Rick Mishkin says the Fed is out to fight feedback loops, not bail out investors
Federal Reserve governor Frederic Mishkin gave a speech Monday at the Risk USA 2007 conference in New York. He said some interesting stuff:
Two types of risks are particularly important for understanding financial instability. The first is what I will refer to as valuation risk: The market, realizing the complexity of a security or the opaqueness of its underlying creditworthiness, finds it has trouble assessing the value of the security. For example, this sort of risk has been central to the repricing of many structured-credit products during the turmoil of the past few months, when investors have struggled to understand how potential losses in subprime mortgages might filter through the layers of complexity that such products entail.
The second type of risk that I consider central to the understanding of financial stability is what I call macroeconomic risk--that is, an increase in the probability that a financial disruption will cause significant deterioration in the real economy. Because economic downturns typically result in even greater uncertainty about asset values, such episodes may involve an adverse feedback loop whereby financial disruptions cause investment and consumer spending to decline, which, in turn, causes economic activity to contract. Such contraction then increases uncertainty about the value of assets, and, as a result, the financial disruption worsens. In turn, this development causes economic activity to contract further in a perverse cycle.
So what is the Fed to do?
Monetary policy cannot have much influence on the former, but it can certainly address the latter--macroeconomic risk. By cutting interest rates to offset the negative effects of financial turmoil on aggregate economic activity, monetary policy can reduce the likelihood that a financial disruption might set off an adverse feedback loop. The resulting reduction in uncertainty can then make it easier for the markets to collect the information that enables price discovery and to hasten the return to normal market functioning.
[Snip]The point is that, although the Federal Reserve can and should offset macroeconomic risk with monetary policy decisions, investors remain responsible for dealing with valuation risk. Indeed, monetary policy is and should be powerless in that respect. It is solely the responsibility of market participants to do the hard work of price discovery and to ascertain and manage the risks involved in their investments.
I dunno, I buy it. But maybe I'm just gullible that way.
-
1
I dunno, I buy it. But maybe I'm just gullible that way.
I don't. I think Bernanke understands that the current economic and fiscal policies of the Bush administration will result in a serious recession, but his primary concern is propping the economy up for another year sole for political purposes -- Bush never puts non-syncophants in power, and Bernanke is first and foremost a partisan Republican who is more concerned with what happens in November 2008 than what happens to working people in American once the election is over.
If Bernanke wasn't a partisan, he would have told Wall Street that the cost of lower interest rates in the face of the subprime meltdown was a tax increase that would restore fiscal sanity. Instead, he just bailed out the super-rich.
-
2
I'm with Paul, though for the obvious economic, not political, reason:
In the face of "inflationary pressure," and after already loosening capital standards (i.e., saying they'll take any piece of paper lying around for RP on 17 August), the Fed gave the FinSvcs industry 50 bp on September 18th.
The result was less than impressive, but was beginning to show signs of working (ask O'Neal or Prince).
-25bp in the face of EVEN MORE inflationary pressure wasn't to "offset the negative effects of financial turmoil on aggregate economic activity." The turmoil persists--indeed, it may have been exacerbated, and the remaining good monies can't find any domestic place to go--and now the capital is cheap enough that losses can be extended in an attempt to hide them, with the Fed taking the risks.
Most Popular »
- Tennessee Mayor Accuses Barack Obama Of Hating On Charlie Brown, Peanuts
- Wii Fit Plus Review
- NV Sen Poll: Reid In Trouble
- Obama Shifts Date of Copenhagen Visit
- The PlayStation Turns 15, We Reminisce
- 'Forgotten Man' II: Two-Thirds of Jobless Blue-Collar
- 135 Money-Saving Resources and Tips, Special Holiday Season Edition
- Twitter App Showdown: Echofon Pro vs Tweetie 2
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- Loving The Joke
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Will Federal Spending Mistrust Mean the End of Obama's Audacity
- Amanda Knox, Convicted of Murder in Italy
- Nicolas Sarkozy: A French Paradox
- Amanda Knox Testifies: The Murder Trial That Has Gripped Italy
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Astronomers Spot Planet-Like Object GJ 758 B in Orbit
- India, Pakistan and the Battle for Afghanistan
- Foxy Knoxy Case Still Roils Italy
- Hate Your Job? Here's How to Reshape It













RSS