Tag: Federal Reserve

Final Thoughts On The SVB Situation

The Daily Escape:

Spring wildflowers, Four Peaks Wilderness, AZ – March 2023 photo by Chris Flores

(This will be the final column for this week as Wrongo and Ms. Right are heading to CA for the Napa Valley wedding of granddaughter Nicole. Columns will resume on 3/23)

Several readers commented on how Silicon Valley Bank’s (SVB) major problem went beyond Wrongo’s discussion of asset management. They’re all former bankers and former colleagues of Wrongo, and they rightly brought up liability management as a key contributor to SVB’s problem.

For banks, the deposits that people make are the bank’s liabilities. The essence of banking is borrowing short term (deposits, overnight borrowings and medium term borrowings) in order to lend that money out for a longer term (mortgages, long term loans or, investments in bonds and long dated US treasuries). The difference between what they pay on their liabilities and what they earn on their loans and investments (the spread) is how banks make their profits.

SVB had little risk that their loans wouldn’t be eventually paid back (credit risk), but they did have substantial interest rate risk if rates went up. That included the risk that the face value of the bonds they invested in would decline in value in higher interest rate scenarios.

This is a well-known challenge for all banks. They try to maintain enough of their assets in easily sold investments so if there’s an unforeseen need to pay out cash to depositors, they can meet that need. The bigger the expected (or unexpected) cash need, the more assets the bank must hold that are easily converted to cash.

It wasn’t a surprise to the banking industry that the Federal Reserve (Fed) was raising rates; Chair Powell clearly said they were going to do that until inflation was under control. Basic liability management principles should have told SVB to move to hedge the risks in a rising rate environment by investing more in very short term (near cash) assets. But SVB didn’t. Maybe they thought they knew better.

SVB isn’t alone. The Fed raised interest rates quickly and sharply during 2022, so the face value of bonds fell. According to the FDIC, US banks were sitting on $620 billion in unrealized losses (assets that had decreased in market value but were still on their books at purchase price) at the end of 2022.

Of that amount, Bank of America alone had unrealized losses of around $114 billion, or 18% of the total.

A major risk that the banks didn’t correctly anticipate was the effect of huge cash injections into the economy during the pandemic, along with a prolonged period of historically low interest rates that predated the pandemic. That had ripple effects on all banks. According to Marc Rubinstein:

“Between the end of 2019 and the first quarter of 2022, deposits at US banks rose by $5.4 trillion. With loan demand weak, only around 15% of that volume was channeled towards loans; the rest was invested in securities portfolios or kept as cash.”

Then came the Fed’s rapid rise in interest rates. From FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg:

“The current interest rate environment has had dramatic effects on the profitability and risk profile of banks’ funding and investment strategies….Unrealized losses weaken a bank’s future ability to meet unexpected liquidity needs,”

Banks do not continually adjust the value of their bond portfolio to market. So their unrealized losses can be difficult for an outsider to see. It also means banks find that selling parts of the portfolio will bring in less cash than they may need, because the securities are worth less in the market than they originally paid for them. That happened to SVB.

From Michael Batnick at Irrelevant Investor:

“Without the pandemic, rates are not at zero for two years. Without the pandemic, $638 billion does not go into venture capital. Without the pandemic, rates don’t go from 0% to 4.5% in a year. And without the pandemic, we wouldn’t be talking about a run on the bank.”

So there’s plenty of blame to go around. The SVB management surely failed: More Treasury bills and fewer bonds would have helped, that’s for sure. They had to know that their customer base, which was concentrated in start-ups, were hemorrhaging cash. They knew that they had unrealized losses in their bond portfolio. Shouldn’t they have shortened their asset mix?

Should we blame the regulators or SVB’s auditors? KPMG gave them a clean bill of health just a few weeks before they went belly up. You would think KPMG should have seen what was coming. And the Fed just announced that they are leading a review of “the supervision and regulation of Silicon Valley Bank in light of its failure.”

