There's an argument circulating through the marketplace that Chair Bernanke was irresponsible by suggesting that
there are significant downside risks to the economic outlook, including strains in global financial marketsSupposedly, the Federal Reserve made a mistake by evoking the above, and should restrain its judgement on economic conditions that affect monetary policy. Avowed is the delicately obtuse cynicism that for market analysts, managers and strategists to properly advise their clients, the Fed should be silent and keep the public ignorant of matters that affect the public's respective wealth and future. Disclosure of pertinent content is the investment manager's discretion, seems to be the underscored presumption.
It can only be a relief that some men like Chair Ben Bernanke are still around and that they have the required courage to tell it as it is. As if no one ever knew that there was an economic maelstrom, or squall as my favorite columnist and commentators from Fictional Reserve Barking characterize it, evolving on globalscapes.
Fellas, give yourselves a break. The majority of you are certainly confused, and justly so. Consider, since when do the analysts, strategists and managers dictate appropriate communication guidelines. Basic deontology suggests that these advisors have a responsibility to seek out relevant data and give comprehensive information that will permit the client to respond appropriately to the situation.
Moreover, when the public buys and owns stocks or corporates bonds the public are shareholders and stakeholders in those companies. The public has the right to know whether there's exposure to risk out there. It is not the discretion of the advisor to weigh the call on disclosure or not. Get real guys!
A lot of people would never have received the floats if Mr. Bernanke had not sounded the warning of the imminent squall. Maybe some of the public were in those sell-offs. Good for them, if that was best for their visions.
One should be very pleased that individual Chair Bernanke and institutions like the Federal Reserve are unconstrained by political considerations, originating in Washington or New York. One also hopes that most cynics and whiners get canned under the circumstances not for ill-advising clients but for suggesting that the Federal Reserve had no reason to come out with their caution. That is professionally unethical. The narrative certainly makes a case for passing the buck for their own incompetence and lack of market insight. It certainly translates into a good show; but it should not be produced at the expense of the public.
You write: "One should be very pleased that individual Chair Bernanke and institutions like the Federal Reserve are unconstrained by political considerations". I'm not a big fan of central bank independence, but you make a good case for it here. Also, I appreciate the link.
ReplyDeleteCI-you remind me of Stevenson's Black Arrow. The only shortcoming is that the Chair has not yet been dismissed. Your tone is very refreshing amidst the market noise. Put up those levies, the squall is coming (lol)
ReplyDeleteCircuit. I am surprised that you are not a big fan of central bank independence. I would have assumed the contrary. Isn't Political Interference with monetary policy equivalent to handing over monetary policy to Government's Treasury.
ReplyDeleteSwells, I must confess that I will have to look up Stevenson's Black Arrow, not so much to appease ignorance, but to reciprocate on the significance you have given it by referring to it in this post's context.
I am not certain how a scribbler can ward off the squall that is being depicted as inevitable. However, whatever (lol) effort I can muster, I shall try to channel well and usefully.
I find the FRB community much better equipped than CI, to spotlight the dangers and highlight the landmarks.