Anatole Kaletsky

Were Bernanke’s comments a fire drill or a false alarm?

Anatole Kaletsky
Jul 11, 2013 14:14 UTC

Whenever Alan Greenspan was praised for delivering a clear message on U.S. monetary policy, he liked to reply something along the lines of: “If you think that, you have misunderstood what I said.” Ben Bernanke prefers the opposite approach. On May 22, he triggered one of biggest financial panics since 2008 by raising the possibility of reducing the Fed’s record-breaking monetary stimulus, while admitting that he had no idea when to start this process. He spent the subsequent six weeks trying to clear up the mess that he had created by explaining in painstaking detail the precise timing and conditions under which “tapering” might or might not take place. In the process he created even greater confusion and financial volatility. It now appears that he would have done much better for the world economy — and for his own reputation — by saving his breath and imitating Greenspan’s obfuscation.

The Fed minutes published on Wednesday revealed so many divergent opinions on the conditions, timing and even direction of any change in monetary policy, that all the recent speeches and press conferences on tapering could reasonably be described as white noise. Which raises the question of why investors reacted so strongly to all this confusion. Recent market behavior around the world suggests an explanation: while Fed tapering was not in itself a very important issue, Bernanke’s comments acted as a financial alarm bell, drawing attention to risks in the world economy that were forgotten or ignored. When we hear a fire alarm we naturally ask ourselves three questions: Is it a false alarm? Is it a fire drill? Or is it a real fire — and if so, where?

Similar questions may shed some light on the tapering scare. For the U.S. stock market, Bernanke’s May comments were clearly a false alarm, since the Fed was nowhere near a decision to tighten monetary policy, as we now know officially from the minutes. It is not surprising, therefore, that U.S. equity prices have rebounded to their pre-Bernanke record highs. But looking beyond the U.S. stock market, tapering speculation seems more like a fire drill than a false alarm.

Long-term interest rates have risen sharply as the world has been reminded that central banks will not continue buying government bonds forever. Following this reminder, investors who tie up their money for ten years or more in long-term government bonds are now demanding a premium of 2.5 to 3 percentage points above Fed funds. Such steepening of the term premium is a perfectly natural and healthy development as economic conditions normalize, as they seem to be doing in the U.S. But the natural rise in long-term U.S. interest rates is a problem if it happens too suddenly or goes too far — which is why Bernanke may have done the U.S. a favor by testing the vulnerability of the housing market and Wall Street to higher long-term rates. Meanwhile in weaker economies, such as continental Europe, Japan and Britain, local central banks have been put on notice by the Fed that they will have to resist a steepening of long-term yield curves for which their economies may be less ready than the U.S. This is exactly what the European Central Bank and the Bank of England have started to do in response to Bernanke’s fire drill.

Unfortunately the fire drill analogy looks too complacent once we shift attention from the U.S. and Europe to the emerging markets, where currencies, equities and bonds have all been collapsing, along with consumer and business confidence, since Bernanke first spoke. Perhaps, then, the financial alarms of the past two months really did warn of danger, not in the U.S. or Europe but in the EMs — and specifically in China.

Are markets making another blunder?

Anatole Kaletsky
Jun 20, 2013 14:50 UTC

In the four weeks since Ben Bernanke first mentioned that the Federal Reserve Board might start to taper its program of quantitative easing (QE) later this year, more than $2 trillion was wiped off the value of global stock markets — and probably far more from the value of global bonds, which is harder to estimate.

On Wednesday Bernanke spent almost an hour answering press questions to try to clarify the Fed’s policy on interest rates and QE. The result was a further steep fall in equity and bond prices around the world. Does this mean that Bernanke did not really want to signal to, and pacify, financial markets and was trying, instead, to prepare investors for higher interest rates and tougher times ahead? Or is it possible that the market has simply misunderstood his comments, both at Wednesday’s press conference and in his statement on May 22?

I have argued repeatedly in this column for the last interpretation — that tapering would not begin before the end of this year and that financial markets have misinterpreted the Fed’s intentions, partly for reasons connected with the vested interests of analysts and traders, whose livelihoods depend on convincing the world that economic policy is highly volatile and uncertain. If monetary policy were predictable and stable, which is essentially what Bernanke has promised, then the status and salaries of Fed-watchers in Washington would be hard to justify and the profits of short-term macroeconomic speculators would disappear. But maybe this view was simply wrong.

The many interpretations of Ben Bernanke

Anatole Kaletsky
May 23, 2013 16:05 UTC

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke testifies before Congress in Washington, May 22, 2013. REUTERS/Gary Camero

On Wednesday in Washington, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke presented congressional testimony that repeated, virtually word for word, statements about U.S. monetary policy he has been making since last September.

The Federal Reserve, Bernanke said, would continue buying $85 billion of bonds monthly until it was confident of reducing unemployment to 6.5 percent. The scale of these purchases might be increased or diminished – but only if and when such shifts were warranted by economic statistics. Now, he said, there is no case for a change in either direction.