For SVB, the government drastically changed its policy about insured deposits. Had SVB been “The Bank of Depositors With No Political Clout”, you can bet that the $250,000 insured deposit limit would have been enforced. And depositors with larger deposits would have had to wait for their money.

But, the exception was made, and now, it will certainly happen again. Ben Carlson says it best:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call – April 3, 2022

The Daily Escape:

Makapu’u Lookout, Oahu, HI – January 2022 photo by TwoBongs on Tour

Let’s talk about the “Wealth Effect”. It’s the notion that when households become richer as a result of a rise in asset values, such as stock prices or home values, they spend more and stimulate the broader economy. The idea is that consumers feel more financially secure and confident about their wealth, even if their income and costs are the same as before.

This concept has been endorsed by two recent former Fed Chairs, Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke. It’s simply another term for trickle-down economics.

In 2019, after nearly 11 years of the Fed’s policy of adding money to the economy, by “Quantitative Easing” (QE), the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) did a study on the Wealth Effect, to quantify how much richer the rich would have had to become to have x% impact on the overall economy, and how long this boost lasts before it fades.

They found that QE makes 10% of the population a lot richer, producing immense concentration of wealth at the top 1%, and mind-boggling concentrations of wealth at the billionaire level. After which, there were some very muted trickle-down effects on the economy.

Wolf Richter used the Fed’s wealth distribution data to create a chart he calls the Wealth Effect Monitor. The Fed divides the US population into four groups by wealth: The “Top 1%,” the “2% to 9%,” the “next 40%,” and the “bottom 50%” to report on wealth.

Richter divides this data by the number of households in each category, to obtain the average wealth per household in each category. Here’s his chart for the past 21 years:

Note the immense increase in the wealth for the 1% households after the Fed’s latest QE effort that began in March 2020. They have been the primary beneficiaries of the Fed’s policies since 2020.

True to the Wealth Effect’s concepts, the Fed’s policies helped to inflate asset prices, and thus only asset owners benefited: The more assets held, the stronger the benefit. Here’s Richter’s analysis of average wealth (assets minus debts) per household, by category in the 4th quarter, 2021:

  • “Top “1%” household (red): $36.2 million
  • The “2% to 9%” household (yellow): $4.68 million
  • The “next 40%” household (purple): $775,000
  • The “bottom 50%” household (green): $59,000

The Fed doesn’t provide separate data on the 0.01% and the Billionaire class, but they were the biggest beneficiaries of the Fed’s monetary policies. The top 30 US billionaires have a total wealth of $2.12 trillion, sliced into 30 slices for a wealth of $70.8 billion per billionaire, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Compare that to the bottom half of the US population (the “bottom 50%”) who have a combined wealth of just $3.7 trillion, divided into 165 million slices for each individual. The way percentages work, you would think that households in the bottom 50% would have the largest percentage gains since they start from a lower base. But because they own fewer assets, when adjusted by population, they stay mired in last place. From Richter:

“When the wealth of the bottom 50% increases by 5%, they gain about $3,000. And when the average wealth of the top 30 billionaires increases by 5%, they on average gain $3,500,000,000.”

More from Richter:

“In 1990, the wealth disparity between the average top 1% household and the average “bottom 50%” household was $5 million.”

Since March 2020, the wealth disparity between the average top 1% household and the average bottom 50% household has grown by $11.2 million per household.

The bottom 50% of Americans spend all or nearly all their income on housing, transportation, food, healthcare, etc. They hold few stocks and very little real estate. Add that to our current round of inflation, and in order to get by, the bottom 50% are spending nearly all of their income.

They’re the ones paying for the Fed’s policy of enriching asset holders.

We know that average wages and salaries have gone up a lot. Ben Casselman of the NYT says that the wages of low-wage workers have gone up by nearly 12% in the last year; but remember, that’s on a low base. So the worker bees in our economy have a long way to go, while the richest asset holders got vastly wealthier, thanks to the Fed’s policies.

