Bernanke: Central
Bankers' Bob the Builder?
Axel Merk
Merk Hard Currency
Fund
Aug 27, 2009
First, the good news about
Bernanke's nomination for a second term as head of the Federal
Reserve (Fed): we know what we are getting and may be able to
prepare for the risks his continued leadership may pose to inflation
and the dollar. The bad news: more of the same.
Let's examine the good news
first. You see, until recently banking had been a relatively
simple business, as exemplified by the 3-6-3 rule: pay your depositors
3%; lend to them at 6%; and be off to the golf course by 3pm.
This model began to fall apart in the 1970s for most corporate
banks, but what hasn't changed is that central bankers typically
like to keep things as simple as possible by moving levers such
as interest rates and money supply. One reason central bankers
like to keep things simple is because they are (as tough as it
might be for some to admit) pawns like the rest of us in a dynamic
economy. At times, they may try to intervene in the markets to
assert their power, but in the long-run such activity may be
akin to sipping water from the ocean using a straw.
Central bankers do have the
power to pave the way for an economy. However, they traditionally
do not have the power to decide where and how the asphalt will
be laid; central banks control how much asphalt (currency) to
produce, but producing asphalt and laying a road are completely
different skill sets, something the Fed is currently learning
the hard way. Incidentally, judging by Bernanke's feverish foray
into currency production and allocation, we wouldn't be surprised
if Bernanke believes himself to be central bankers' equivalent
of Bob the Builder.
In all seriousness though,
we believe central banking is more predictable than it may seem.
And Ben Bernanke is more predictable than most. It appears to
us that he is applying what he has written in his books about
the Great Depression to today's markets. A plausible alternative
to Bernanke's nomination would have been Lawrence Summers, Director
of the White House's National Economic Council. We have previously
referred to Mr. Summers, known for his, at times, abrasive style,
as a "loose cannon"; this is not intended as a personal
criticism, but a reflection of a character trait that is traditionally
not desirable in a central banker, as unpredictability can raise
the cost of borrowing for everyone.
With Bernanke, in contrast,
we have a pretty good understanding of the policies we are likely
to get. But before we rejoice over predictability, let's put
some light on the dark side of transparency in the policies pursued.
Over the long run, if central bankers pursue their policies credibly,
they may be able to control inflation. That's why a lot of attention
is paid to what central bankers say and do. However, there are
a couple of myths about inflation. The greatest myth out there
may be that inflation is primarily a function of the slack in
the economy, or what economists refer to as the output gap. It's
a fairy tale promoted by Bernanke, amongst others. In our humble
opinion, and our understanding of the facts, inflationary expectations,
not the output gap, is what drives inflation. If people believe
there may be inflation, they will ask for higher wages, try to
raise prices, causing inflation.
From our perspective, the best
way for a central bank to keep inflationary expectations low
is through the pursuit of sound monetary policy; a policy that
focuses on price stability. Most central banks have the pursuit
of price stability as their primary, if not only, goal. The Fed,
in contrast, also has maximum sustainable employment as a secondary
goal. A key reason why other central banks, such as the European
Central Bank (ECB), do not state employment as a goal is because
economists generally believe that an environment that fosters
price stability is the most appropriate way to achieve maximum
sustainable growth, and hence, maximum sustainable employment.
Why would Bernanke then keep
pounding the table that inflation isn't an issue because there
is such slack in the economy? Because in the absence of sound
monetary policy, a central bank might get away with a few transgressions
as long as it can remain credible that it hasn't taken its eyes
off inflation. In our humble opinion, that is what Bernanke's
focus on transparency is all about: managing expectations.
First, the good news about
Bernanke's nomination for a second term as head of the Federal
Reserve (Fed): we know what we are getting and may be able to
prepare for the risks his continued leadership may pose to inflation
and the dollar.
Here's why expectations management
is so important. Until 2007, the Fed would only need to utter
a few words and the markets would move: the cheapest and most
effective monetary policy is one where no money is printed, no
interest rate targets are changed, but where a few words help
guide the markets. In early 2008, volatility in the markets started
to explode, setting the stage for what we now call the bursting
of the credit bubble. The Fed needed to engage in an emergency
rate cut of 0.75% in January 2008, lowering interest rates to
3 ½% at the time: talk was not good enough anymore, the
Fed needed to act. Since then, the Fed has printed well over
$1 trillion dollars to pave the way for an economic recovery
(economists talk about increasing the Fed's balance sheet which
can be seen as the equivalent of a virtual printing press). In
each phase, Fed policy has become more expensive to implement,
as credibility in the Fed appears to have eroded.
In our assessment, there have
been two common threads in Ben Bernanke's tenure: he has followed
his own textbook approach to handling the financial crisis; and
he has completely underestimated the political implications of
the policies pursued. In many ways the term ivory tower academic
comes to mind. The relevance here is that many policies Bernanke
has engaged in have veered off the path of what central banking
is all about: rather than supplying the asphalt, he is patching
up the roads. And if Bernanke were truly patching roads with
freshly produced asphalt, Bob the Builder would quite likely
be rather unhappy that someone is stepping on his turf. Bob the
Builder is the construction expert; Ben ought only be the supplier
of raw materials. Translated to monetary policy, the Fed's credit
easing programs, those programs providing specific credit to,
say, the mortgage market, are fiscal, not monetary policy. By
engaging in fiscal policy, the Fed is inviting political scrutiny.
