Comments on: Broke bureaucrat of the day, St Louis Fed edition

By: robertwaldmann

robertwaldmann — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:57:05 +0000

Fischer seems to have an even stranger approach to money demand than to money supply. If my eyes don’t deceive me and I understand correctly he has $500,000 in checking accounts ? Why ? Is he preparing for a possible impulse purchase of an Island somewhere ?

It seems to me to be crazy to hold so much wealth in an account which pays near zero interest (my US checking account pays exactly zero, but I guess if you have a balance of hundreds of thousands you don’t focus on avoiding fees).

Fisher has a strong personal interest in low inflation since so much of his wealth is, for some incomprehensible reason, not in TIPS. This creates conflict of interests. I strongly suspect that he feels that he should, perhaps that he must, make sure that inflation is costly to him personally. I suspect that he would consider shielding himself from inflation to be immoral. That is, he feels morally obliged to have a personal interest at stake when making policy decisions. I guess this because I guess he considers inflation to be absolute evil (the way the Pope views birth control pills) so he considers having a personal interest in low inflation virtuous.

By: robertwaldmann

robertwaldmann — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:57:05 +0000

By: Woltmann

Woltmann — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:52:23 +0000

Maybe he doesn’t trust banks and has it all squirrelled away in mayonaise jars buried in his back yard ..

By: cnhedge

cnhedge — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:13:45 +0000

I admire Felix’s attidude, but it seems he overlooked Bullard’s hidden assets.

http://www.cnhedge.com

By: bxg9

bxg9 — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:39:08 +0000

Yet again…
You are a blogger – you are entitled of course to post off the cuff opinions. But at this point, it’s clear to all that you were fundamentally wrong – and I’m willing to bet – please challenge me here! – that you realize this about some really basic premises of your post.
So now, if we read it, there is an incrediby vague “I might not have understood everything” footnote at the end if one reads thus far. What’s up? Do you really feel that there is some religious obligation not to alter one’s words once submitted, no matter how false they may be? This make little sense to me, but even if so why can
t you put your corrections at the front rather than in a footnote. Is this a traffic optimization thing?

By: RogerNegotiator

RogerNegotiator — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:35:57 +0000

MrChutney, as I posted above I believe Felix is way off, but I think you are probably incorrect about mutual funds. Although most federal employees do not have to disclose diversified mutual funds, it looks like the Fed does require disclosure. It’s hard to tell from Bullard’s form because it looks like he is using an older version of the form than the other filers used. But if you look at p 336 the instructions refer to excepted investment funds, which are defined on p 335 as diversified mutual funds. On most of the forms gathered by the Times, there is a column on Schedule A for identifying excepted investment funds. So disclosure of all mutual funds seems to be a Fed requirement. I agree with everything else you said.

By: MrChutney

MrChutney — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:58:56 +0000

Felix I generally love your stuff but you may be way off on this story. Federal disclosure does not even require listing of mutual funds that hold diverse portfolios. Therefore no meaningful assessment can be made about Mr. Bullard’s assets or net worth. He may be due to his position abstaining from holding individual stocks, sector funds, and other particular securities to avoid conflict of interest. And as others have stated above, his TSP and pension would not have to be disclosed. He probably deserves our respect rather than be the target of insinuation. I would guess he is a dedicated civil servant. I think apologies are owed.

By: jcsnotes

jcsnotes — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:45:13 +0000

I’m unclear how you could write the sentence “I’m unclear on what that means” [re: the definition of deposit accounts within the scope of the disclosure form] and still keep this opinion piece up under the circumstances. Here’s hoping you get around to figuring out what it means before a few more people potentially get the wrong idea about this.

By: maynardGkeynes

maynardGkeynes — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:32:53 +0000

If he is nearing 30 years of Federal Service he probably has between $500K to $1M in TSP, assuming he contributed the IRS max every year. He’s probably closer to $600K, unless he timed the ups and downs of the C fund perfectly. He probably has his outside holdings in FDIC CDs, which tells you something also. Also, if his wife does not work, and he has kids in private school in the DC area, $300K/year isn’t enough to accumulate a fortune beyond his TSP. Maybe another $1M. My guess for his net worth is about $3M – $5M.

By: DCGovEsq

DCGovEsq — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:12:33 +0000

Not sure what applies to the Fed as opposed to the financial disclosure reports that, as part of my job, I review for government officials, but the fact that some of his peers disclose the cash and similar accounts doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t have such accounts. It very well may mean that his peers overdisclosed.

By: JohnBChilton

JohnBChilton — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:41:58 +0000

Don’t forget the FRB thrift plan for employees especially as you say Bullard is a career central banker:

“Employer Matching Contributions

If you have fewer than five years of service, your employer matches 80 percent of the first 6 percent of salary that you contribute to the Plan. The maximum amount of this matching contribution is 4.8 percent of your salary. Employer matching increases to $1 for every $1 you contribute, up to 6 percent of salary, if you have five or more years of service.

This means that for every $1.00 you save (up to 6 percent of your pay), your Employer adds $.80 (up to 4.8 percent of your pay).”
http://www.federalreserve.gov/careers/ne w4hire/documents/3_benefits/3_3_0_4_0.ht m

By: rb6

rb6 — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:31:58 +0000

So obviously, the lesson is, the longer someone works for a relatively lower salary for the government, the more likely it is that he is motivated by the basest and greediest motives that relate to his future service in the private sector. So actually, the true height of altruism is to start young and early striving for money — in that way you will prove your devotion to the common good.

Seriously, Felix, this was way beneath you.

By: RogerNegotiator

RogerNegotiator — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:14:36 +0000

“Personal account” is defined at p. 335 as checking, savings, CDs, and money market funds. The premise of this post is false and it should be retracted.

By: ChiefX123

ChiefX123 — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:09:19 +0000

Further to your update — the Thrift Plan also could easily hold assets well over $1 million. The Federal Reserve also provides a pension.

If he makes it to retirement age at the Fed, he should be able to retire reasonably comfortably.

By: Worsel

Worsel — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:01:06 +0000

this is a complete non-story. what business is it of yours how a public official spends his money? as long as he isn’t breaking the law, i don’t see the public interest or reason faux outrage (other than to attempt to generate controversy). man spends his pay check? the impertinence!