Second guessing the Fed

I wrote this for Time.com Thursday:

The race for the Great Fed Second Guess of 2008 is now well under way: First out of the blocks was former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, who worried aloud in April that forcing and partially financing the takeover of ailing investment bank Bear Stearns had taken the Fed to “the very edge of its lawful and implied powers.”

Next came William Poole, a few weeks after retiring from the presidency of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, declaring in May that the Fed’s actions — which, along with the Bear rescue, have included hundreds of billions of dollars in unconventional loans to banks — had created an “appalling” state of affairs.

On Thursday, two current members of the Fed hierarchy, Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser and his Richmond counterpart Jeffrey Lacker, joined the fray. In a speech at New York University, Plosser argued —without mentioning the seat-of-the-pants Bear Stearns rescue by name — that Fed actions ought to follow explicit rules. “Discretion in lending practices runs the risk of exacerbating moral hazard and encouraging financial institutions to take excessive amounts of risk,” he said.

Lacker, speaking at the European Economics and Financial Centre in London, did mention Bear Stearns, warning, “The danger is that the effect of recent credit extension on the incentives of financial market participants might induce greater risk taking, which in turn could give rise to more frequent crises.”

Regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents such as Plosser, a former dean of the University of Rochester’s Simon School of Business, and Lacker, a veteran Richmond Fed economist, are not at the center of the Fed hierarchy. They serve on a rotating basis on the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets short-term interest rates, but neither was directly involved in the partially Fed-financed takeover of Bear Stearns by J.P. Morgan Chase. That deal was mainly the work of Timothy Geithner — who as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is the Fed’s designated financial-crisis firefighter — with the approval of Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and the rest of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington.

Geithner and Bernanke defended their actions as necessary to fend off a collapse of the global financial system — and few in official Washington or the Federal Reserve System disagreed at the time. But as the crisis atmosphere of early this year has given way to calmer times, second thoughts are increasingly coming out into the open.

The likely result of the debate is stricter rules on exactly when and how the Fed can intervene in the affairs of banks and brokerage firms. The basic conundrum faced by the Fed will probably never be resolved, though: If banks and brokerages are never allowed to fail, lenders and investors have no incentive to monitor the risks they’re taking. But in a crisis, otherwise perfectly sound institutions — and with them the entire financial system — can go under unless the Fed steps in.

For whatever it’s worth, James Bullard, the new president of the St. Louis Fed, gave a speech today in which he said nothing at all related to Bear Stearns.

Related Topics: Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Associated Press

    Apple CEO Cook Gives Up $75M in Stock Dividends

    NEW YORK — Apple CEO Tim Cook is giving up $75 million in dividends on restricted stock that the company is awarding to all of its employees.

    In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, Apple Inc. said that Cook requested that his restricted stock units not receive dividends. The dividends that Apple workers are getting amount to $2.65 per quarter for each restricted stock unit held. The shares are not normally eligible to receive dividends, so Apple’s decision is a perk for its employees.

    The Bomb Hidden in Mitt Romney's Education PlanSlate

    Associated Press

    Study: Typical CEO Pay Up 6% to $9.6 Million

    NEW YORK — Profits at big U.S. companies broke records last year, and so did pay for CEOs.

    The head of a typical public company made $9.6 million in 2011, according to an analysis by The Associated Press using data from Equilar, an executive pay research firm.

  • Zendancer

    Great column! I always enjoy reading it. Tonight was the first time I read your blog. I was surprised that T. Boone claimed that the USA has cut back consumption by 400K barrels of oil but that China had increased consumption by 500K barrel. I find that extremely hard to believe, and I would like to know where he is getting those figures and how the demand is being driven up so fast in China.

    I’m betting and hoping that the surge in oil prices Friday was short covering because if the prices go much higher, they will cause a major recession or depression. As a small businessperson, I am getting letters almost every day advising me of price increases due to the transportation costs. With airlines, hotels, tourism, restaurants, and many other businesses being so severely impacted, it seems doubtful that it will take $150 oil to crush demand. Every businessperson I know is cutting back on gas consumption, selling trucks and doing other things to reduce cost. I can’t believe that current oil prices are accurately reflecting nothing more than supply and demand. If I were Richard Rainwater, I would relax. I think he’s made the right bet.