If the Fed were to focus on traditional monetary policy, the
setting of interest rates or targeting money supply, the private
sector - subject to guidance from laws and regulations passed
by Congress - decides where credit is allocated. But Bernanke
seems to want his policies to be more targeted; we are afraid
that he may achieve the opposite: the more political scrutiny
he invites, the less effective policies may become as the credibility
of the Fed may be further eroded.
Lobbying for the Fed to become
a more active super-regulator further exacerbates the political
meddling in the Fed's affairs. Similarly, the massive hiring
that the Fed has been engaged in suggests that all the new programs
the Fed has implemented may be around for some time.
Not too surprisingly, we don't
think the Fed's announced exit strategy is very credible. There
are two components to our doubts: some of activities the Fed
has been engaged in may be far more difficult to unwind (or "neutralize")
than they would have us believe; and secondly, we do not believe
the economic recovery will be sustainable enough to allow for
a decisive exit of the credit easing programs. We cannot imagine
the Fed raising interest rates as high as 20 percent the way
former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker did in the early 1980s to weed
out inflation - there is simply too much leverage in the consumer
today.
The conclusion we draw from
the Fed's talk about exit strategies and focus on inflation is
mostly just that: talk. While we understand why the Fed is talking
- to manage inflationary expectations - we believe the Fed may
be playing with fire at our expense.
Indeed, following Bernanke's
textbook, our interpretation is that the Fed may want to have
inflation; and to get there, he may want a cheaper dollar, a
substantially cheaper dollar. Bernanke has repeatedly stressed
how going off the gold standard during the Great Depression jump
started economic activity by allowing the price level to rise
(read inflation). Fast-forward to today and think about all those
homeowners "underwater" with their mortgages. We could
allow those who cannot afford their homes to downsize, i.e. allowing
market prices to clear by allowing foreclosures and bankruptcies,
amongst others; however, that option seems to be political suicide.
An alternative is to induce inflation, allowing the price level
to rise; the Fed may not be able to control what prices will
rise, but seems to be betting on home price inflation.
Looking at what at the Fed
does, rather than what the Fed says, we believe it is actively
working on a weaker dollar. In discussing the Fed's programs,
the media seems to focus on the low mortgage rates and government
bond yields that lower the cost of borrowing. The flip side of
such activities, however, is that the securities the Fed buys,
be they Treasury Bonds, Mortgage Backed Securities, or others,
are intentionally overvalued as a result of the Fed's interventions.
Why would a rational buyer be interested in these securities?
We believe many of the Fed's programs replace, rather than encourage,
private sector activity. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
make the connection to the dollar: foreigners may not be attracted
to U.S. securities if they are not properly compensated for the
risk they are taking. Indeed, it is not just foreigners we should
be concerned about: from what we hear, U.S. institutions are
increasingly hedging their U.S. dollar risk, something unheard
of in a developed country in years past.
We manage the
Merk Hard and Asian Currency Funds, no-load mutual funds seeking
to protect against a decline in the dollar by investing in baskets
of hard and Asian currencies, respectively. To learn more about
the Funds, or to subscribe
to our free newsletter, please visit www.merkfund.com.
Axel Merk
Contact
Merk
©2005-2012 Merk Investments
LLC. All Rights Reserved.
The views in
this article were those of Axel Merk as of the article's publication
date and may not reflect his views at any time thereafter. These
views and opinions should not be construed as investment advice
nor considered as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer
to buy shares of any securities mentioned herein. Mr. Merk is
the founder and president of Merk Investments LLC and is
the portfolio manager for the Merk Hard and Asian Currency Funds.
Foreside Fund Services, LLC, distributor.
The Merk
Asian Currency Fund invests in a basket of Asian currencies.
Asian currencies the Fund may invest in include, but are not limited
to, the currencies of China, Hong Kong, Japan, India, Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and
Thailand.
The Merk
Hard Currency Fund invests in a basket of hard currencies.
Hard currencies are currencies backed by sound monetary policy;
sound monetary policy focuses on price stability.
The Funds may
be appropriate for you if you are pursuing a long-term goal with
a hard or Asian currency component to your portfolio; are willing
to tolerate the risks associated with investments in foreign currencies;
or are looking for a way to potentially mitigate downside risk
in or profit from a secular bear market. For more information
on the Funds and to download a prospectus, please visit www.merkfund.com.
Investors should
consider the investment objectives, risks and charges and expenses
of the Merk Funds carefully before investing. This and other information
is in the prospectus, a copy of which may be obtained by visiting
the Funds' website at www.merkfund.com or calling 866-MERK FUND.
Please read the prospectus carefully before you invest.
The Funds primarily
invest in foreign currencies and as such, changes in currency
exchange rates will affect the value of what the Funds own and
the price of the Funds' shares. Investing in foreign instruments
bears a greater risk than investing in domestic instruments for
reasons such as volatility of currency exchange rates and, in
some cases, limited geographic focus, political and economic instability,
and relatively illiquid markets. The Funds are subject to interest
rate risk which is the risk that debt securities in the Funds'
portfolio will decline in value because of increases in market
interest rates. The Funds may also invest in derivative securities
which can be volatile and involve various types and degrees of
risk. As a non-diversified fund, the Merk Hard Currency Fund will
be subject to more investment risk and potential for volatility
than a diversified fund because its portfolio may, at times, focus
on a limited number of issuers. For a more complete discussion
of these and other Fund risks please refer to the Funds' prospectuses.
321gold Ltd

|