Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, is the co-author of "13 Bankers."
The Federal Reserve has great power in modern American society, including the ability to move the economy and, at least indirectly, to create or destroy fortunes. Its powers operate in two ways: through control over monetary policy, meaning interest rates and credit conditions more broadly, and through its influence over how the financial system is regulated generally and how specific large banks are treated.
Today's Economist
Perspectives from expert contributors.
The secrecy of our central bank has long been a source of controversy. In line with changes at central banks in other countries over recent decades, the Fed's chairman, Ben Bernanke, has pushed for more transparency regarding how individual members of the Federal Open Market Committee view the economy — and thus how they are thinking about the future course of interest rates (and the Fed keeps us posted). This is a commendable change, helping people throughout the economy understand what the Fed is trying to do and why.
Under pressure from both left and right — consider the unlikely alliance of Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont and Representative Ron Paul of Texas — the Fed has also, after the fact, disclosed more of its actions during the recent financial crisis.
But in terms of its process for determining financial-sector regulation, the Federal Reserve — at least at the level of the Board of Governors in Washington — is moving in the wrong direction. Fed officials do testify frequently before Congress — 11 times last year on regulatory and supervisory matters, by the Fed’s count. But the Fed’s decision-making process is nowhere near as open and transparent as that of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (about which I wrote recently).
The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that during the 1980s the Fed's board held 20 to 30 public meetings a year, but these dwindled during the Greenspan years to fewer than five a year in the 2000s and "only two public meetings since July 2010." At the same time, "the Fed has taken on a much larger regulatory role than at any time in history" — including "47 separate votes on financial regulations" since July 2010, The Journal said.
This high level of secrecy is a concern. It is particularly alarming when combined with the disproportionate access afforded to industry participants in the arguments about what constitutes sensible financial reform.
Just on the Volcker Rule — the provision in Dodd-Frank to limit proprietary trading and other high-risk activities by megabanks — Fed board members and staff members apparently met with JPMorgan Chase 16 times, Bank of America 10 times, Goldman Sachs nine times, Barclays seven times and Morgan Stanley seven times (as depicted in a chart that accompanies the Wall Street Journal article).
How many meetings does a single company need on one specific issue? How many would you get?
For example, Americans for Financial Reform, an organization that describes itself as “fighting for a banking and financial system based on accountability, fairness and security,” met with senior Federal Reserve officials only three times on the Volcker Rule. (Disclosure: I have appeared at public events organized by Americans for Financial Reform, but they have never paid me any money. I agree with many of its policy positions, but I have not been involved in any of their meetings with regulators.)
Americans for Financial Reform works hard for its cause, and it produced a strong letter on the Volcker Rule — as did others, including Better Markets and Anat Admati's group based at Stanford University.
Based on what is in the public domain on the Fed's Web site, my assessment is that people opposed to sensible financial reform — including but not limited to the Volcker Rule — have had much more access to top Federal Reserve officials than people who support such reforms. More generally, it looks to me as though, even by the most generous (to the Fed) account, meetings with opponents of reform outnumber meetings with supporters of reform about 10 to 1.
According to those records, for example, the Admati group has not yet managed to obtain a single meeting with top Fed officials on any issue, despite the fact that the group’s members are top experts whose input is welcomed at other leading central banks. To my definite knowledge, they have tried hard to engage with people throughout the Federal Reserve System; some regional Feds are receptive, but the board has not been "“ either at the governor or staff level.
When I asked the Fed about this lack of engagement with the most prominent research team advocating higher capital requirements, a representative sent this response:
We are meeting with a variety of groups and individuals with diverse perspectives and are carefully considering both what we hear in the meetings and what we read in the tens of thousands of comment letters we are receiving as we work with other regulators to implement the Dodd-Frank Act.
I do not understand the Fed's attitude and policies — if it is serious about pushing for financial reform. No doubt they are all busy people, but how is it possible they have time to meet with JPMorgan Chase 16 times (just on the Volcker Rule) and no time to meet Anat Admati "“ not even for a single substantive exchange of views? .
E-mail PrintRecommend Share Close Tumblr Digg Linkedin Reddit Permalink banking, banking regulation, Daily Economist, Dodd-Frank, financial crisis, Simon Johnson, The Federal Reserve, too big to fail, Volcker Rule Related Posts From Economix Paul Volcker vs. the Bank of CanadaProgress on Letting Big Banks FailShould We Trust Paid Experts on the Volcker Rule?Where Is the Volcker Rule?Could Huntsman and the Democrats Ally on Bank Reform? Previous Post Tax Breaks: A Primer Next Post First Thing We Do, Let’s Elect All the Lawyers // // // // // Search This Blog Search Previous Post Tax Breaks: A Primer Next Post First Thing We Do, Let’s Elect All the Lawyers Follow This Blog Twitter RSS // // In order to view this feature, you must download the latest version of flash player here. var so = new SWFObject("http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/business/20090302-econ-indicators-graphic/econIndicators.swf","nytSWF", 334,290,9,"#FFFFFF"); so.addParam("allowScriptAccess","always"); so.addParam("allowFullScreen","true"); so.addParam("BASE","http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/business/20090302-econ-indicators-graphic/"); so.addVariable("allowCaching",true); so.write("embed70"); #embed70{visibility:visible !important;}h2.multiHeadline {font-size:156% !important;padding:0px 0px 7px !important;margin:6px 6px 11px 3px !important;border-bottom:1px solid #CCCCCC !important;} EconomixThe latest from Times reporters and editors. // // Loading Twitter messages... // Featured Opening Up the Fed
While Ben Bernanke has made Federal Reserve decision-making more transparent, too much still takes place behind closed doors, an economist writes.
The Safety Net Isn’t Free Read Full Article »