A central banker’s ‘license to lie’

January 30, 2014

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who retires this week as the world’s most powerful central banker, cannot be trusted.

Neither can Janet Yellen, who will succeed him this weekend at the Federal Reserve.

And neither can Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England; Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, or any of their counterparts at the central banks of Turkey, Argentina, Ukraine and so on.

I am not trying to aim a valedictory insult at Bernanke or his central banking colleagues. On the contrary, I am drawing attention to the skill and determination required by central bankers to perform one of the world’s most demanding and important jobs. For just as James Bond has a “License to Kill” in the Ian Fleming books, so central bankers possess a “License to Lie” — or, putting it more diplomatically and politely, to make promises about the future that cannot be honored and often turn to be false.

Nobody ever blamed a central banker for promising to support the currency and then suddenly allowing a massive devaluation — as happened in Argentina last week and may soon happen in Turkey, Ukraine, Russia and many other emerging markets.

To mislead investors is actually a key skill required by a central banker’s job description. Revealing the true state of national finances at a time when a devaluation or comparable financial crisis is looming might be to guarantee the loss of the central bank’s entire reserves.

In the days when developed economies managed their exchange rates, it was taken for granted that whenever a central banker appeared on television categorically to rule out devaluation, support for that currency was about to be withdrawn.

When managed currencies collapse in emerging markets, the popular anger and accusations of dishonesty are always directed at political leaders, such as Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. In developed economies, too, when central bankers commit themselves to inflation targets or assure their nations that they can avert financial crises, or revive economic growth, nobody blames them when these promises turn out to be false. In Cyprus, for example, the one public official who survived the banking debacle was Panicos Demetriades, the governor of the central bank.

Yet despite this historic record of broken promises and unfulfilled commitments, central bankers enjoy more respect and trust than any other public official. They are particularly trusted by the people they most frequently deceive — financial market investors.

Which brings us to the state of the world economy today. This week’s financial headlines have been dominated by the currency chaos in Turkey and Argentina, but the deeper problem has been a new bout of uncertainty about global economic prospects — and especially about the commitment of the Fed and other major central banks to continue stimulating economic growth.

On this score, some of the most unsettling news has come not from Argentina or Turkey, but Britain. This was Carney’s admission last week that his promise of July to keep interest rates near zero until 2016 would need to “evolve” in view of last year’s rapid decline in British unemployment.

Carney’s U-turn was significant because he was the man who, in his earlier position as head of the Bank of Canada, invented the concept of this kind of “forward guidance” as a monetary policy tool. His success in steering the Canadian economy through the 2008 economic crisis by promising to maintain what were then viewed as low interest rates, inspired central bankers around the world to believe that words could be an effective substitute for monetary actions.

Last year the Bank of England went even further than the Fed in developing forward guidance by laying down precise criteria for considering an increase in interest rates. Carney stipulated the key condition was a 7 percent unemployment rate and said he expected Britain to reach this threshold only in 2016. Instead, this unemployment rate now looks likely as soon as next month — thereby discrediting the entire approach to forward guidance and policy transparency. Which he and Bernanke pioneered.

If Carney was forced by events to retreat from his commitment to forward guidance, should we conclude that forward guidance from other central banks, including the Fed, has become “inoperative,” to use President Richard M. Nixon’s euphemism for his lies about Watergate? If so, then the panic in financial markets makes sense.

After all, forward guidance was how Bernanke and Yellen managed to calm down last summer’s “taper tantrum.” When financial markets panicked in response to suggestions that the Fed would gradually reduce or “”taper” its monetary stimulus, Bernanke reassured them by essentially promising not to raise interest rates until at least 2015.

After this reassurance, the market tantrum calmed down — and the tapering process began calmly enough in December.

As a result, forward guidance was assumed to be the strongest remaining weapon in the armory of the Fed and other central banks. But this month, the financial tantrums started again, ahead of the next stage of monetary tapering, which the Fed announced on Wednesday.

The question now is whether the Fed can restore the market belief that easy money is here to stay — at least until the United States returns to sustained economic growth and full employment, which cannot possibly happen until 2015 or beyond.

History suggests that such promises from central bankers can never be fully trusted. And the recent experience in Britain confirms this.

