Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Wow. Odd practice. In military and corporations, sounding off like this puts you in dog house, at least. But then again, Supreme Court issues a dessenting opinion. And members of congress always grouse. Maybe gotta expect it these days. Just seems weird to me.
Maybe he's got some interest in a chairman's position...on another note, I hope we can finally stop tweeking the numbers and start growing our economy. Productivity will take care of a lot of these aches and pains much like sore muscles need to be stretched and warmed up...I preference my comments by promoting this while sipping a morning coffee in front of my finger/eye exercise machine...time to hit the wood pile.
Reply to @bee: You know, I was actually thinking Bullard would be a slight possibility this morning. He is a highly regarded Fed governor and is probably the most visible/public Fed governor aside from Bernanke (and is probably more public/visible than Yellen is.)
With respect to policy, Bullard would probably be a pretty good choice. The other intangible, though, is the ability to actually lead the Fed group. One aspect of Bernanke's leadership is that he has been able to carry along a significant board majority, with only a few dissenters (typically Richmond and Dallas). This has helped a lot to give the Fed's actions considerable weight in the political arena. A badly split board with significant dissent will surely not command the same political weight.
I don't mean this as a criticism of Bullard- I have no idea how Janet Yellin would manage the leadership either, although I have a lot of respect for her personally. I think that the various uncertainties of a leadership change make this a potentially destabilizing influence on the financial area, no matter who the new head honcho.
Excerpts from Wickipedia:
"Bullard has argued that the Fed should focus on headline inflation and de-emphasize core inflation, which has been a long-standing issue for the FOMC."
"Bullard said that, “Many of the old arguments in favor of a focus on core inflation have become rotten over the years. It is time to drop the emphasis on core inflation as a meaningful way to interpret the inflation process in the U.S.” And in a May 2011 column in the Southeast Missourian, Bullard wrote that, “The emphasis on core inflation may give the impression that the FOMC does not take into account some important price changes when making decisions about monetary policy. This is damaging Fed credibility in Main Street America.”
I find this very interesting, as many of us have commented over the years regarding the apparent disconnect between "official" inflation and our "observed" inflation. Bullard seems to understand this disconnect.
Reply to @clacy: An excellent point, illustrating another facet of leadership. Bernanke has been pretty masterful at orchestrating the public image that the board presents, and this might very well be part of that presentation. Prior to Bernanke, the public image consisted mainly of an occasional appearance of the Fed chairman (complete with widely parsed mystical utterances) before some congressional committee. In addition to being a first-rate financial technician Mr. Bernanke is pretty darned good at showmanship and politics too, albeit in a very proper and restrained way.
Comments
Maybe one more sip.
I don't mean this as a criticism of Bullard- I have no idea how Janet Yellin would manage the leadership either, although I have a lot of respect for her personally. I think that the various uncertainties of a leadership change make this a potentially destabilizing influence on the financial area, no matter who the new head honcho.
Excerpts from Wickipedia:
"Bullard has argued that the Fed should focus on headline inflation and de-emphasize core inflation, which has been a long-standing issue for the FOMC."
"Bullard said that, “Many of the old arguments in favor of a focus on core inflation have become rotten over the years. It is time to drop the emphasis on core inflation as a meaningful way to interpret the inflation process in the U.S.” And in a May 2011 column in the Southeast Missourian, Bullard wrote that, “The emphasis on core inflation may give the impression that the FOMC does not take into account some important price changes when making decisions about monetary policy. This is damaging Fed credibility in Main Street America.”
I find this very interesting, as many of us have commented over the years regarding the apparent disconnect between "official" inflation and our "observed" inflation. Bullard seems to understand this disconnect.