Home / Federal Reserve / My Translation of Yellen’s Speech on Bank Regulation
Print Friendly and PDF

My Translation of Yellen’s Speech on Bank Regulation

Written by Gary North on July 8, 2014

Janet Yellen gave a speech on July 2. It of course received considerable attention in the financial media.

Over the years, I have dutifully provided translations of speeches by the chairmen of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System — that tiny part of the FED that is technically part of the U.S. government. As far as I know, I am the only financial columnist who provides a translation service out of FEDspeak into English.

Greenspan was a master of FEDspeak. Bernanke preferred to give long, boring summaries, with lots of footnotes, of the recent history of financial events that everyone already knew about. When he did say anything of substance, it usually turned out to be wrong, such as his repeated insistence that there was no housing bubble.

Yellen takes a different approach. She prefers to talk about what the Federal Reserve might do, and really ought to do, but has not yet done. She scrupulously avoids mentioning deadlines. The following observation is clearly the essence of her job as chairman: “Janet Yellen would not be caught dead with a deadline.” This leaves the door open to wiggle room in the future.

All of this confuses the issues. All of this fills up allotted speech time without providing any specifics. This is the FED’s version of “transparency.” Transparency in bureaucratic affairs means this: “provide an illusion to the public that something significant is being revealed, when nothing significant is being revealed.” On the contrary, anything significant is being concealed.

The key to understanding Dr. Yellen’s Chairmanship from this point on is to understand that she is something of a mystic. Imagine an Indian swami in a loincloth, his eyes closed, and his face revealing oneness with the universe. He keeps repeating a mantra. He says: “Om.”

Her mantra is “macroprudential.”

FED Chairmen all correctly assume that no one in the mainstream media will actually spend the time to go through her speeches, point by point, to see if anything of significance is being presented. The message these days is always the same.

1. Before 2008, we didn’t know what we were doing.
2. We have learned from our mistakes.
3. The economic issues are highly complex.
4. The exact nature of economic causation remains a mystery.
5. We are working on emergency plans.
6. We have great confidence in these plans.
7. These plans have not yet been fully implemented.
8. We are not sure when they will be fully implemented.
9. We are monitoring the situation.
10. There are still important questions to be answered.
11. We as yet have no specific answers to any of these questions.
12. We are leaving our options open.

Let me show you how this works. She began with the admission of questions.

The recent crises have appropriately increased the focus on financial stability at central banks around the world. At the Federal Reserve, we have devoted substantially increased resources to monitoring financial stability and have refocused our regulatory and supervisory efforts to limit the buildup of systemic risk. There have also been calls, from some quarters, for a fundamental reconsideration of the goals and strategy of monetary policy. Today I will focus on a key question spurred by this debate: How should monetary and other policymakers balance macroprudential approaches and monetary policy in the pursuit of financial stability?

Translation: “The recent crises, beginning in 2008 in New York banking and investment circles, and rapidly spreading all over the world, caught central bankers flat-footed. Nobody saw it coming. Therefore, we are now devoting resources to monitoring all this. This means we require lots more paperwork from bankers.”

In my remarks, I will argue that monetary policy faces significant limitations as a tool to promote financial stability: Its effects on financial vulnerabilities, such as excessive leverage and maturity transformation, are not well understood and are less direct than a regulatory or supervisory approach; in addition, efforts to promote financial stability through adjustments in interest rates would increase the volatility of inflation and employment. As a result, I believe a macroprudential approach to supervision and regulation needs to play the primary role.

Translation. “We still have no theory of cause and effect with respect to monetary policy. These issues are ‘not well understood,’ if you get my drift. For a century, the Federal Reserve System has been justified to the public as crucial because it is in charge of monetary policy. Unfortunately, monetary policy is not well understood, so we have pretty much given up on monetary policy as a tool of central planning. We have therefore returned to the tried and true promise of the Progressive movement in 1913: we will regulate the overall economy by regulating the banks, meaning about a dozen large banks. I call this regulatory system, to the extent that it is a system, ‘macroprudential.’ This sounds very scientific. It sounds comprehensive. It sounds prudent. That ought to keep you rubes happy.”

Such an approach should focus on “through the cycle” standards that increase the resilience of the financial system to adverse shocks and on efforts to ensure that the regulatory umbrella will cover previously uncovered systemically important institutions and activities.

Translation. “That’s what the approach should do. There is no evidence yet that this is what it will in fact do. We will not know that until the next crisis hits. Wish us luck. Your financial future is dependent on us.”

(For the rest of my translation, click the link.)

Continue Reading on www.garynorth.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

3 thoughts on “My Translation of Yellen’s Speech on Bank Regulation

  1. In Dr. North's 12 points of the Fed message, and these are the heart and soul of this article for my money, four should have exclamation points and asterisks. 3. The economic issues are highly complex, and 4. The exact nature of economic causation remains a mystery. In other words they are clueless. 5. We are working on emergency plans, and 12. We are leaving our options open. In other words they have no real solutions. Gives on great hope. The sudden stop at the end is going to be a doozy. See my blog at http://cranky-conservative.blogspot.com

  2. Basically, the government, which does not know what it is doing, wants to tell the banks how to run their businesses. Awesome! This ought to go real well.

  3. 1baronrichsnot1 says:

    We are paying more attention than you might imagine! Gary the implementations of more regulation will undoubtably be the stockholders and bank depositors them selves who bail out these pilfering idiots! Already in the UK and other euro countries new regs make this the way to get stable financial facilities, cause you see FDIC only can handle about 7% of the bank losses as a whole aggragate! A spit in the ocean, The banks pay FDIC from our money now, we pay for it out of the banks earnings on our money. Soon when a bank fails, the FDIC will only pick up what they can't grab from peoples accounts! Notice they want our IRA's,change to myra's, then they already have it. They have our acct. numbers, your ss checks must be made to your bank, your IRA has to be in an approved gov't facility(bank). Regulations and rules on your money is going to be directed to stability of the bank, not for your insurance or safety on the preservation of your money!