Time to wake up America! The phony trickle-down theory has amazing persistence among US policy makers, despite being amazingly damaging to most of us.

To help you wake up watch an American icon, Taj Mahal perform “Good Morning Ms. Brown” in 2014 while riding in a mule-drawn carriage in the French Quarter in New Orleans:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Can Biden Whip Inflation?

The Daily Escape:

Lone Rock, Lake Powell – November 11, 2021 photo by Ron Broad. This shows how dramatic the loss of water has been in the lake. One commenter said it was possible to boat completely around the Rock in July 2021!

The country is facing a series of problems that, if unresolved, point towards a bloodbath for Democrats in the 2022 mid-term election. An ABC poll, released this weekend should be a wake-up call. Here’s a chart showing early mid-term voting preferences by Party:

On a generic ballot, it shows that the Democrats and Republicans have swapped places since 2017. Today the Dems are supported by just 41% of those surveyed, down from 51% in 2017.

It’s true that relying on polls conducted of just 882 registered voters via landlines, as this poll was, isn’t the only thing Democrats should build their political strategy on. But ABC’s result is similar to others.

People are frustrated with the economy, because they see how everything is getting much more expensive, and they’re blaming the government and politicians. They’re not blaming the Federal Reserve’s expansive policies, because the polls never ask about the Fed, and because most people don’t understand how it works.

Consider this: 62% said the Democrats were out of touch with the concerns of most Americans. One dimly positive note was that Americans didn’t rate Republicans much better, with 58% considering them out of touch. The economy was among the key factors: 70% said the economy is in bad shape, up from 58% in the spring. About half blamed Biden for inflation. And his approval rating of handling the economy plunged to 39%, with 55% disapproving.

Biden doesn’t control prices, but try telling that to consumers. People who make a living by selling their labor have seen recent wage increases get eaten up by higher rents, home prices, food prices, gasoline prices and higher new and used-vehicle prices.

But you can always find an economist or a political writer who minimizes an impending political problem. That’s the kind of thing that Wrongo said yesterday was a bad strategy for Democrats. Here’s Dean Baker: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“The October Consumer Price Index data has gotten the inflation hawks into a frenzy. And, there is no doubt it is bad news. The overall index was up 0.9% in the month, while the core index, which excludes food and energy, rose by 0.6%. Over the last year, they are up 6.2% and 4.6%, respectively. This eats into purchasing power, leaving people able to buy less with their paychecks or Social Security benefits….While the stretch of high inflation has gone on much longer than many of us anticipated, there are still good reasons for thinking that inflation will slow sharply in the months ahead.”

Needless to say, if inflation continues at rates not seen since the 1970s until the 2022 election, no voter will see it as transitory and that won’t be good for Democrats.

Biden has signed his $1 trillion infrastructure bill, hoping that the legislation will help jump-start a Democratic political recovery. His infrastructure plan may not add to inflation, but inflation in the most important things that consumers either notice and care about – food, gasoline,  cars, and houses – doesn’t seem transient.

Biden has a few tools at his disposal. He’s doing what he should to address the microeconomic aspects of inflation: trying to increase capacity at ports, expanding microchip production and he’s considering a release of raw materials from the National Defense Stockpile. The biggest lever he hasn’t pulled is a tariff reduction, especially on goods from China.

Richard Nixon instituted price controls in 1971, They were the first and only peacetime wage and price controls in US history. After a 90-day freeze, increases would have to be approved by a “Pay Board” and a “Price Commission,” with an eye towards lifting controls, conveniently for Tricky Dick, after the 1972 election. His action led to greater inflation, not something any of us should want to see.

From Jason Furman in the WSJ:

“Ultimately inflation is a macroeconomic problem. It’s the Fed’s job to keep it under control….Policy makers at the Fed need to recognize that tools like asset purchases can’t solve the supply-side problems constraining US labor markets and output. They have a dual mandate. They have to take inflation into account even if the economy isn’t yet at maximum employment.”

