is to produce a reasonable
(counterfactual) forecast of where inflation would head without an adjustment in monetary policy. The
second is to develop reasonable estimates of how an adjustment in monetary policy would alter that
inflation trajectory. The third is to carefully monitor each step in this transmission from monetary policy to
the economy and inflation, gathering evidence along the way on how this transmission conforms with past
regularities or, if it does not, to better understand how and why the specific features of the current
macrofinancial environment might alter the strength and speed of monetary policy transmission. It is worth
pointing out that, regardless of the origin of an inflation shock, the working assumption is that monetary
policy operates on the demand side, with rate hikes reducing inflation through the dampening impact of
tighter financing conditions on the level of aggregate demand. Nevertheless, watching for heterogeneities
in the transmission across sectors and analysing the potentially considerable and state-dependent lags in
the transmission is essential and I will return to this point throughout this lecture.
In this lecture, I will leave the question of forecasting aside and focus on the latter two points: how to form
a view on the typical transmission regularities, and how to cross-check them against the incoming data
along the way.
Let me first review the set of models that ECB staff use to inform policy decisions and present the
macroeconomic effects these assign to monetary policy. As the bulk of these effects on the economy and
inflation are expected to materialise only over the coming two to three years, I will then go through a set of
more timely signals that may be gathered along the way and that can act as checkpoints on the path of
transmission.
To date, these signals for the most part point to a strong and orderly transmission of the ECB's policy
tightening to the relevant financial and real variables. But, especially since this transmission process is still
unfolding, I will conclude with a set of open questions on the impact of the ongoing policy tightening that
can only be settled conclusively at a more mature stage of the process.
The impact of hiking in macroeconomic models
At the ECB, we employ a suite of semi-structural, dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) and
Bayesian vector autoregression (BVAR) models to study the underlying transmission channels of
monetary policy and to quantify the impact of changes to monetary policy on financial conditions, the
economy and inflation. Drawing on a suite of models, rather than relying on a single framework, helps us
draw more robust policy conclusions.
It is inherently difficult to pin down causal relations in empirical macroeconomic models and this is
reflected in the wide range of estimates of the impact of monetary policy impulses on macroeconomic
variables. The level of uncertainty about the impact of monetary policy is arguably greater for the euro
area than for other economies, in view of the structural changes associated with the formation of the
monetary union in 1999. Given this high uncertainty across models, we employ different classes of
models, supplement the main models with satellite models, and add various other sources of information.
Let me now turn to some of the main models that we use and discuss how these differ in terms of their
design.
The ECB-BASE model, which is similar in structure to the US Federal Reserve's FRB/US model, is a
4 ]
large-scale semi-structural model that is used primarily for forecasting and policy simulations.[ This type
of model is designed to strike a balance between having strong theoretical foundations embedded in its
steady-state properties and being flexible enough to be useful for a vast range of policy simulations. In
particular, the semi-structural approach typically relies on a series of reduced-form equations that govern
the relations among the key macroeconomic variables and allow flexibility to match the empirical data.
In addition, several structural DSGE models are regularly used in our internal quantitative policy analysis.
In particular, the extended version of the New Area-Wide Model (NAWM II) is a fully micro-founded model
that incorporates explicit intertemporal substitution via a forward-looking Euler equation for optimising
households, a financial accelerator mechanism linking bank lending to the net worth of firms,
5 ]
interestsensitive investment decisions of households and firms, and an exchange rate channel.[ Most recently,
the MMR model has been developed, which is a DSGE model sharing many similarities with the NAWM II,
but which additionally estimates the degree of attention to central bank communication, thereby
dampening the forward guidance puzzle encountered in standard DSGE models, and accounts for a
6 ]
timevarying neutral interest rate in line with the trend visible in the data over the last decades.[
7 ]
Our modelling toolkit also includes several Bayesian VAR (BVAR) models.[ This class of models is
8 ]
regularly used for forecasting and policy analysis in major central banks and international institutions.[
Due to their ability to capture the inertial behaviour of inflation and the persistence in aggregate variables,
BVAR models provide a useful benchmark to evaluate structural and semi-structural models both in terms
9 ]
of their forecasting performance and for what concerns the monetary policy transmission mechanism.[
In general, DSGE models (NAWM II and MMR) and BVAR models display a stronger impact of monetary
10 ]
policy on the economy than semi-structural models (ECB-BASE).[ There are two main reasons for this.
First, the identification of monetary policy shocks is typically clearer in structural models (either DSGE or
structural VAR models), allowing for a narrower causal interpretation of the effects of monetary policy. This
is important, since reduced-form estimates of the relations between interest rates, economic activity and
inflation are plagued by the reverse causality syndrome by which, especially if demand shocks
predominate, an increase in interest rates is most likely if economic activity is projected to be strong and
inflation to be high. This gives rise to time-series correlation patterns by which any causal dampening
impact of monetary policy on activity levels and inflation can be obscured in the data by its proximity to the
strong activity and inflation data that actually triggered the policy tightening. In contrast, a structural
approach in which the causal impact of monetary policy can be identified should, in principle, uncover the
impact of policy tightening on activity and inflation.
Second, the micro-foundations of the optimisation decisions that form the key foundations of these
structural models, and the use of model-consistent expectations, lead to more forward-looking behaviour
of economic agents compared to other models, and this in turn strengthens the expectations channel of
interest rate policy. This explains the stronger initial impact of monetary policy compared to other types of
models.
The left and middle panels of Chart 2 show the impact of a policy tightening of 100 basis points on
11 ]
inflation and GDP in these models.[ Chart 2 also shows that impact of policy tightening derived from the
Basic Model Elasticities (BMEs) exercise conducted jointly by the Eurosystem. The BME exercise is a
euro area aggregation of simulation results provided by national central banks: these simulations are
based on smaller, country-specific models that compute impulse responses of endogenous variables to
exogenous shocks, linearised around a specific baseline.
All simulations are based on a tightening that has a relatively persistent effect on short-term rates.
Conditional on a 1 percentage point change in the interest rate, on average inflation declines by around
12 ]
0.3 percentage points and the output gap by 1 percentage point at the peaks of the respective impacts.[
However, the range of estimates is large: the impacts on inflation and output are larger in structural
13 ]
models (DSGE and BVAR) compared to the ECB-BASE model and the BMEs.[ Moreover, due to their
forward-looking nature and amplification through financial channels, the effect is frontloaded in DSGE
models compared to other models, since households and firms more quickly react to the expected
declines in future activity and inflation associated with monetary policy tightening. In contrast, the muted
initial response in the ECB-BASE model and the BMEs can in part be related to the strong
14 ]
backwardlooking expectations formation process in these models.[
These estimates imply that the models generate not only different scales of monetary policy impacts but
also heterogeneous lags in the timing of the transmission of monetary policy to the economy and inflation.
Differences in transmission lags of monetary policy across these models arise from the specific modelling
frameworks. In empirical VARs, the persistence is generally driven by the estimated autoregressive
processes, in addition to the identification assumptions which impose some ordering of the flow of
causality. In DSGE models, inertia is built in via microfoundations, with frictions such as habit formation in
consumption, sticky or backward-looking wage and price setting, and adjustment costs in investment.
Finally, semi-structural models use a combination of these empirical auto-regressive processes and
economic frictions.
In addition to the lags associated with the slow and staggered adjustment of investment and consumption
to changes in financial conditions, the full impact of policy rates on financial conditions is not immediate. In
particular, fixed-rate loans and deposits provide some near-term insulation to changes in interest rates.
However, as financial contracts expire, more and more firms and households face higher interest rates
and the tightening of financial conditions is further amplified by the endogenous shortening of maturities in
response to higher interest rates. This will be a recurring theme in this lecture, in particular when I turn to
how the current tightening is being transmitted.
Finally, our overall policy stance is also affected by our balance sheet polices. Our models suggest that
reducing our asset portfolio by a normalised cumulative €500 billion reduction over 12 quarters contributes
to lowering inflation by 0.15 percentage points and output by 0.2 percentage points (Chart 2, right panel).
Chart 2
Macroeconomic impact of a 100 basis points monetary policy shock (left and middle
panel), 12-quarter cumulative impact of a standardised €500 billion balance sheet
reduction (right panel).
(deviation of output in per cent; year-on-year percentage points)
Sources: ECB staff calculations.
Notes: Left and middle panels: This chart depicts the impulse responses of real output and inflation to a standard
short-term interest rate shock (normalised to 100 basis points) for the ECB-BASE model, the New Area Wide Model II
(NAWM-II), the MMR model, standard projection-based tools (BME) and a large BVAR model including both macro
and financial variables. Output gap refers to the output gap as a percentage of potential or steady state GDP. Inflation
is in year-on-year percentage change. All responses refer to deviation from the baseline in percentage points. For
BMEs the latest observation is for Q16, for all other models Q20. Right panel: The bars display a cumulative impact on
inflation and the output gap over three years of balance sheet reduction. The balance sheet reduction is assumed to
start one quarter after announcement and to cumulate to €500 billion by the end of 12 quarters relative to baseline.
