PDA

View Full Version : Fed's Flip-Flop Traced To Call From... Rubin?


Vegas
10-09-2007, 11:23 AM
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=276728706605915

In politics and on the campaign trail, flip-flops can be very damaging. But Ben Bernanke's whopper of a policy flip-flop two months ago turned out to be a big positive for financial markets and the economy, and may even help reverse the sinking fortunes of the GOP.

The flip-flop itself is a tale of two Bernankes: On the afternoon of Aug. 7, the Federal Reserve chair was an inflation hawk — according to the unchanged FOMC policy statement — fearful of adding liquidity to the markets. By day's end on Aug. 9, however, he was leading the liquidity charge, initiating a process that would help unlock the credit seize-up that started in late July.

Why the 180?

Using the Freedom of Information Act, Ken Thomas, a researcher and lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, was able to get Bernanke's calendar of phone calls and meetings at the time the flip-flop occurred.

He found that a day after the Fed's Aug. 7 decision to keep rates steady and maintain a focus on inflation worries, Bernanke received a phone call from Citigroup's Robert Rubin, the Wall Street powerhouse and former Clinton Treasury secretary. Thomas does not know the content of the Rubin call, but subsequent calls and events suggest that Bernanke rapidly changed his mind on Aug. 8 and 9, after which he began steering the Fed toward a series of massive money additions to the banking system.

According to the Bernanke logs, a 5 p.m. Rubin call on Aug. 8 was followed by a 7:30 a.m. next-day breakfast with Bush Treasury man Henry Paulson and an 11 a.m. meeting with legendary mortgage expert Lou Ranieri. (It was Ranieri who pioneered mortgage-backed securitizations, the very bonds that were collapsing as a result of the subprime mortgage virus that had already begun infecting the financial system.)

At 2 p.m. that day, the Fed chair met with Ray Dalio, head of Bridgewater, the fourth-largest U.S. hedge fund, along with other hedge fund magnates. At 4:30 p.m., Bernanke was on a conference call with his fellow FOMC members, undoubtedly to discuss a Fed change of heart.

In fact, over the next few weeks, Bernanke participated in no fewer than 35 separate conference calls with fellow Fed operatives — a complete departure from his earlier no-conference-call style. And he got the liquidity ball rolling.

The 'Pour' Begins

As we now know, the Fed started pouring liquidity into the system on Aug. 9. Then, on Aug. 17, it slashed its base discount rate for member-bank loans by 50 basis points. Finally, on Sept. 18, it enacted a shock-and-awe liquidity-adding half-point drop in the federal funds rate.

The Bernanke narrative is based on the incidence of calls and meetings, and not the actual content. But it seems clear that Rubin started a chain reaction on Aug. 8 — only one day after the Fed's disappointing, hold-the-line policy decision that so disappointed financial markets and intensified the credit turmoil.

Essentially, the academic Bernanke became a hands-on market participant through his contacts with Rubin, Paulson, the hedgies and others. He reached out to savvy financial market players, who put him in touch with the real world. He then embarked on a five-week journey that shook world credit markets out of their financial panic and started the healing process that continues to this day.

Financial confidence has improved, the credit crunch has loosened and stock markets worldwide have rebounded dramatically, with the Dow hovering near its high of 14,000. This wipes the 2008 recession scenario off the table. For example, the latest jobs report shows 110,000 new payrolls for September, with the prior two months revised up by 118,000.

In the annals of flip-flops, the Bernanke switch is as good as they come. And not only economically, but politically.

Most pundits believe a prolonged economic downturn would doom any Republican in the presidential race against Sen. Hillary Clinton, the most likely Democratic candidate. The pay-to-play Intrade prediction market puts a 60% probability on a Democratic presidential win.

Compounding this, a Wall Street Journal poll gives Democrats a 25-percentage-point advantage on cutting budget deficits, a 16-point margin on spending control, a 15-point lead on the economy and a 9-point advantage on taxes. On top of that, the poll shows a serious Republican loss of business support.

Undoubtedly, an economic recession on top of all this would be gut-wrenching for the GOP. But Bernanke's major-league monetary makeover, one that relaunched a pro-growth Fed policy to supply ample credit for economic expansion, changes all that.

It would be ironic if Clinton adviser Robert Rubin's phone call to the Fed chief — a call that triggered a complete monetary about-face — wound up bolstering the economy and keeping GOP presidential hopes alive.

Jiddy78
10-09-2007, 01:11 PM
Interesting...How much has the fed added to the money supply in the past year?

I think IBD has some research to do.

KinjaKahn
10-09-2007, 01:51 PM
Interesting...How much has the fed added to the money supply in the past year?