Biden can pick a different Fed Chair, and there’s an additional vacant seat on the Fed’s board.

Biden can also be jawboning America’s CEOs about gas and food prices. Otherwise, he has no cards to play. All he can do is wait for supply and demand to turn back toward equilibrium, and hope that it happens in the next six months. If inflation turns around, Biden will get some credit.

If it doesn’t, you could see President Trump waddle back into the White House in 2024.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Trump Tries Extorting Iraq

The Daily Escape:

Kaskawulsh Glacier, Kluame NP, Yukon, CN – 2019 aerial photo by Picture Party

Last Saturday, the WSJ reported that the Trump administration had warned Iraq that it might shut down Iraq’s access to its account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY), if Baghdad carries through on its threat to kick out American forces.

Iraq, like most other countries, maintains accounts at the New York Fed as an important part of managing the country’s finances. This account receives revenue earned from foreign trade, including in Iraq’s case, sales of oil. Loss of access to their accounts would restrict Iraq’s ability to use their funds to settle foreign transactions, or to repatriate funds needed in their domestic economy. AFP, citing an unnamed Iraqi official, reported that the balance stands at about $35 billion.

From the WSJ:

“The New York Fed provides banking and other financial services for around 250 central banks, governments and other foreign official institutions, such as the account owned by Bangladesh from which North Korean agents were able to steal $81 million in 2016, U.S. officials have said.”

The FRBNY has the authority to freeze accounts under US sanctions law, or if it has reasonable suspicion that use of the funds could violate US law.

This financial threat isn’t simply theoretical: Iraq’s financial system was squeezed in 2015 when the US suspended access to the central bank’s account at the FRBNY for several weeks over concerns the cash was filtering from Iraqi sources through loosely regulated Iranian banks and on to ISIS.

We’ve occasionally frozen foreign countries’ assets, in both the Federal Reserve Bank and in US commercial banks, typically when a country has engaged in illegal activity, or when a revolution has occurred. We did this after the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Those funds were released by the Obama administration in 2017, when the US unfroze some $150 billion in Iranian blocked assets as part of the Iran nuclear deal.

Iraq is a weak nation with a fragile economy, so it has to take the US threat to freeze its central bank’s assets at the Fed very seriously. Freezing their account would also end any semblance of a friendly relationship between it and the US. It could also become a challenge for the US if Russia and China stepped in to rescue Iraq by weakening the role of the US dollar as the global reserve currency, that is, a currency used to settle foreign trade obligations.

America has become enamored with stopping the global free flow of funds for regimes it doesn’t like. Our sanctions regime is used so frequently that it is difficult to get an overall list of individuals and organizations that are under sanction. The US government maintains a sanctions search engine here.

Interrupting the flow of international settlements by the US has caused competitor countries to try to establish settlements in currencies other than the dollar. To date, there hasn’t been much success. Wolf Richter reports that the US dollar’s share of global reserve currencies has fallen from 65% in 2014 to 61.8% today, with the Euro in 2nd place and the Yen in 3rd.

Will the downward trend of the dollar as a reserve currency continue? Possibly, but if the US continues to act to restrict money flows, it will occur faster and more sharply than it might otherwise.

There is a kind of desperation in Trump’s threat. We’ve spent 18 years in Iraq and it comes to this? Critics of the threat say that it amounts to blackmail, or extortion. Wrongo believes he’s recently heard this about Trump and another country, too.

Is this desperation President Trump’s, or is it a reflection of a deeper desperation on the part of the US ruling elite? Are we seeing the beginning of the end of US omnipotence through the dollar’s role as the dominant global trading currency?

Is it wrong to bring up how Republicans attacked Obama for “abandoning” Iraq even though Iraq wanted us out in 2010? The GOP saw the US leaving Iraq as a mistake. They were glad when we were invited back to help defeat ISIS. Now, the question is: Will we leave under a Republican president?

