“If the Fed had done its job properly, which it has not, the Stock Market would have been up 5000 to 10,000 additional points, and GDP would have been well over 4% instead of 3%…with almost no inflation. Quantitative tightening was a killer, should have done the exact opposite!” – President Donald Trump, April 14, 2019, 7:14 AM (supply: Twitter, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1117428291227533312)
“We’re strictly nonpartisan. We check our political identification at the door.” – Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, April 11, 2019 (source: Washington Publish, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/powell-maintains-his-distance-from-trump-in-speech-to-house-democrats/2019/04/11/d37ed30c-5cc7-11e9-b8e3-b03311fbbbfe_story.html?utm_term=.6e03fb627e71).
In response to President Trump’s said want to nominate Stephen Moore and Herman Cain to vacant seats on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, on April 15, Steve Cecchetti and Kim Schoenholtz revealed a radical, extremely well-reasoned piece rebutting the president, entitled “Qualifying for the Fed” (https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2019/4/14/qualifying-for-the-fed). (Cecchetti and Shoenholtz are highly respected, deeply certified economists whose biographies could also be reviewed here: https://www.moneyandbanking.com/the-authors. They are the coauthors of Cash, Banking and Financial Markets (out there out of your local indie bookstore or Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Banking-Financial-Markets-Stephen-Cecchetti/dp/007802174X.)
The authors assert, “Monetary economists of nearly all persuasions are overwhelming in their condemnation of President Trump’s desire to appoint [Moore and Cain],” they usually cite “the full-throated case for a high-quality Board offered by Greg Mankiw – former Chief of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.”
Mankiw revealed his ideas in The New York Occasions on April 11, beneath the title “Keep the Federal Reserve I Love Alive” (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/business/mankiw-moore-cain-federal-reserve.html). Mankiw opens with this:
“I have a confession to make: I really like the Federal Reserve. And I think that, of their heart of hearts, most other economists love the Federal Reserve, too. But I worry our love may be in peril.
“We live in a time when many public institutions seem to be failing us. The White House is in constant turmoil, with extraordinarily high turnover among top staff members. Congress is as polarized as ever, not having done much over the past two years other than pass the mess of the 2017 tax bill. Even the Supreme Court appears less dispassionate and more partisan than it should be.”
Herman Cain has now withdrawn his candidacy, as a result of, he stated, “I could not run my business; I could not pursue my business interest [if] I had to be politically correct in anything or be nonpartisan” (source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/herman-cain-says-he-declined-trumps-fed-board-nomination-over-political-correctness).
Stephen Moore said to The Wall Road Journal that he would withdraw from consideration if he turned a political liability for the White House and Senate Republicans (source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/moore-hopeful-for-fed-post-but-says-he-would-bow-out-if-he-becomes-liability-11556143736).
Considerate readers are requested to take a few minutes to read the linked comments above and the essays and comments by Mankiw. Now let me get to my own ideas on the Fed and politics.
Jay Powell states the Fed’s viewpoint almost completely. As chairman, he has scrupulously prevented political fight with Trump’s Twitter assertions. His colleagues on the Board of Governors and his FOMC colleagues who are regional presidents (12 of them) comply with the same protocol. To summarize it: The Fed is an unbiased policy-making establishment and is above political partisanship. That is often true but not all the time.
Let’s start by reviewing a key moment in Federal Reserve historical past: the Treasury-Fed Accord of March 1951. Inflation ran rampant within the US in the postwar era. By February 1951, CPI had reached an annualized price of 21 %; and with the Korean Conflict heating up, the Fed faced the potential of having to monetize a considerable portion of latest government debt. But the Truman administration was dedicated to maintaining a low-interest-rate peg with a purpose to shield the worth of conflict bonds – a place the FOMC discovered increasingly untenable.
The web site Federal Reserve Historical past explains what unfolded next:
“The battle got here to a head when Truman invited the whole FOMC to a meeting at the White Home. After the meeting, he issued a press release saying that the FOMC had ‘pledged its support to President Truman to maintain the stability of Government securities as long as the emergency lasts.’ But in reality the FOMC had made no such pledge. With conflicting tales concerning the dispute showing within the press, Eccles decided to launch the FOMC’s personal account of the meeting with the president–without consulting the rest of the committee. As Eccles wrote in his memoir, ‘The fat was in the fire….’
“Shortly after that meeting, the Fed informed the Treasury that as of February 19, 1951, it would no longer ‘maintain the existing situation.’ Needing to refund existing debt and possibly issue new debt, the Treasury knew it had to put an end to the uncertainty and public dispute.” (source: https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/treasury_fed_accord)
A compromise was negotiated between the Treasury and Fed, by which the Fed would continue to help the worth of five-year notes for a short time, however after that the bond market can be on its own. Then, on March 4, 1951, the Treasury and the Fed issued a joint statement saying that they had “reached full accord with respect to debt management and monetary policies to be pursued in furthering their common purpose and to assure the successful financing of the government’s requirements and, at the same time, to minimize monetization of the public debt.”