I think IBD has some research to do.
Actually I heard from a conspiracy theorist on the radio about 2 years ago it was supposed to double during 2004 - 2008. There have been many excuses to increase it incrementally over this period to keep it from being seen as a whole. I have been watching gold prices as a barometer but it hasn't reached where I expected to prove that conspiracy to me. I just checked gold... its $737.00 its up significantly, but still a little ways from where I thought it would be at the end of the money printing binge, of course its not 2008 yet. It was just under $400 an ounce in early 2004. Don't be surprised if gold hits $1,200.00 an ounce before 2010. Before Nixon took us off the gold standard gold had never been more than $50.00 an ounce.

Jiddy78
10-09-2007, 02:03 PM
Actually I heard from a conspiracy theorist on the radio about 2 years ago it was supposed to double during 2004 - 2008. There have been many excuses to increase it incrementally over this period to keep it from being seen as a whole. I have been watching gold prices as a barometer but it hasn't reached where I expected to prove that conspiracy to me. I just checked gold... its $737.00 its up significantly, but still a little ways from where I thought it would be at the end of the money printing binge, of course its not 2008 yet. It was just under $400 an ounce in early 2004. Don't be surprised if gold hits $1,200.00 an ounce before 2010. Before Nixon took us off the gold standard gold had never been more than $50.00 an ounce.

I've stopped long ago using the price of gold as a measure of inflation. They've bastardized the gold trading system so that it is no more helpful than stock or dollar exchange values.

Gold is on nothing more than a speculative fury....just like everything else.

KinjaKahn
10-09-2007, 02:14 PM
I don't know how you can stop using it, they can double the paper they cant double the gold. With demand rising from an emerging wealthy Asia the production is offset. I see this era as the next plateau. I know it was $850 in 1980 and dropped to under $300 in the late 90's but it's never been down to where it was in 1972. I don't think it will ever be down under $600 again.

Jiddy78
10-09-2007, 02:17 PM
I don't know how you can stop using it, they can double the paper they cant double the gold. With demand rising from an emerging wealthy Asia the production is offset. I see this era as the next plateau. I know it was $850 in 1980 and dropped to under $300 in the late 90's but it's never been down to where it was in 1972. I don't think it will ever be down under $600 again.

How much a year can change things...

Vegas
10-09-2007, 02:20 PM
I don't know how you can stop using it, they can double the paper they cant double the gold. With demand rising from an emerging wealthy Asia the production is offset. I see this era as the next plateau. I know it was $850 in 1980 and dropped to under $300 in the late 90's but it's never been down to where it was in 1972. I don't think it will ever be down under $600 again.

If a new gold strike was found that increased worldwide supplies, the price would drop like a rock.

Jiddy78
10-09-2007, 02:49 PM
If a new gold strike was found that increased worldwide supplies, the price would drop like a rock.


Or if the media claimed there was when, in fact, there wasn't...But hey, who's panicking? :cool:

KinjaKahn
10-09-2007, 02:57 PM
If a new gold strike was found that increased worldwide supplies, the price would drop like a rock.
Hoping for a new strike seems like an odd fiscal policy. :)

Vegas
10-09-2007, 03:38 PM
Hoping for a new strike seems like an odd fiscal policy. :)

It's unrelated to fiscal policy. We've been off of the gold standard for over 30 years.

Jiddy78
10-09-2007, 03:54 PM
It's unrelated to fiscal policy. We've been off of the gold standard for over 30 years.

In conclusion: God hates me.

KinjaKahn
10-09-2007, 04:17 PM
It's unrelated to fiscal policy. We've been off of the gold standard for over 30 years.
Actually I heard from a conspiracy theorist on the radio about 2 years ago it was supposed to double during 2004 - 2008. There have been many excuses to increase it incrementally over this period to keep it from being seen as a whole. I have been watching gold prices as a barometer but it hasn't reached where I expected to prove that conspiracy to me. I just checked gold... its $737.00 its up significantly, but still a little ways from where I thought it would be at the end of the money printing binge, of course its not 2008 yet. It was just under $400 an ounce in early 2004. Don't be surprised if gold hits $1,200.00 an ounce before 2010. Before Nixon took us off the gold standard gold had never been more than $50.00 an ounce.
Printing cash to suffice the ignorant public and devalue the US dollar is policy though. Gold is just a measuring stick.

Vegas
10-09-2007, 04:21 PM
Printing cash to suffice the ignorant public and devalue the US dollar is policy though. Gold is just a measuring stick.

Gold is not a measuring stick. It fluctuates with supply and demand just like any other commodity.

And as far as increasing the money supply, it's hardly a bad thing in all cases. Remember the truism:

mv = pq

In order for the economy to grow, m has to increase. The trick is to keep it at the proper level so that inflation doesn't take over. The fed overall does a decent job of it.

Jiddy78
10-09-2007, 04:23 PM
It's unrelated to fiscal policy. We've been off of the gold standard for over 30 years.


Also key to note that very much due to that change in fiscal policy, your generation has received the greatest wealth boost in the history of the planet....And to see what many have done with it sickens me.

Vegas
10-09-2007, 04:34 PM
Also key to note that very much due to that change in fiscal policy, your generation has received the greatest wealth boost in the history of the planet....And to see what many have done with it sickens me.

Please elaborate on this. I'm really curious now.

KinjaKahn
10-09-2007, 04:44 PM
Gold is not a measuring stick. It fluctuates with supply and demand just like any other commodity.

And as far as increasing the money supply, it's hardly a bad thing in all cases. Remember the truism:

mv = pq

In order for the economy to grow, m has to increase. The trick is to keep it at the proper level so that inflation doesn't take over. The fed overall does a decent job of it.
The Fed has robbed us blind and after our hearing now. Since the Fed came into "power" in 1913, the US dollar has lost 96% of its value. Printing more cash is not printing wealth it just makes everyone think so.

Vegas
10-09-2007, 04:47 PM
The Fed has robbed us blind and after our hearing now. Since the Fed came into "power" in 1913, the US dollar has lost 96% of its value. Printing more cash is not printing wealth it just makes everyone think so.

So you'd prefer deflation?

KinjaKahn
10-09-2007, 04:59 PM
So you'd prefer deflation?
I would prefer fairness and honesty, and not owing interest on our own money that we as a NATION "borrow" from the Fed.

Vegas
10-09-2007, 05:01 PM
I would prefer fairness and honesty, and not owing interest on our own money that we as a NATION "borrow" from the Fed.

If the politicians spend more money than they take in, they borrow. That's who is to blame for deficits.

KinjaKahn
10-09-2007, 05:10 PM
If the politicians spend more money than they take in, they borrow. That's who is to blame for deficits.
Who's money are they borrowing and what's the interest rate? How much money does the US Government owe the Federal Reserve?

Blaming politicians is useless if you don't support a politician who wants to change things.

Jiddy78
10-09-2007, 05:15 PM
Please elaborate on this. I'm really curious now.


You would argue that boomers haven't lived in the greatest wealth boom in history? And that they haven't spent it like drunken sailors...Somehow instilling those...values....into their offspring?

Vegas
10-09-2007, 05:46 PM
You would argue that boomers haven't lived in the greatest wealth boom in history? And that they haven't spent it like drunken sailors...Somehow instilling those...values....into their offspring?

I'm not so sure about that. There has been a great wealth boom, but a good part of that is due to consumer spending. It's also fueled by investments. How many baby boomers have fat 401k accounts invested in the stock market, for instance?

Jiddy78
10-09-2007, 05:47 PM
If the politicians spend more money than they take in, they borrow. That's who is to blame for deficits.

Look at this f*cking copout...If the PEOPLE would care about the politicians spending then they would make sure there was no deficit...The people don't care...Why? Because they are reaping the benefits of this whorish spending. When that stops, then we will see a change.

Vegas
10-09-2007, 05:48 PM
Who's money are they borrowing and what's the interest rate? How much money does the US Government owe the Federal Reserve?

Blaming politicians is useless if you don't support a politician who wants to change things.

How much does the US Government owe the federal reserve? I'd say about none. The US government borrows against its own future income.

I don't support politicians who waste taxpayer (including future taxpayer) money.

Vegas
10-09-2007, 05:49 PM
Look at this f*cking copout...If the PEOPLE would care about the politicians spending then they would make sure there was no deficit...The people don't care...Why? Because they are reaping the benefits of this whorish spending. When that stops, then we will see a change.

All taxpayers and all voters reap the benefits of whorish spending? I don't think so.

KinjaKahn
10-09-2007, 06:06 PM
How much does the US Government owe the federal reserve? I'd say about none. The US government borrows against its own future income.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/FDHBFRBN_Max_630_378.png

Jiddy78
10-09-2007, 06:17 PM
All taxpayers and all voters reap the benefits of whorish spending? I don't think so.

I disagree...The money we spend in government, less the whorish pittances that politicians scam, is many times given back to the people via corporations, public sector workers, military contractors etc....Enough get a piece that they vote accordingly.

Vegas
10-09-2007, 06:22 PM
I disagree...The money we spend in government, less the whorish pittances that politicians scam, is many times given back to the people via corporations, public sector workers, military contractors etc....Enough get a piece that they vote accordingly.

I agree completely that a lot of politicians buy votes with taxpayer money. It's something that drives me crazy. Tax consumers get the same number of votes as tax payers.

Jiddy78
10-09-2007, 06:31 PM
I agree completely that a lot of politicians buy votes with taxpayer money. It's something that drives me crazy. Tax consumers get the same number of votes as tax payers.

Guess which group is more vocal and makes more noise at the polls?