Yet despite this historic record, Yellen will probably succeed in restoring faith in the Fed’s commitment to continuing economic stimulus and easy money. And not just because of her personal credibility, which is strong but not any stronger than Bernanke’s. The reason for confidence is the fact that continuing stimulus and easy money are the only economic policies that will serve the Fed’s institutional interests — and the U.S. national interest — between now and 2016.


PHOTO (TOP): Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke pauses during remarks at his final planned news conference before his retirement, at the Federal Reserve Bank headquarters in Washington, December 18, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

PHOTO (INSERT 1): Janet Yellen, vice chairwoman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, speaks at the University of California Berkeley Haas School of Business, in Berkeley, California, November 13, 2012. REUTERS/Robert Galbraith

PHOTO (INSERT 2):The governor of Britain’s Bank of England, Mark Carney, attends a session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, January 25, 2014. REUTERS/Ruben Sprich



We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

he didn’t promise anything. He said he would keep the rates down but that is obviously subject to change… he made a decision based on economic predictions, but predictions are just that. Thus, if he said he would keep rates down, that will happen if the economy does move as expected. Sometimes it doesn’t and the Fed has to react. Comparing Bernanke to the central banker of Argentina is ridiculous (the central banker of argentina is indeed a liar, but many people knew that already, just like the exchange rate policies of Venezuela). Bernanke is nothing like those types of bankers.

Posted by CommanderOtto | Report as abusive

“central bankers possess a “License to Lie” — or, putting it more diplomatically and politely, to make promises about the future that cannot be honored and often turn to be false”

Doesn’t this license apply to politicians in general rather than just central bankers. They are generally attempting to create and shape the situation rather than simply reporting the situation.

Posted by walstir | Report as abusive

Anyone remember Jose Lopez Portillo, el Presidente of Mexico saying, “Defendere el peso como perro”? I will defend the peso like a dog. Soon thereafter the peso was devalued by 500%. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to relive it.

Posted by Dr_Steve | Report as abusive

Besides all speeches and stats the tapering move has spoken his own language yesterday. There wasn’t any us-trader, who bought dollars.

Posted by seafloor | Report as abusive

Sometimes I envy people, who are able to lie.

Posted by seafloor | Report as abusive

To be more specific. There wasn’t any us-trader, who bought dollars versus euro.

Posted by seafloor | Report as abusive

…. are posts approved or something? I dont see my comment!

Posted by CommanderOtto | Report as abusive

Central Bankers look out for what they think is best. It’s called monetary policy and is aimed to aid, abet and protect the banks, especially the FED regarding the big banks. Read the early history of the FED. It’s not the job of central bankers to do good or evil to investors. Investors are gamblers. They are Las Vegas gamblers on steroids. The fund managers, financial advisors are in the business to help themselves, not anyone else. An investor is a gambler. I have no sympathy for them nor do I care for the Central Bankers whose interest is the Banks. Don’t blame the Central Bankers for investors problems. Those problems are the problems of all gamblers.

Posted by Kahnie | Report as abusive

After you’ve declared your opinion about gamblers, for a better understanding you should check out the trading system. Sure there are a lot of speculators. Banks and hedge fonds are often the worst. Although insider chat rooms are mostly forbidden now, the manipulation of the markets is still their daily business. Nonetheless, there are still some traders alive.
In my opinion Mr. Bernanke has bankrupted many smaller us banks for the good of the big. The QE programs have been the less efficient programs ever. He could have thrown the money better with helicopters instead of giving it to the rich directly. The banks were bailed out for the wealth of the people. Germany has bailed out its banks with trillions. The same is happening in Spain. There the ‘bankrupt’ banks still have enough money to buy all the real estates in the whole country. Not to mention Greece, it’s the worst betrayal ever worldwide.
Don’t forget, if the rich become richer, it’s also good for the poor, because they give 10% back of the 120% they’ve stolen from you.

Posted by seafloor | Report as abusive

Why am I not surprised?

In the final analysis, wealth is nothing but an illusion and to believe in an illusion is basically an act of self-delusion. Where the economy is concerned, we want to listen to lies; in fact, we love to! When Central Bankers lie they are in fact not lying for the first time; it is just a case of a new lie created to cover up an old lie. If we stop believing in lies, the house of cards that we call the economy will simply crumble away!

Posted by sunnasutta | Report as abusive

Do Central Bankers ‘owe’ anything to greedy speculators, that are generously called ‘markets’ ? Why should there be any consideration at all for such non-productive members of society ?

Posted by Earthtourist | Report as abusive