The Aleph Blog » Blog Archive » How Powerful or Wise is the Federal Reserve?

How Powerful or Wise is the Federal Reserve?

This post will be a little controversial. I believe that most investors over- or under-estimate the Fed. There are two ways to mis-estimate the Fed: power and wisdom. With respect to power, the most common errors are to overestimate the Fed in the short run, and underestimate them in the intermediate run. With respect to wisdom, the errors are to think that they are the wisest player in the market, or that they are less wise than the average market player.

My hypothesis is that the Fed is one of the brighter players in the market, top quartile, but not top decile, and that their power is quite great toward the end of the cycle, but modest until then.

My first contention stems from the lack of scalability of intelligence in a bureaucracy. You can gather large amounts of information, and have bright people interpret it, but the large numbers of Ph.D. economists insures that the result will tend toward consensus, and not be that much different from the consensus of economists outside the Fed, which means that the Fed will miss turning points. Also, in a bureaucracy, political pressures often dominate those near the apex of the organization, which twists the interpretation of the data, as well as what is deemed to be data. (M3 is no longer data worthy of being calculated.  A mistake in my book; the cost savings were minuscule, and the measure told us a lot about credit that M2 does not.)

Also, because of our political culture, there is a bias toward making it look like you are doing something, even when doing nothing is the optimal policy.  (We would likely all be better off by having Congress be a part-time legislature.  Okay, sorry, formally a part-time legislature… they have a lot of vacation already.  The same would apply to the Executive branch, but it would mean reducing the number of regulations enforced.)  So, even if the Federal Reserve is correct about the right long-term strategy, political pressure can force a different policy action, at least in the short run.

The Fed is a political creature, and it prizes its independence.  The funny thing is that it often preserves its independence by giving in to the political pressures that threaten its independence.  E.g. employment is slightly weak, but present policy is adequate to handle it if we wait 12 months?  No problem, we’ll loosen policy further.  (We can always take it back later, right?)

I would argue that no, you can’t take it back.  Yes, the Fed can reverse the cut later, but the effect is not the same as if they had not done the additional cut.  Here’s why, and this speaks to the power of the Federal Reserve: when the Fed lowers rates, more assets become financable at the lower short-term interest rates.  The lower rates go, even if for a time, the more economic players think that they can afford a given asset.  The effect is slow at first, because there’s a threshold to be met for psychology to change.  Changing the financing cost by 5% is dust on the scales; it’s not worth the fixed costs and effort.  Changing it 10, 20, or 30% is another manner, and cheap short-term capital will lead many to speculate and bid up asset prices, whether the assets are housing or businesses.  Economic activity accelerates accordingly.

It also takes a while for policy to bite when rates are rising.  Homeowners and businessmen make adjustments as rates rise, but it takes more of a rise to make their free cash flow go negative, forcing unpopular decisions that may have large fixed costs.  Asset prices normally decline in such an environment, slowing down economic activity.

My contention is that in order for Fed policy to have real impact it has to move the short rate significantly.  Time is not what does it, but the amount of the move.  Because the Fed moves slowly, the two effects become confused.

Back to my original questions.  How powerful is the Fed?  Very powerful when they move rates far enough, but weak before then. How wise is the Fed?  Pretty smart, but hamstrung by politics and bureaucracy, which keeps them from implementing the right strategy even if they have it.  They don’t always have the right strategy; they still miss turning points the same way that external economists do as a group, and often their actions add to economic volatility by being accidentally pro-cyclical.

The question that I have at this point in the cycle is how low the Fed will get before they get scared about inflation, and flatten out policy to see which effect is larger — deflation from overvalued housing assets purchased with debt, or inflation of goods and services prices.  They are separate phenomena, and can occur at the same time.  If they do occur simultaneously, what will the Fed do?  The US has almost always been debtor-friendly, so I would expect inflation, but that is just a weakly held opinion for now.






bloggerbuzzdeliciousdiggfacebookgooglelinkedinmyspacenetvibesnewsvineredditslashdotstumbleupontechnoratitwitteryahoo
Fed Policy, Macroeconomics, Real Estate and Mortgages, Speculation | RSS 2.0 |

4 Responses to How Powerful or Wise is the Federal Reserve?

  1. Jeff says:

    You are correct in thinking this is controversial.