The impact is an average of the estimates in the ECB-BASE, New Area Wide Model II (NAWM II), and MMR models.
Tightening so far according to model estimates
Our models indicate that the significant policy tightening that we initiated in December 2021 has had
substantial effects on euro area financing conditions so far, while its transmission to real activity and
inflation is also starting to materialise. In discussing the transmission of our policy stance through the lens
of our models, it is important to account for all factors driving that transmission collectively, including
interactions with other domestic and global shocks potentially shaping macroeconomic dynamics. These
factors jointly shape the magnitude and timing of the transmission to the economy. To disentangle these
effects, the impact of policy normalisation is estimated by first computing the policy contribution to
changes in financial conditions and then using macro models to estimate the impact on the economy and
inflation.
Combining information from model-based analysis and market and survey-based information, we estimate
that the tightening of monetary policy has contributed to an increase in short-term interest rates of 90 basis
points in 2022, rising to around 300 basis points in 2023 and 2024, and 240 basis points in 2025, and to
15 ]
increases in long-term rates of around 130 basis points.[
This tightening is estimated to have already lowered inflation by around 0.2 percentage points in 2022
16 17 ]
(Chart 3).[ ],[ The considerable lags between monetary policy actions and their impact on inflation,
however, imply that most of the effects are only expected to materialise from 2023 onward. The impacts
on GDP growth, however, occur much sooner across most models, with the peak effect expected this
year. Inflation is estimated to be around 1.2 percentage points lower in 2023 and 1.8 percentage points
lower in 2024 as a result of the tightening, while the negative impact on real GDP growth is estimated to
be around 1.5 percentage points on average over the three years. These are sizeable effects. At one
level, these estimates serve to underline the severe risks to the delivery of our medium-term target if
monetary policy had been passive and had not reacted to the inflation shock. At another level, especially
taking into account the wide range of estimates across the different models, material and persistent errors
in the appropriate calibration of monetary policy pose two-sided risks to the delivery of our medium-term
inflation target: insufficient tightening would result in inflation persistently above our target, while excessive
tightening could see overshooting and a return to persistently below-target inflation. These alternative
scenarios also entail substantially different profiles for the level of economic activity and, by extension, the
18 ]
labour market.[
Chart 3
Impact of policy tightening so far
(year-on-year percentage points)
Sources: ECB staff calculations.
Notes: The charts show the impact of changes in short- and long-term interest rates due to policy normalisation since
December 2021 computed in ECB-BASE, New Area Wide Model II (NAWM II), MMR model, standard
projectionbased tools (BME), and a large scale BVAR model including both macro and financial variables The latest
observations are for25 Nov 2021 and 23 Nov 2022.
Model-based analysis also facilitates the building of a more detailed understanding of the transmission of
policy rate hikes to different components of demand. For example, recent staff analysis employing the
semi-structural ECB-BASE model shows that rate hikes may induce stronger investment declines if the
initial level of the policy rate is particularly low, as was the case prior to the start of our hiking cycle in July
19 20 ]
2022.[ ],[ This result is in line with standard asset price models based on the user cost of capital, which
posit a non-linear, negative relation between the level of lending rates and asset prices. Hence, in the case
of business and housing investment, lower interest rates lead to larger discounting effects on future
returns (dividends and imputed rents), amplifying the impact of interest rate changes on current stock and
house prices.
In these simulations, shocks to lending rate spreads and risk-free rates entail a stronger reaction of both
business and housing investment in the low-rate environment (0.6-0.7 percentage points and 0.4-0.5
percentage points, respectively) by 2024, compared to a scenario with higher initial levels of lending rates
(Chart 4, solid bars). The model simulations confirm a role for state-dependence as obtained from
21 ]
nonlinear local projections models.[ However, relative to such an empirical exercise, the ECB-BASE model
suggests the presence of small non-linearities, especially affecting business investment (Chart 4, dashed
bars).
Chart 4
Model estimates of impact of rising lending rates on private investment
Business investment (left panel) and housing investment (right panel)
(percentage deviation from baseline/steady-state level)
Sources: ECB-BASE simulations and ECB staff calculations.
Notes: Left panelshows the response of business investment to an increase of 100 basis points in corporate rates
sustained over the projection horizon. Right panel shows the response of housing investment to a n increase of 100
basis points in mortgage rates sustained over the projection horizon. Spread increases are simulated under
exogenous monetary policy. The risk-free rate scenarios assume short- and long-term interest rates to increase by
100 basis points, without spread increases, and are allowed to trigger an exchange rate adjustment that amplifies the
negative impact of rising rates.
