
Muito interessante esta troca de opiniões no Realmoney sobre o discurso de Greenspan:
" Howard Simons
On Fed Speak
4/21/04 12:57 PM ET
Adam, all Fed chairmen are deliberately obtuse. It derives from several sources and meets several needs. First, the Fed has been given, by statute (the Full Employment Act of 1946, Humphrey-Hawkins in 1978) multiple and often contradictory objectives. They need to mind employment and output, inflation, the exchange value of the dollar and banking system integrity.
Their tools are remarkably few: The discount rate, the federal funds rate, margin requirements and loan reserve requirements. All of these are very blunt instruments that operate with long and variable lags, which is a polite way of saying we don't know what's going to happen or when. I've likened the Fed's task to performing brain surgery with a garden hoe.
Moreover, Fed officials tend to be both academic economists and practicing politicians; one discipline is notably dense by most practices and the other is given to a bit of - how shall we put it? - dissembling.
Add the whole thing up and you find the only short-term weapon they really have at their disposal is trying to create expectations. You can't come out and say to Congress or whomever, "Here's how I intend to mislead you," so you have to do a little dance.
Finally, you can't cheat an honest man. Fed chairmen speak like that because their target audience wants them to speak in a way that can mean all things to all people. If ever once someone on a Congressional committee snapped, "knock it off and speak English!" he most certainly would.
No stocks mentioned
David Merkel
Greenspeak -- a Foreign Language to All
4/21/04 12:53 PM ET
Adam, your question is very applicable. My view on Greenspan is that he tries to get the market to do his bidding, rather than always using the explicit policy tools that the Fed has. He speaks ambiguously for a number of reasons:
1. If he speaks too clearly, the market will immediately adjust to what the Fed is going to do, and the actual use of their policy instruments will have little impact.
2. He genuinely tries to express the degree of uncertainty inherent in the data and theory underlying economics, as well as the political backdrop.
3. If he answers too quickly and directly, he will get more questions. In basketball, this is called "running down the shot clock."
4. I think he uses obfuscation tactically to make it easier to adjust market expectations. He can give occasional clear statements to bump the bond market where he wants it tactically to go in the short run, which may be different than where he thinks it has to go in the long run.
5. I think he enjoys it.
At present, I think Greenspan wants to keep things near where they are, which allows the economy to grow fairly rapidly to absorb labor market slack. To me, that means targeting the 10-year Treasury between 4.00%-4.50% or so. Unless there is a marked pickup in his favored inflation gauge, or a huge decline in the dollar, I don't see the FOMC being compelled to raise the fed funds rate. To raise rates for the abstract reason of reducing leverage in the fixed income market will not play well politically, particularly in an election year.
All my opinions, but I have been watching the Fed for 20 years... "
(in www.realmoney.com)
" Howard Simons
On Fed Speak
4/21/04 12:57 PM ET
Adam, all Fed chairmen are deliberately obtuse. It derives from several sources and meets several needs. First, the Fed has been given, by statute (the Full Employment Act of 1946, Humphrey-Hawkins in 1978) multiple and often contradictory objectives. They need to mind employment and output, inflation, the exchange value of the dollar and banking system integrity.
Their tools are remarkably few: The discount rate, the federal funds rate, margin requirements and loan reserve requirements. All of these are very blunt instruments that operate with long and variable lags, which is a polite way of saying we don't know what's going to happen or when. I've likened the Fed's task to performing brain surgery with a garden hoe.
Moreover, Fed officials tend to be both academic economists and practicing politicians; one discipline is notably dense by most practices and the other is given to a bit of - how shall we put it? - dissembling.
Add the whole thing up and you find the only short-term weapon they really have at their disposal is trying to create expectations. You can't come out and say to Congress or whomever, "Here's how I intend to mislead you," so you have to do a little dance.
Finally, you can't cheat an honest man. Fed chairmen speak like that because their target audience wants them to speak in a way that can mean all things to all people. If ever once someone on a Congressional committee snapped, "knock it off and speak English!" he most certainly would.
No stocks mentioned
David Merkel
Greenspeak -- a Foreign Language to All
4/21/04 12:53 PM ET
Adam, your question is very applicable. My view on Greenspan is that he tries to get the market to do his bidding, rather than always using the explicit policy tools that the Fed has. He speaks ambiguously for a number of reasons:
1. If he speaks too clearly, the market will immediately adjust to what the Fed is going to do, and the actual use of their policy instruments will have little impact.
2. He genuinely tries to express the degree of uncertainty inherent in the data and theory underlying economics, as well as the political backdrop.
3. If he answers too quickly and directly, he will get more questions. In basketball, this is called "running down the shot clock."
4. I think he uses obfuscation tactically to make it easier to adjust market expectations. He can give occasional clear statements to bump the bond market where he wants it tactically to go in the short run, which may be different than where he thinks it has to go in the long run.
5. I think he enjoys it.
At present, I think Greenspan wants to keep things near where they are, which allows the economy to grow fairly rapidly to absorb labor market slack. To me, that means targeting the 10-year Treasury between 4.00%-4.50% or so. Unless there is a marked pickup in his favored inflation gauge, or a huge decline in the dollar, I don't see the FOMC being compelled to raise the fed funds rate. To raise rates for the abstract reason of reducing leverage in the fixed income market will not play well politically, particularly in an election year.
All my opinions, but I have been watching the Fed for 20 years... "
(in www.realmoney.com)