Fed Governor Jerome Powell's Speech at Catholic University

piezoe said:
EVERYTHING, including transactions with foreign banks and swap transactions are listed! All Central Bank buying and selling transactions are disclosed to the public, usually the same day of the transaction.

EVERYTHING IS SHOWN!
More...

Ugh, this is like talking to a wall. Let's assume everything is shown like you pretend. Then why can't we have an audit?

I don't think anyone here (except you) believes everything the Fed does is posted and detailed.

Which Fed bank do you work for, Piezoe?
 
Tsing Tao said:
Ugh, this is like talking to a wall. Let's assume everything is shown like you pretend. Then why can't we have an audit?

I don't think anyone here (except you) believes everything the Fed does is posted and detailed.

Which Fed bank do you work for, Piezoe?
More...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've concluded is that you you check very little out for yourself before posting, and you don't read very thoroughly what others post before posting. That would, it seems, explain in large part why you persist as you do.

I'm giving you a link [ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398483/rand-pauls-fed-audit-dangerous-idea-jon-hartley ] to a recent "National Review" opinion piece. Three things I would hope you'll note are: 1. "The National Review" is "conservative in it outlook, editorial position, and political slant. 2. The Review's editorial position is that Rand Paul's Bill is dangerous., and 3. There are a surprising number of inaccuracies in the piece. For one, while the Piece makes the point that the Fed is already audited and very open in its transactions and policy setting, the author does not realize just how open the Fed actually is when he writes :

"
Critics of quantitative easing demand to know where the Fed is buying the long-term assets needed for the program, but the Fed has already told us the answer. It buys bonds from the 22 primary dealers who are publicly listed.

Any further information on exact timing and quantities of bonds purchased from individual banks could create opportunities for traders to exploit this information and profit from the Fed’s traders and the banks who have sold securities to the Fed."

The Fed actually does disclose the timing and quantities of bonds bought. I doesn't disclose the timing down to the minute, but it does disclose the day, and quantities purchased. It just doesn't disclose transactions before they occur, but the Fed does promptly disclose its purchases after they are made. It discloses all it's financial transactions. So even conscientious Mr. Hartley, the piece's author, is not quite aware of just how incredibly transparent and open the Fed really is!

Here is a typical Fed disclosure. Note this is today. The purchase of agency, mortgage backed securities (MBS) is reported. The specific securities are identified, as are the quantities, the time of the transaction, and the settlement date! I note that the specific model number of the computer terminal used to place this order was not specified. I suppose we need an audit for that!;)

Here you go, Tao,

Operation RESULTS

Operation Date: February 13, 2015
Operation: Purchases
Operation Type: TBA
Auction Method: Multiple Price
Release Time: 11:15 AM
Close Time: 11:45 AM
Settlement Date: March 23, 2015 (March Class C)
Total Amt Accepted (million): $ 931 par
Total Amt Submitted (million): $ 3,365 par

TBA Inclusions:

Security Description Par Amount Accepted
G2SF 3 3/15 525,000,000
G2SF 3.5 3/15 406,000,000

1 Current face is determined by multiplying the current pool factor by the mortgage-backed security's original face value. Current face values reported are approximate and based on current available factors.
 
piezoe said:
Correct me if I'm wrong,
More...

Consider yourself corrected.

piezoe said:
I'm giving you a link [ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398483/rand-pauls-fed-audit-dangerous-idea-jon-hartley ] to a recent "National Review" opinion piece. Three things I would hope you'll note are: 1. "The National Review" is "conservative in it outlook, editorial position, and political slant.
More...

This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing. It's an Elite vs. Main Street thing.

piezoe said:
2. The Review's editorial position is that Rand Paul's Bill is dangerous.
More...

And the piece is written by a Former Fed Employee. No conflict there.

piezoe said:
, and 3. There are a surprising number of inaccuracies in the piece. For one, while the Piece makes the point that the Fed is already audited and very open in its transactions and policy setting, the author does not realize just how open the Fed actually is when he writes :

"
Critics of quantitative easing demand to know where the Fed is buying the long-term assets needed for the program, but the Fed has already told us the answer. It buys bonds from the 22 primary dealers who are publicly listed.

Any further information on exact timing and quantities of bonds purchased from individual banks could create opportunities for traders to exploit this information and profit from the Fed’s traders and the banks who have sold securities to the Fed."

The Fed actually does disclose the timing and quantities of bonds bought. I doesn't disclose the timing down to the minute, but it does disclose the day, and quantities purchased. It just doesn't disclose transactions before they occur, but the Fed does promptly disclose its purchases after they are made. It discloses all it's financial transactions. So even conscientious Mr. Hartley, the piece's author, is not quite aware of just how incredibly transparent and open the Fed really is!
More...

So it's an inaccurate piece written by a former Fed employee and you want me to waste my time reading it.

You keep bringing up the POMO issue, that's not the transparency I'm referring to.

Which Fed bank do you work for, Piezoe?
 
Tsing Tao said:
Consider yourself corrected.



This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing. It's an Elite vs. Main Street thing.



And the piece is written by a Former Fed Employee. No conflict there.



So it's an inaccurate piece written by a former Fed employee and you want me to waste my time reading it.

You keep bringing up the POMO issue, that's not the transparency I'm referring to.

Which Fed bank do you work for, Piezoe?
More...
POMO o_O
 
Tsing Tao said:
Consider yourself corrected.



This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing. It's an Elite vs. Main Street thing.



And the piece is written by a Former Fed Employee. No conflict there.



So it's an inaccurate piece written by a former Fed employee and you want me to waste my time reading it.

You keep bringing up the POMO issue, that's not the transparency I'm referring to.

Which Fed bank do you work for, Piezoe?
More...

"And the piece is written by a Former Fed Employee. No conflict there."

You do make me chuckle sometimes. Jon Hartley worked briefly as an underling "economics researcher", wet behind the ears, right out of college, for one of the Branch banks. To make a mild understatement, he was not, and is not, quite what you might say is a 'Fed mouthpiece'.
 
piezoe said:
"And the piece is written by a Former Fed Employee. No conflict there."

You do make me chuckle sometimes. Jon Hartley worked briefly as an underling "economics researcher", wet behind the ears, right out of college, for one of the Branch banks. To make a mild understatement, he was not, and is not, quite what you might say is a 'Fed mouthpiece'.
More...

I didn't say he was a Fed mouthpiece, I said he worked for the Fed. End of story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top