How would Trump react if a local armed resistance against a US occupying force in Iraq used force of its own to try and get their money back?

Are we really going to punish Iraq because they have asked us to leave?

Isn’t it their country?

Facebooklinkedinrss

Rising Interest Rates Will Add $233 to Monthly Household Expenses

The Daily Escape:

Snoqualmie Falls, WA

We are in the middle of the holiday shopping frenzy, so it may be a bad time for Wolf Richter to mention this:

Outstanding “revolving credit” owed by consumers – such as bank-issued and private-label credit cards – jumped 6.1% year-over-year to $977 billion in the third quarter, according to the Fed’s Board of Governors. When the holiday shopping season is over, it will exceed $1 trillion.

If that’s not bad enough, WalletHub points out that the Federal Reserve is planning on raising interest rates – see here for the credit card interest calculator by Sofi – and that will make credit card debt a lot more expensive, since credit card rates move with short-term interest rates:

The Fed’s four rate hikes since Dec. 2015 have cost credit card users an extra $6 billion in interest in 2017. That figure will swell by $1.46 billion in 2018 if the Fed raises its target rate again in December, as expected.

Everyone expects the Fed to raise rates today. This would bring the incremental costs of five rate hikes so far to $7.5 billion next year. So how do these rate hikes translate for households with credit card balances? Finance charges are concentrated in households that do not pay off their balances every month. Many of these households are among the least able to afford higher interest payments. More from Wolf: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

195.9 million consumers had a revolving credit balance at the end of Q3, with total account balances of $1.35 trillion. This equals $6,892 per person with revolving credit balances. If there are two people with balances in a household, this would amount to nearly $14,000 of this high-cost debt. If the average interest rate on this debt is 20%, credit-card interest payments alone add $233 a month to their household expenditures.

Economists are assuming that the Fed will hike interest rates three times in 2018. The Fed thinks that the “neutral” rate (the target at which the federal funds rate is neither stimulating, nor slowing the economy) is between 2.5% to 2.75%. Since today’s rate is 1.25% to 1.50%, that is a long way up from the current target range. Again, from Wolf:

Interest rates on credit cards would follow in lockstep. These rate hikes to “neutral” would extract another $8 billion or so a year, on top of the additional $7.5 billion from the prior rate hikes.

But there is a double whammy, because credit card balances will also continue to rise. Rising credit card balances combined with rising interest rates on those balances will produce sharply higher interest costs to people who already can’t pay off their monthly credit card balances.

For many card holders with poor credit, this will eventually lead to default. Credit card delinquencies have started to tick up, from 2.16% in Q1 2016 to 2.53% in Q3. That is a low overall level of delinquency, but we need to look at to losses in the subprime segment (those with the lowest credit scores) and at the lenders that specialize in subprime lending. And there, delinquency rates are jumping.

Debt is not always a choice. A catastrophic medical debt, the death of the primary breadwinner, or loss of employment with no new job for an extended period of time can destroy a lifetime of savings in as little as a few months to a few years.

Since the crash of 2007, a great many people have be unable to find employment that is enough to support a family. And they have taken multiple jobs to try to make ends meet. Or any job that they can find.

It is this financial uncertainty which has a knock on effect for credit scores also. It’s no secret that without a good credit score, loans, mortgages and jobs can be pushed further out of reach. In times like these people often turn to the best credit repair companies as a way of fixing and improving their individual credit. Above all, no matter what your financial circumstances, it’s highly important to regularly check in with your spending and saving habits.

And this is in what economists and politicians say are the best of times, with the lowest unemployment rate since 2000.

Increased costs for consumer credit coupled with increased delinquencies could become a third point reason for populist economic anger. Tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, and the coming GOP attack on Medicare and Medicaid are also justifiable reasons for economic anger.

Where will voters turn for a solution?

After all, governance has ceased to be a part of the job description of our political parties.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Audit The Federal Reserve?