    If the Fed gave in to political pressures the way you suggest, there would never be a tightening cycle! When I look at the Fed, I try to do so using the approach of the professional political scientist in both methods and data. We have plenty of information from those who have served there, and the data do not support your model of political pressure.

    Just because they reach the same conclusion as political actors, while looking at the same evidence, does not mean that the politicians caused the change. Maybe they see the evidence differently from you.

    I am particularly bothered by your statement that having a lot of good economists means that you will miss turning points. What is your evidence for that? It is true that a lone cowboy forecaster will predict more turning points, but that does not mean he will be correct. Most of those calling for turning points make many, many serious errors.

    Turning points occur relatively infrequently and are difficult to predict. Weather forecasters fail to predict hurricanes also. Evaluating forecasting requires a careful methodology for analyzing past records. For anyone interested, I have written about this trying to provide some other examples.
    http://oldprof.typepad.com/a_dash_of_insight/2007/08/forecasting-unl.html
    http://oldprof.typepad.com/a_dash_of_insight/2007/09/the-outcome-bia.html

  2. rich t says:

    Very insightful post…

  3. phyron says:

    Just one point…
    Everything you say…and I mean everything…has been and is anticipated by the FED…
    Your scepticism deserved or not, indeed your desire to Blog it, itself, is part of the FED’s “problem”… You’re a rat in the cage… where even your idiosyncratic behavior has not only been forecast.. but is counted on to achieve expectational equilibrium…
    By the way just a technical comment.. there are no Economists outside the FED… every “serious” economist dealing in monetary theory.. and i don’t mean the Wall Street drop outs who couldn’t get tenure… is essentially bought and paid for by the FED…
    Although a good post.. sadly is just another piece of “data”.. to those outside the cage and feeding you pellets..

  4. [...] out.  He thinks I attribute too much power to the Fed.  He has a point.  From past writings, I have suggested that the Fed is not all-powerful.  What I would point out here is that the Fed controls more than just the monetary base.  They [...]

Disclaimer


David Merkel is an investment professional, and like every investment professional, he makes mistakes. David encourages you to do your own independent "due diligence" on any idea that he talks about, because he could be wrong. Nothing written here, at RealMoney, Wall Street All-Stars, or anywhere else David may write is an invitation to buy or sell any particular security; at most, David is handing out educated guesses as to what the markets may do. David is fond of saying, "The markets always find a new way to make a fool out of you," and so he encourages caution in investing. Risk control wins the game in the long run, not bold moves. Even the best strategies of the past fail, sometimes spectacularly, when you least expect it. David is not immune to that, so please understand that any past success of his will be probably be followed by failures.


Also, though David runs Aleph Investments, LLC, this blog is not a part of that business. This blog exists to educate investors, and give something back. It is not intended as advertisement for Aleph Investments; David is not soliciting business through it. When David, or a client of David's has an interest in a security mentioned, full disclosure will be given, as has been past practice for all that David does on the web. Disclosure is the breakfast of champions.


Additionally, David may occasionally write about accounting, actuarial, insurance, and tax topics, but nothing written here, at RealMoney, or anywhere else is meant to be formal "advice" in those areas. Consult a reputable professional in those areas to get personal, tailored advice that meets the specialized needs that David can have no knowledge of.

 Subscribe in a reader

 Subscribe in a reader (comments)

Subscribe to RSS Feed

Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Seeking Alpha Certified

Top markets blogs award

The Aleph Blog

Top markets blogs

InstantBull.com: Bull, Boards & Blogs

Blog Directory - Blogged

IStockAnalyst

Benzinga.com supporter

All Economists Contributor

Business Finance Blogs
OnToplist is optimized by SEO
Add blog to our blog directory.

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin