Whether your view of the Federal Reverse’s recent decisions one thing is very clear their actions are affecting America’s role in the world’s economy.
Critical comments from bankers around the world can be heard more and more pointing at America’s system. An example of that would be with SVB (Silicon Valley Bank) failure last month – a senior Brazilian bank executive, Andre’ Esteves, said, “Any banking intern in Latin America would have seen SVB’s obvious interest rate risk.”
Sure, the most influential central bank may have missed the mark with (take your pick – forecasts, communication, policymaking) of late, but even so, the statement from Esteves is telling about how the rest of the global bankers’ concerns grow over the Fed’s decisions and how those decisions effect the rest of the world’s banks.
There are valid causes for alarm. Just in the last three years, the Fed has been accused of insider trading, made mistakes in bank oversight, and on multiple occasions, its uneven communication has increased market volatility rather than decreased it.
The public is getting more and more affected by these shortcomings. The rate of inflation in the United States has been too high for too long, depriving people of their purchasing power and particularly harming the poor. The authorities “broke the glass” by activating the “systemic risk exception” in reaction to the bank failures that occurred last month, but this action may now put more of a burden on all depositors.
These changes, especially the potential for decreased loan availability, have raised the possibility that the United States may experience a recession, causing income insecurity in what would otherwise be a healthy economy.
The issues with the Fed ought to worry everyone. Its capacity to preserve financial stability and direct markets in a way compatible with its dual mandate of upholding maximum employment and maintaining price stability is directly impacted by a loss of credibility. The Federal Reserve’s economic forecasts (used to develop and carry out its monetary policy) have received major criticism from former officials.
There have been several international complaints regarding the Fed’s shortcomings (and their detrimental worldwide repercussions). In a commentary published in October of last year with the heading “The world is starting to loathe the Fed,” Edward Luce of the Financial Times effectively described the atmosphere.
The failure of SVB was recently cited as a contributing factor to the difficulty faced by the Swiss officials handling the forced emergency sale of their nation’s second-largest bank during a news conference.
The markets have recently treated the Fed’s forward guidance with such contempt. Recently, there has been a full percentage point of difference between market estimates and the Fed’s stated interest-rate trajectory through 2023. For the central bank at the core of the global financial system, that is a rather huge gap. Markets are currently pricing in a rate cut as early as June, going against everything they have heard and read from the Fed.
The Fed’s patchy communication hasn’t helped. According to recent research, the market is three times more volatile during news conferences given by the current Chair Jerome Powell than during those given by his predecessors, and these press conferences have a tendency to reverse the market’s initial responses to the Committee’s pronouncements.
It is understandable why the yield curve’s largely Fed-influenced portion, which forms the foundation for a variety of domestic and international financial activity, has experienced severe movements. For instance, over the past several weeks, the yield on the two-year U.S. Treasury bond fluctuated in a highly uncommon range of 1.5 percentage points, sparking speculation of “bonkers bond trading” that was not limited to the financial media.
These deviations follow earlier errors by the Fed. The Fed eventually “retired” that incorrect diagnosis after holding onto it for the most of 2021, but failed to take immediate action after that. It finally had to apply the brakes with an abrupt stop.
It is now undeniable that the most potent central bank in the world has made mistakes in its analysis, projections, decisions, and communication. The bad news is this. The good news is that by adopting a better strategic approach for its research and actions and by resolving two significant structural issues, the Fed can still right the ship.
The Fed’s decision-makers appear to lack the variety of perspectives and all-encompassing knowledge found in other significant central banks, which is the first issue. They would be wise to add two impartial, external voting members to the Fed’s policymaking committee, as the Bank of England has done.
The second issue relates to fundamental accountability. Although the Fed chair does go before Congress twice a year, the hearings are not conducive to concentrating on the design and execution of Fed policy, which is what matters. An additional layer of due diligence is required, and experts in the subject should report to Congress before regularly scheduled testimony.
Whether the Powell-led Fed will be regarded alongside the (Paul) Volcker Fed for having defeated inflation or with the (Arthur) Burns Fed for having paved the way for stagflation has been the subject of intense discussion. My concern is that it may go down in history as the Federal Reserve undermining its own credibility, political independence, and America’s important role as the world’s anchor.