Well, it should be no surprise that the Federal Reserve is already audited, but Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) re-introduced an “Audit the Fed” bill in the House on Wednesday, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced companion legislation in the US Senate. This has been a pet idea of Republicans for years. The GOP’s reasoning was summed up by Rep. Massie:

Behind closed doors, the Fed crafts monetary policy that will continue to devalue our currency, slow economic growth, and make life harder for the poor and middle class…

Mr. Massie apparently does not know that the US dollar is among the strongest currencies in international markets. Otherwise, he wouldn’t say that the Fed is debasing our currency. This guy is the exact reason why Congress’ role in directing the Fed should not be enlarged. Some suggest the bill is inaccurately named, but as the WSJ says:

Fed officials meet several times a year to decide what to do with short-term interest rates and how to influence them—actions that affect the borrowing costs of households, businesses and investors across the country. The “Audit the Fed” measures would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine those decisions.

And then report their findings to various Congressional committees. The GAO already has some Fed oversight, but the bill would repeal restrictions on their oversight. The most important restriction blocks the GAO from reviewing:

Deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, [as well as] discussion or communication among or between members of the Board and officers and employees related to such deliberations.

The repeal of these existing restrictions would allow the GAO to view all materials and transcripts related to meetings of the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the entity that sets US interest rates. It would require the GAO, at the request of Congress, to provide recommendations on monetary policy, including the FOMC’s interest-rate decisions, to Congress.

This would make meeting-by-meeting monetary policy decisions subject to Congressional review and, potentially, Congressional pressure. Judging by Mr. Massie’s level of knowledge about central banking, it would be highly likely that political pressure and rabble-rousing would be unavoidable.

The Fed’s financial statements are already audited in the usual sense by the government’s Inspector General (IG) and by Deloitte, a world-class independent accounting firm. The resulting financial reports are available to the public online. Every security owned by the Fed, including its unique identifying CUSIP number, is also available online.

The GAO reviews the Fed’s activities at the request of Congress, and has wide latitude to review Fed operations. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act required the GAO to conduct reviews of the Fed’s emergency lending programs during the 2008 crisis, along with the Fed’s governance structure.  Since the financial crisis, the GAO has done some 70 reviews of aspects of Fed operations. That’s about 10 reviews a year since the end of the crisis.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who joined with Sen. Paul to introduce the “Audit the Fed” legislation in the Senate, speaks for many of the Right Wing political class when he says, “the Fed is a group of unaccountable, unelected philosopher kings making decisions that affect every American”.

The bill’s proponents argue that “transparency” is lacking, and this will be cured with more Congressional oversight. Or, by more finger-pointing by certain gerrymandered GOP lifers talking about how the FOMC decisions are based on incorrect assumptions and broken models. There will probably be about as much value-added oversight as the various Benghazi committees exercised over the State Department.

In 2017 we’re having the same debates about the role of the Federal Reserve Bank that America had in the early 1900s prior to the Federal Reserve Act’s passage in 1913. We still hear voices calling for either more or less restrictive monetary policy, for more or less regulation, and even for the Fed to be abolished.

These are the same issues that Sen. Nelson Aldrich, banker Paul Warburg and their colleagues debated a hundred years ago. Back then, the debate was highly politicized, since there was widespread populist mistrust of Wall Street and of the concept of a centralized federal banking authority. Sound familiar?

So, time to let the GOP politicize the Fed. Time to let the Congress get its hands on monetary policy, even though they have proven to have zero ability to handle fiscal policy. Consider Congress’s failure to pass budgets, and their willingness to let the US government default on its debt.

Shouldn’t we keep the Fed’s deliberations free from grandstanding politicians playing to a conspiracy hungry constituency?

Isn’t this supposed to be the Congress that believed in less government?

Facebooklinkedinrss

Republicans vs. Yellen

Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen appeared before Congress on Wednesday for her semi-annual testimony. This, from the NYT:

Ms. Yellen’s final appearance before the presidential election in November was a master class in how many members of Congress have allowed real debate about the country’s economic challenges to be subsumed in the broader political din.

