Brief Comments on the Economy and
the Business of the Dallas Fed
Remarks before the Park Cities
Rotary Club
Dallas, Texas
February 9, 2007
I am delighted to finally get
to speak to the Park Cities Rotary. Before I went up
to Washington to serve as a trade negotiator, I was
a member of the Downtown Dallas Rotary. When my travels
took me elsewhere, I would drop in on club luncheons
to share the Rotarians’ patriotism, camaraderie
and fellowship and to delight in their sense of humor.
My all-time favorite Rotary memory is from a meeting
I attended while Nancy and I were vacationing with our
children in Georgia. The local club had a ritual of
reading aloud the names of ill or deceased members and
asking for a moment of silence. They announced one fellow’s
name, Harry Someoneorother, who had been inactive for
some time and was reported dead. To everyone’s
surprise, old Harry wandered in at the conclusion of
the moment of silence. Without skipping a beat, the
chairman stood up, recognized him and gave him the award
for longest distance traveled.
I imagine Paul Harris would have
grinned at that one. His wit was matched by his vision.
His exhortation 102 years ago to “place emphasis
on giving rather than getting” has inspired generations
of Rotarians. The Federal Reserve, by the way, was the
beneficiary of that giving spirit: Paul Volcker, who
is considered by many to be Zeus in the pantheon of
central banking gods, studied at the London School of
Economics as a Rotary Foundation Scholar.
I want to talk to you today about
the business of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
I know you would rather have me talk about monetary
policy and where interest rates might be headed. Let
me disappoint you up front by telling you I am not going
to do that. We held our most recent Federal Open Market
Committee meeting last week, and we decided to hold
the federal funds rate at 5.25 percent, where it has
been since June 29. My views on the economy have not
changed over the past week, even with the subsequent
release of fourth quarter GDP data.
In fact, my views haven’t
changed since my last formal speech shortly before Christmas,
which coincidentally, was to a group of Rotarians in
Longview. So I’ll quote from that speech to summarize
how I feel about the economy today: “My guess
is that we are most likely going to finish the year
at a pace that exceeds the gloomy forecasts making all
the headlines lately.” I suggested to the Longview
club that “if you net the downdrafts from the
housing and auto sectors against the tailwinds from
other countries growing faster than the United States,
then adjust for the updrafts of a dynamic service sector
and thank your lucky stars for a warm start to winter
and burgeoning oil and gas inventories that have softened
energy prices, I wouldn’t be surprised if the
economy proves to have grown at better than 2 percent,
net of inflation, in the second half of this year, then
picks up pace in 2007.”
Well, the initial release of fourth
quarter GDP proved to be a gee-whiz number of 3.5 percent,
which pulled up the economy from its tepid 2 percent
growth rate in the third quarter. In coming months,
the fourth quarter number will be revised to account
for more fulsome data on inventories, construction activity
and other inputs, and it could well be revised downward.
My sense is that in the end, fourth quarter growth was
still in the range of 3 percent.
At this early juncture in 2007,
I think it entirely reasonable to expect the economy
to maintain an average pace of 3 percent growth for
the year. And, if we at the Fed do our job well, we
should be able to accommodate that growth rate while
bringing inflation down below 2 percent.
If you’ll permit me to again
use a meteorological metaphor: We have some disinflationary
tailwinds assisting us. There was a series of monetary
policy tightenings by the FOMC that preceded the latest
series of pauses that began last August. Also, moderation
in energy prices proved beneficial, while continued
productivity gains, although less than we had expected,
should keep labor costs in check. And spillovers from
the unwinding of excessive housing market speculation,
including softening in the price of lumber and such
commodities as zinc and copper, have all added force
to the tailwinds we’ve been seeing. I find it
instructive that, other than from corn farmers, I no
longer hear business leaders muttering about “pricing
power,” which not too long ago was an ever-present
part of inflation discussions.
Yet, we do have some inflationary
headwinds to overcome. For example, economists use a
theoretical metric that attempts to measure the costs
of housing—something they refer to as “owner’s
equivalent rent,” or OER. OER makes up the largest
individual component of the core price index for consumer
expenditures, with a 14 percent weight in the index.
The way the math works, when the price of the nation’s
housing stock declines, this rent equivalent increases.
At year end, it was rising at a rate of 4.3 percent,
adding to inflationary pressures. Also, the substantial
demand for skilled and some semiskilled labor is driving
up wages in those important labor pools. And rapid growth
in foreign economies—from China and India to our
southern neighbors and our friends across the Atlantic—increases
global resource utilization, tightening the availability
and prices of inputs and labor that American businesses
use to control their cost-of-goods-sold and enhance
their productivity.
We will monitor the net effect
of these headwinds and tailwinds.
I wouldn’t rule out further
increases in the federal funds rate if inflationary
winds gain the upper hand. Indeed, if increases are
needed, I would aggressively advocate for them. But
for now, I am as comfortable with the inflationary outlook
as a prudent central banker can be. No central banker
can ever be smug about containing the risk of inflation,
but I am pleased with the current direction of inflationary
impulses. To quote from the FOMC statement released
after our meeting last week: “Readings on core
inflation have improved modestly in recent months, and
inflation pressures seem likely to moderate over time.”
That said, I will rest a heck of a lot easier when we
get the core rate down well below 2 percent and keep
it there.