Finally, all model-based quantitative estimates are surrounded by significant uncertainty, inter alia because
these models are calibrated to reflect historical regularities that may not apply to the prevailing conditions.
Also, while the models provide a good estimate for the overall effects of policy changes on the economy
and inflation, policy transmission usually unfolds in a heterogeneous manner, with the peak impact and
duration of transmission varying substantially across sectors and jurisdictions. Consequently, the broad
orientation delivered by the macroeconomic models needs to be complemented by a more granular set of
analytical checkpoints that allow us to ascertain whether the responses to our policy measures are moving
in the right direction and at the right pace. I now turn to this more granular and data-driven analysis.
Tightening impact according to market and survey information
In line with the sequence by which monetary policy passes through the transmission chain, I will start with
the impact on short-term money market rate expectations.
Market rates
A first indicator is the extent to which moves of our policy rates influence money market conditions. The
evidence suggests that the policy rate hiking that has occurred since July last year has been passed on
almost entirely to short-term money market rates, with the transmission occurring relatively smoothly
across market segments and jurisdictions.
Moreover, the response of short-term money market rates has fed through to longer maturities. The €STR
forward curve, which is derived from the overnight interest rate swap curve and reflects the market view on
the path that the overnight interest rate will follow in the future, has shifted upwards significantly since
December 2021 (Chart 5).
Chart 5
€STR forward curve and Survey of Monetary Analysts (SMA) expectations on the
deposit facility rate (left panel); Median DFR expectations (right panel)
(percentages per annum)
Sources: Left panel: SMA, Refinitiv and ECB calculations; right panel: February 2023 SMA, December 2022 SMA and
Bloomberg
Notes: Left panel: The bars depict the median of responses to the February SMA survey on expectations of future
deposit facility rates. Surveys are adjusted for the spread between the latest €STR and the DFR observations; Right
panel: Maximum number of respondents is 41 for February 2023 SMA and 29 for December 2022 SMA. The
Bloomberg meeting-to-meeting (M2M) forward rate depicts the market-based expectations for all future Governing
Council meetings which are currently announced until February 2024.The latest observations for the left panel are
February 2023.
Whether adjusting for risk premia or not, forward rates today see a rate trajectory which, in line with our
communication, rises above the range of estimates that can be considered neutral to the monetary policy
stance. Conceptually, the neutral interest rate is the hypothetical level of the interest rate that, when all
temporary shocks have faded out, can set the economy on a sustainable path of balanced growth with
inflation durably at target. As actual rates move beyond that level, policy becomes restrictive - as is
necessary when inflation is otherwise set to remain above the central bank's target for an extended period.
That is, the monetary policy adjustment since December 2021 can be interpreted as having two elements.
First, there has been an exit from an accommodative stance: this component can be viewed as essentially
permanent (in the absence of a new anti-inflationary shock). This is reflected in the market pricing of the
forward curve, which sees the policy rate settling around 2 per cent once inflation has stabilised at our
target, rather than reverting to the low (indeed, negative) levels that were in place until last July. This
longterm exit from the persistently low-rate regime reflects the reanchoring of long-term inflation expectations
at our 2 per cent target and the market judgement that the anti-inflationary forces that were in place before
the pandemic (such as significant deleveraging by both the private sector and the public sector after the
2008-12 financial crises and favourable global supply-side developments) will not return with the same
force. Accordingly, a significant component of the rate tightening so far is essentially permanent in nature.
While the associated reanchoring of inflation expectations means that the rise in real rates is less than the
rise in nominal rates, the permanent nature of this component of the rate tightening amplifies its impact
compared to a purely temporary increase in rates.
Second, there is an adjustment component that reflects our monetary policy response to the current high
inflation. It is fully priced (in line with our expressed policy intentions) that the main policy rate (the DFR)
will reach 300 basis points in March, and it is priced to rise even higher subsequently. This component
(going beyond the policy rate of around 200 basis points that the market expects to prevail over the long
term) can be viewed as restrictive and further adds to the tightening of financial conditions, even if it is less
persistent than the normalisation component of our policy adjustment.
Sovereign bond yields, which play an important role as a key reference for bond pricing, have also shifted
upwards and moved largely in lockstep with the OIS curve. The transmission of rate hikes to sovereign
bond markets since the start of the hiking cycle since July has been orderly, supported to some extent by
the ongoing flexible reinvestment of the pandemic emergency purchase programme, activated in early
July 2022, as well as the addition of the transmission protection instrument to our toolkit in late July 2022.