The way the kabuki play works, the Fed Chair starts with prepared remarks that all committee members already have in their hands. On Wednesday, she flagged long-run headwinds to economic growth, and said considerable uncertainties remain for the economic outlook, including risks from China and the so-called Brexit vote in the European Union. Still, she offered a dose of optimism, noting a considerable step-up in second-quarter growth and strong consumer spending in recent months.

Then the Kabuki play moved to questions by Congresspersons. More from the NYT:

It probably tells you everything that you need to know about the current state of the Federal Reserve and monetary policy that in the first ten minutes of Yellen’s Q&A, much of the questioning revolved around issues such as bank regulation/capital requirements and the diversity hiring policies of the Federal Reserve System.

It seems that Congresspersons can’t be bothered drilling down about what the Fed is really thinking about the economy. Based on yesterday’s evidence, they cannot even be bothered learning what Fed policy actually is!

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, (R-TX), said in his opening statement that the Fed is “complicit” in the failure of the Obama administration’s economic policies and the inability of the economy to grow above a 3% annual rate. (FYI, we have hit 3% or more just nine times in the past 16 years)

It got worse:

  • Bill Huizenga, (R-CA), said he’s worried the Fed has itself become a too-big-to-fail financial institution. Remember folks, the Fed can issue all the money it might require, so it is difficult to come up with a scenario where the Fed fails.
  • Representative Scott Garrett, (R-NJ), accused Ms. Yellen of unfairly aiding Wall Street and worsening income inequality. From the NYT:

“Why do you see a need to benefit Goldman Sachs?” he asked.

“I’m sorry, we are not trying to benefit the rich,” Ms. Yellen responded, before trying to interject that more than 14 million jobs had been created since the recession ended in 2009.

“Excuse me, I have the floor,” said Mr. Garrett,

  • Huizenga, (R-MI), said the Fed should also have to undergo a “stress test” like a big bank because of its $4.5 trillion balance sheet. Huizenga said he is worried the Fed is insolvent.

Yellen said the Fed has already undertaken this sort of exercise. Our balance sheet is very different…The Fed is very different from a commercial bank.

Then came the “excess regulations are holding the economy back” questions from Republicans:

  • Randy Neugebauer, (R-TX), says there has been a “buffet” of new rules put on banks with little thought of the overall impact. Yellen replies that the Fed is trying to “reduce the odds” that banks get in trouble, and that most banks are profitable.
  • Blaine Luetkemeyer, (R-MO), asks why no new banks are being chartered, again stressing burdensome regulation. Yellen says the challenging economic environment, not regulation, is the likely culprit.
  • Steve Stivers, (R-OH) says that Fed regulations have held down private investment.

Yellen says Fed regulations are not out of line with international standards and the safety and soundness of the banking sector has improved.

  • Sean Duffy, (R-WI) asked if government regulation was a headwind to growth, saying that businesses cite regulation as a headwind. Yellen replies: “Are you referring to our regulations?” (emphasis and brackets by the Wrongologist)

I’m talking about government regulations…Why don’t you cite it as a headwind?

It’s very hard to quantify the extent to which regulations… [are] headwind[s], she said.

After a fruitless attempt to get Ms. Yellen to call health insurance costs for Wisconsin manufacturers a headwind, Mr. Duffy gave up in a fit of pique.

I’ll accept that as a non-answer, he said.

This hearing is an object lesson in why average people hate Congress. Committee members had a chance to drill down on the country’s economic challenges, but see only another talking points opportunity.

Imagine what similarly ill-informed Congress critters might ask witnesses in front of a different committee, say, at the Judiciary Committee:

Is it really appropriate to hold confirmation hearings when your term ends in four years?  Do we really want to saddle America with a Supreme Court justice nominated by a potential lame duck president?

Facebooklinkedinrss