Mind you, this is what we are
paid to do. But there are other ways to deal with inflationary
pressures. Only this week, we saw one alternative approach
being taken by the government of Zimbabwe, which, according
to Wednesday’s New York Times, declared
inflation “illegal,” promising to arrest
and punish anyone who raises prices or wages. And the
Financial Times reports that in Argentina,
the government, apparently dissatisfied with the index
used to measure inflation, sought to remedy the situation
by replacing the economist who compiles it. Fortunately,
we don’t have those options. Instead, we continue
to monitor price developments and discharge our duty
the old-fashioned way, as always, seeking to promote
sustainable, non-inflationary economic growth.
Substantial dividends accrue from
a disciplined Federal Reserve. Let me cite just one
example that may not readily come to mind. It wasn’t
too long ago that the markets were fretting about underfunded
liabilities of pension plans. Recent equity market rallies
around the world have mitigated that risk. Pension fund
managers now have ample opportunities to secure some
of their long-term funding needs in the higher quality
tranches of the bond market. The 30-year Treasury bond
yields 4.84 percent. If my math is right, this means
someone can buy so-called stripped bonds that mature
in 2037 at $100 for 25 cents on the dollar, thus matching
every dollar of their long-term liabilities for a quarter.
Of course, prudent fund managers would only do that
if they were confident that the Fed would continue to
protect the purchasing power of those strips. If we
continue to contain inflation, they will—strengthening
the financial security of American workers.
Enough said about the economy.
The Federal Reserve System does more than just conduct
monetary policy, and I want you to know a little bit
more about the Dallas Fed and the role it plays in this
city and in the economy.
Let’s start with a little
history. President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal
Reserve Act in 1913. The act contemplated 12 regional
banks across the country, and George Dealey at the Dallas
Morning News immediately went to work to get one
of them for Dallas. On April 3, 1914, Dealey succeeded—the
same day, for those of you who are history buffs, that
Pancho Villa’s forces captured the town of Torreon.
Other notable events in 1914 included the completion
of the Panama Canal, the start of World War I and the
invention of the air conditioner. I will leave it up
to you to decide which of those events has had the most
significant impact on our city!
Few Dallas institutions have survived
as long as the Dallas Fed. We have been part of the
downtown community since we opened, moving from temporary
quarters into a stately building on Akard Street in
1921, and then to our current building on Pearl Street,
just opposite the Arts District, in 1992. We have the
third longest continuous business presence in downtown
Dallas and are proud of it. Of the remaining downtown
institutions, only the Morning News and Neiman
Marcus predate our arrival.
The Dallas Fed has been at its
best in hard times. During the Great Depression, our
employees voluntarily took 5 percent pay cuts so the
Bank could share the work and hire unemployed Dallasites.
In an earlier recession, panicked customers stampeded
a Dallas bank, demanding to withdraw their money. It
was the kind of run that could ruin a bank. The head
of the Dallas Fed, a man named W. F. Ramsey, showed
up in an armored car with guards. They hauled a quarter
million dollars into the lobby—where everyone
could see it. In a scene right out of It’s
a Wonderful Life, Ramsey jumped on a desk and shouted
across the crowded lobby that he had $30 million more
sitting in the Fed’s vault down the street. Just
like that, the bank run ended.
The Fed has come a long way from
its early years. Today, we have $39 billion in assets
on our balance sheet. Last year we generated enough
income to send $1 billion back to the U.S. Treasury
after paying out an annual dividend to our member banks
throughout our district. We employ a thousand hard-working
people in Dallas and several hundred more in our branches
in Houston, San Antonio and El Paso. Each year, the
Dallas Fed processes 1 billion paper checks worth about
$900 billion, plus somewhere between 240 million and
300 million electronic checks. We handle 5.4 billion
circulating banknotes each year worth nearly $92 billion.
We continue to supply the liquidity our banking customers
need in times of potential and real crises, such as
Y2K, the aftermath of 9/11 and the devastating hurricanes
in 2005. Our Dallas operation requires an underground
vault the size of a five-story building—quite
something, when you realize our vault was little more
than an office safe in 1914. If you ever need to do
your laundry or park at a meter, call me. Our vaults
contain more than 150 million quarters.
Our other responsibilities include
supervising the banking industry within the Eleventh
Federal Reserve District. We conduct on-site audits
of our member banks and monitor bank performance and
stability. We have public education programs designed
to raise financial and economic literacy in our community
and host many public events and conferences on significant
activities within our economy. And we maintain a first-rate
research department that provides me with the authoritative
economic analysis I need for my role on the FOMC.
I mean it when I say first-rate.
Some of you may not know that Finn Kydland, an associate
of our research team for the past 14 years, won the
Nobel Prize for economics in 2004. He teams up with
a formidable research staff headed by Harvey Rosenblum,
another Fed stalwart who, 46 years ago, also received
a scholarship from a Rotary Club that made a huge difference
in his education.
In short, I think you can be proud
of the Dallas Fed. Like Paul Harris, George Dealey had
a vision. That vision has been more than realized.
I think I’ll stop right
there. I would be happy to take any questions you might
have and, in the best tradition of Federal Reserve officials,
do my utmost to avoid answering them.
| About
the Author
Richard W. Fisher
is president and CEO of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas.
Note
The views expressed
by the author do not necessarily reflect
official positions of the Federal Reserve
System.
|
|
|