This accord “marked the start of the development of a strong free market in government securities, which continues today. In addition, the debate over the consequences of interest rate pegging marked a shift in thinking at the Fed. Monetary policymakers began focusing actively on bank reserves and the control of money creation in order to stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar. But most important, by establishing the central bank’s independence from fiscal concerns, the accord set the stage for the development of modern monetary policy.” (source: https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/treasury_fed_accord)
Not often has a sitting FOMC member violated the Fed’s apolitical stance. One exception is present Fed governor Lael Brainard, who made a political contribution to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. (See https://www.wsj.com/articles/feds-brainard-made-recent-donations-to-clinton-campaign-1457456261 and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/21/top-federal-reserve-official-donates-to-hillary-clintons-campaign/.) Brainard’s motion was greeted with silence by some within the economic and finance group who have been terrified of criticizing a Fed governor. Others have been brazenly crucial. I was one of the latter, as I consider a political declaration by a sitting Fed official undermines the Fed’s declare to full independence.
Retired Fed officials, however, are freely appearing citizens and are brazenly political on all sides of issues. Many aren’t afraid to constructively criticize the actions of their former institution and colleagues previous or present.
What about proposed Fed officers?
Here we’ve got a unique assemble. It is clear that presidents use Fed appointments for political purposes, and furthermore most presidents attempt to appoint those who favor their very own views. Historical past reveals plenty of bias here.
Almost all presidents favor decrease interest rates and easier financial policy. Not one president has stated “Raise rates” or “Tighten credit conditions” or “Please trigger a recession.”
At the similar time, presidents need the Fed to struggle inflation in durations when that action is needed (as an example within the 1970s and 1980s). However throughout wartime, presidents want assist from the Fed to finance the struggle. In the 1940s, Franklin Roosevelt’s Fed followed a patriotic path for years, with low rates of interest and almost limitless monetary help to America’s struggle effort (a path that then led to postwar inflation and the Treasury-Fed crisis).
So prospective Fed appointees have political baggage generally. And lots of had previously served within the federal government or in advisory roles to the president. By itself, such service is just not an impediment because the political course of within the Senate round appointments to the Board of Governors is intense. Most appointees have educational credentials in economics and finance.
Some appointees are from the business group. Elizabeth Duke was a banker who was properly revered by her peers. (See https://money.cnn.com/2013/07/11/news/economy/elizabeth-duke-fed/index.html.) G. William Miller was a businessman and Carter political appointee who has been seen unfavorably by historians. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._William_Miller.)
So Cain is now out, and Moore seems to be having hassle making it to the Senate confirmation course of. (See https://qz.com/1579975/stephen-moore-a-federal-reserve-nominee-may-not-make-it-to-the-senate/.)
What happens subsequent, then, with Fed appointees if each Cain and Moore have been rejected?
In all probability nothing. That may permit President Trump to proceed his Fed bashing each time it suits his political comfort. It will also remove an merchandise of distraction from a US Senate that has its palms full.
The Fed board now operates with 5 of seven governors’ seats crammed. And the FOMC operates with ten voting as an alternative of twelve: Five presidents and five governors determine interest-rate coverage. Politics has created the five governor sample for over a decade. A full seven member seated Board of Governors is now the anomaly.
The Fed is now on maintain with rates and is tenaciously data-driven in word and deed. For steerage, we will now discern some chances within the distribution of dots within the Fed’s dot plots. We don’t get actual forecasts, simply steerage. We also see Taylor rule fashions getting used as steerage instruments for Fed motion quite than Phillips Curve fashions, which at the moment are out of favor.
Our greatest guess is that the subsequent Fed fee move will probably be up and is a yr away. Closing output gaps recommend that end result. Months of nuanced upward inflation might progressively permit the Fed to resume mountaineering.
We expect futures forecasts of Fed cuts are overdone. And the identical is true for the monster bond market rally. The Cumberland bond workforce has develop into extra defensive, with weight added to the brief end of the barbell.
As for politics and the Fed, Powell is to be applauded for his rigorously scripted comments. With regard to Trump’s Twitter rages and Fed bashing, many market agents appear to ignore the president. Trump strikes markets on some issues however not on Fed bashing.
David R. Kotok
Chairman and Chief Investment Officer
E mail | Bio
Links to other websites or digital media controlled or provided by Third-Parties (non-affiliates of Cumberland Advisors) are offered only as a reference and courtesy to our customers. Cumberland Advisors has no control over such websites, doesn’t advocate or endorse any opinions, concepts, merchandise, info, or content of such websites, and makes no warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of their content. Cumberland Advisors hereby disclaims liability for any info, supplies, products or services posted or provided at any of the Third-Get together websites. The Third-Social gathering might have a privateness and/or safety coverage totally different from that of Cumberland Advisors. Subsequently, please confer with the precise privateness and safety policies of the Third-Celebration when accessing their web sites.
Sign up for our FREE Cumberland Market Commentaries
Cumberland Advisors Market Commentaries supply insights and analysis on upcoming, necessary financial points that probably influence international financial markets. Our staff shares their considering on international economic developments, market news and other elements that always affect investment alternatives and methods.