    Thanks again for a highly thought-provoking column and blog.

  • joel gallob

    It is a fruitless discussion whether or not the Fed shold have rescued Bear Stearns, et al. The real issue–which YOU should be raising–is at what price?

    Banks and other private lenders and investors extract a price when they come in and make a deal, whether to finance a home purchase, a business expansion etc. The commentariat should be demanding that the next time the Fed makes such a move–or the Treasury Department, or comptroller of Currency (or any state level equivalents)–that the salvaged financial institution pay a price. By which I do not mean “points and fees.”

    Bear Stearns, and every brokerage, investment house, & etc saved by the taxpayer and the dollar-holder (who will be hit soon by inflation due to, among other things, the bail outs) owes the taxpayer and dollar-holder. The salvaged institutions should be required to:

    1. adhere to the rules of Sarbanes-Oxley, making that law applicable to them, including the automatic personal liability for fraud and misrepresentation;
    2. make future payments to Moodys and Standard and Poors through an account at the Fed or Treasury or –bettr yet, General Accounting (now Accountability) Office of Congress, so that the rating companies will have an incentive to tell the truth ather than lie, as they quite evidently did about the ARMs and complex derivatives based thereupon, and the effect they could have on issuers;
    3. Acept a no-more-than-ten-to-one rule regarding salaris for CEOs, COOs and CFOs and any board member with an job at the company when compared to the income of their lowest paid employee. Or maybe 20 to one, or some other number, but sufficient to begin to reign in absurd compensation levels.
    4. Impose a rule of no bonuses–stock or cash–for any year when the company loses money for the CEO, COO and CFO and employed board members of the bailed-out firm.
    5. Impose a rule of no golden parachutes or making such illegal in the future and, to the best extent possible ex-post-facto, for existing bailing-out executives, too.

    You, sir, would do us all a much greater service if you argued for these kinds of reforms, rather than merely reiterating the broken record dispute of “bail outs, yes or no.” We all already know those arguments. We heard them with Chrysler. Lets do something useful, this time. You can use these ideas and no even give me credit-what the heck, I didn’t originate them, anyway. But please put them out there!

  • Tan Boon Tee

    Never mind exactly when and how the Fed should step in to intervene in the affairs of banking and brokerage institutions. As long as the situation demands (if not dictates), it ought to.

    The crucial point is the current awesome recession must be viewed in a different perspective from that of 2001. This time, whether one likes it or not, it is going to be remarkably (maybe spectacularly) worse.

    For starters, the greenback was much stronger in 2001, the oil price was around one-tenth of what it is now, food and commodity prices were almost 50 – 80% lower. Moreover, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars did not even come to the picture as yet.

    The 2001 recession managed to get recovered in a year; this time, be prepared to face the financial turbulence for a considerably longer period.

    Drive and consume less, waste not. Eat simple and little. Perhaps that could be the only way to a healthier and happier life – with or without a recession.
    (Tan Boon Tee)

  • rrsafety

    Interesting tidbit from the Globe and Mail “Market Blog” that talks about the President of the European Central Bank screwing the pooch last week… if our Fed chief had uttered such a boneheaded statement, he would have been pilloried – and rightly so.

    “If you’re looking for someone to blame for the sudden spike in oil prices last week, including the bizarre $10.75 (U.S.) a barrel rise on Friday, here’s one candidate: Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank.

    On Thursday of last week, the ECB left its key interest unchanged, hardly a surprise given its tendency to focus on inflation rather than sagging economic growth. But Mr.Trichet went a step further, suggesting at a press conference after the decision that the central bank is on heightened alertness about inflation, and that the bank’s next move could be to raise interest rates.

    For Ed Yardeni, of Yardeni Research, this was a counterproductive move in fighting inflation because it aggravated one of the key sources of inflation: the U.S. dollar tanked and oil took off, just after Ben Bernanke, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, talked down oil by saying he was concerned about the dollar.

    “The ECB has the same inflation problem all other central banks are facing: Oil and food prices are soaring, partly because of the weak dollar. Bernanke’s comments helped to strengthen the dollar and weaken commodity prices. Trichet’s remarks had the opposite effect causing the dollar to sink and oil prices to soar,” Mr. Yardeni said in a note.

blog comments powered by Disqus