Finally, the euro exchange rate constitutes a key metric of financial conditions that is available at high
frequency. It is also a material driver of economic activity and inflation through a range of channels.
Reflecting an earlier and more demand-driven updrift in inflation, US monetary policy changed course
earlier than in the euro area, which was then also reflected in a sustained euro depreciation against the
US dollar, lasting until September of last year. But as the actual and prospective interest rate differentials
across the two economies were reduced, the euro has reversed some of the previous depreciation, thus
confirming the functioning of another important transmission channel for the current tightening cycle
(Chart 6).
Chart 6
EUR/USD, EUR and USD effective exchange rate
(left scale: USD per EUR, right scale: index - 01/01/2018=100)
Sources: ECB and ECB staff calculations.
Notes: Nominal effective exchange rate for 41 trading partners.
The latest observations are for 10 February 2023.
Bank-based transmission
The capacity of a central bank to influence the economy hinges on its ability to alter the broad monetary
stance, including the terms and conditions at which the economy has access to bank-provided and
22 ]
market-provided finance.[
Bank funding costs are rising fast, and the tighter borrowing conditions that banks face today to refinance
their assets are reflected in higher lending rates to firms and households. Yields on euro area bank bonds
have increased by more than 300 basis points since December 2021. The higher funding costs for banks
are being passed on to borrowers. For firms, the cost of borrowing from banks started trending up in early
2022 and has strongly accelerated since September, bringing it to around 3.4 per cent in December
(Chart 7, left panel), while the overall cost of debt financing, which also includes the cost of issuing
corporate bonds, stood at 3.7 per cent. For households, the cost of borrowing for house purchases has
increased by more than 160 basis points over the course of 2022, to 2.9 per cent in December, while the
rate on loans for consumption and other purposes has risen by more than 160 basis points, to now stand
at almost 5.8 per cent (Chart 7, right panel). Rising costs, in turn, have contributed to a sharp reduction in
debt financing flows to firms and households (Chart 8).
Chart 7
Cost of debt financing for euro area NFCs (left panel) and households (right panel)
(percentages per annum)
Sources: ECB (MIR, QSA), Merrill Lynch, Refinitiv and ECB staff calculations.
Notes: The latest observations are for December 2022 for the nominal cost of debt financing and bank borrowing and
for 9 February 2023 for the cost of market-based debt and OIS.
Chart 8
Debt financing flows of euro area firms and households
(left panel: average monthly flows over the respective period in EUR billions; right panel: annual growth
rate in percentages)
Sources: ECB (BSI) and ECB staff calculations.
Notes: MFI loans are adjusted for sales and securitisation, and for firms also for cash pooling. The seasonal
adjustment of the net issuance of debt securities is not official. For the household breakdowns, a harmonised
adjustment has been made since February 2022, but not for seasonality and not yet published. This implies possible
discrepancies between the sum of the breakdowns and the total. The latest observations are for December 2022.
The tighter financing conditions for banks are also reflected in the results of the latest ECB bank lending
survey (BLS) from January. Euro area banks reported a substantial further tightening of credit standards
for loans or credit lines to enterprises in the fourth quarter of 2022 (Chart 9), especially for housing loans
and other lending to households (Chart 10). Consistent with the adverse impact of monetary policy
tightening on economic activity levels, risks related to the economic outlook and industry or firm-specific
situations are mentioned in the BLS as the main motives currently driving banks towards enforcing tighter
credit standards.
Chart 9
Changes in credit standards for loans or credit lines to enterprises, and contributing
factors
(net percentages)
Source: ECB BLS.
Notes: The net percentage refers to the difference between the sum of the percentages of banks responding
"tightened considerably" and "tightened somewhat" and the sum of the percentages of banks responding "eased
somewhat" and "eased considerably". Net percentages for the "other factors" refer to further factors which were
mentioned by banks as having contributed to changes in credit standards. The latest observations are for January
2023 (BLS).
Chart 10
Changes in credit standards applied to the approval of loans to households for house
purchase, and contributing factors
(net percentages)
Source: ECB BLS.
Notes: The net percentage refers to the difference between the sum of the percentages of banks responding
"tightened considerably" and "tightened somewhat" and the sum of the percentages of banks responding "eased
somewhat" and "eased considerably". Net percentages for the "other factors" refer to further factors which were
mentioned by banks as having contributed to changes in credit standards. The latest observations are for January
2023 (BLS).
Survey data for households and firms
More expensive and harder-to-obtain credit is downgrading the prospects of economic sectors that are
more sensitive to financing conditions. Survey evidence for consumers and