Time For a Fed Statement Overhaul
In the wake of all the Kremlinology spurred by yesterday's Federal Reserve meeting, I'm wondering if it might not be time to revisit the manner in which the Fed releases its statements.
I do agree with the way in which the Fed now formally announces what its Fed funds target rate is: there's really no reason not to. But the rest of the statement is so overanalyzed that it might be time to move to a different system. I'm talking, here, about the way in which market observers obsess over the tiniest of differences between this statement and the last: see, for example, Mark Thoma, William Polley, Barry Ritholtz, and countless others.
The problem is that the Fed's statement doesn't change very much from one meeting to the next, which is a recipe for the narcissism of small differences. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a significant chunk of any given FOMC meeting is given over not to monetary-policy matters but rather to the exact wording of the subsequent communiqué. And that, if true, would be a waste of valuable FOMC time.
For instance, the markets spent much of yesterday wondering exactly what the difference is between these two sentences:
Recent readings on core inflation have been somewhat elevated.
Core inflation remains somewhat elevated.
This is a waste not only of the FOMC's time, but also of the time of hundreds of analysts who suddenly find themselves in the position of rune-readers.
The full minutes are released, with a delay, and I wouldn't suggest that the Fed try to speed up their release necessarily. But perhaps a different Fed governor could write the statement each meeting, and sign it. So each one would be in a different voice, and the markets would no longer have to bother themselves with trying to make apples-to-apples comparisons.
In any case, I think the best solution would be something which would concentrate the markets on the substance of what is being said, rather than on the silly differences between what is said this time and what was said last time. Surely that must be possible somehow.
- Q
- Dec 2 2008 10:34PM EST
- Finance Salaries: A Reply
- Dec 2 2008 8:07PM EST
- The Failed Subprime Clampdown
- Dec 2 2008 4:29PM EST
- Blame Citigroup's woes on the Citi-Travelers Merger
- Dec 2 2008 2:30PM EST
- Greenberg's Chutzpah
- Dec 2 2008 12:26PM EST
- Super-Seniors: The Last Word
- Dec 2 2008 12:04PM EST
- Pay Bankers Much Less
- Dec 2 2008 10:58AM EST
- Great Moments in Politics, California Edition
- Dec 2 2008 10:35AM EST
- Super-Seniors: Your Questions Answered
- Dec 2 2008 9:52AM EST
- What's a Super-Senior Tranche?
- Dec 1 2008 9:25PM EST
- Extra Credit, Monday Edition
- Dec 1 2008 6:29PM EST
- Zimbabwe: When Even the Central Bank Can't Keep Up
- Dec 1 2008 5:07PM EST
- Genius
- Dec 1 2008 4:14PM EST
- Adventures in Shopping, Black Friday Edition
- Dec 1 2008 3:55PM EST
- Endowments Dump Private Equity Stakes
- Dec 1 2008 3:22PM EST
Categories
Links
- Email Felix Salmon
- Alphaville

- Marginal Revolution

- The Panelist

- FP Passport

- Overcoming Bias

- Andrew Leonard

- Barry Ritholtz

- Brad Setser

- Carbon Tax Center

- Calculated Risk

- Greg Mankiw

- Free Exchange

- Dean Baker

- Alexander Campbell

- Kash Mansori

- The Bayesian Heresy

- A Fistful of Euros

- John Quiggin

- Michael Mandel

- Lance Knobel

- Mark Thoma

- Dan Gross

- Curbed

- Streetsblog

- Chris Anderson

- Deal Journal

- MarketBeat

- DealBook

- DealBreaker

- Carl Bialik

- Michelle Leder

- Brad DeLong

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Naked Capitalism

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- Econospeak

- Fortune: Daily Briefing

- Financial Crookery










