View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

For use at 10 a.m., EDT
Tuesday, October 19, 1993

Statement of
David W. Mullins, Jr.
Vice Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Washington, D.C.

Hearing on Issues Raised by HR 28
"Federal Reserve System Accountability Act of 1993"
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
October 19, 1993

Chairman Gonzalez, Congressman Leach, and members of the
Committee.

I appreciate your invitation to report my views on

that portion of H.R. 28, "The Federal Reserve System
Accountability Act," dealing with disclosure.

I would like to

offer this Committee a perspective that was gained from my career
both inside and outside the Beltway.
Before I arrived in Washington, I taught and conducted
research in financial economics for over a decade.

Many of my

professional writings explored the estimable ability of financial
market participants to absorb and interpret information and then
reflect that knowledge in market prices.

As a policymaker in

Washington, serving in a variety of jobs at the Treasury and the
Federal Reserve, I have been exposed to the flow of confidential
intelligence on the condition of financial institutions, the
settings of policy instruments, contingency plans for a wide
array of conceivable emergencies, the views of other agencies,
and the operations of foreign official institutions.

I have

routinely participated in meetings with other officials and staff
of the Federal Reserve, the Congress, the Treasury, and banking
and securities regulators, as well as representatives of foreign
governments and international institutions.

From this experience

I would respectfully offer three points.
First, what often makes news is not always informative.

As

the members of this panel are well aware, part of the
deliberative process is actually thinking out loud.

In my

current role, whether in meetings of the Board or the FOMC or in

2
less formal settings, I routinely engage in dialogues with others
who are concerned about the nation's interest, exchanging views
on possible policy options, planning for contingencies that none
of us hope will happen but that must not catch us unprepared, and
contemplating the market's reaction to what we might do.

Much of

the job of a central banker involves worrying about events that
have a small probability of occurrence, but would impose large
costs on the financial system and the economy were they to occur.
Unfortunately, the public release of such discussions would only
serve to focus attention on the sensational— the differences in
opinion, the fears about individual institutions, and the
concerns about worst-case scenarios— that normally have little
consequence on net to the setting of policy and that would
distract people from more fundamental issues, almost certainly
heightening market volatility.
Secondly, and this is generalizing from a frustration that I
likely share with anyone who has sat in many public meetings, the
prospect of detailed and complete exposure tends to cast a chill
on some proceedings.

A speaker has to weigh the effects of every

word, guarding against the possibility that subtle distinctions
in opinion or conditional speculations will be splashed about the
newspapers.

One possible outcome of this fear of unfortunate

headlines is that the critical conduct of policy gets pushed onto
the sidelines, where fewer people can participate.

The result

could be less public disclosure of the policy process.

My chief

concern is that the quality of policymaking would suffer, with

3
adverse consequences for the nation.

If too many participants in

a deliberative group speak to the record rather than to each
other, innovative ideas do not get their due and the search for a
consensus settles too quickly on the status quo or the easiest,
though not the best, solutions.
Third, from my experience, the monetary policy process is
open where it counts.

Our actions matter, not our deliberations.

It is our actions that affect interest rates and the economy, and
those actions are made public immediately.

Changes in reserve

conditions are transparent to the market by 11:30 am on the day
of the change in the open forum of the financial market.

The

reasons for the action are laid out in the minutes of the meeting
that are released just six weeks later, and all votes are tallied
and dissents explained.
announced.

Discount rate changes are also publicly

To provide a broader overview to Congress, the

Chairman of the Federal Reserve offers a semiannual review to
members of the Banking Committee and their counterparts in the
Senate encompassing recent policy decisions, a summary of the
economic forecasts of members of the Board and Reserve Bank
presidents, and plans for policy for the coming year.

On a more

irregular schedule, members of the Board, Reserve Bank
presidents, and officials of the Federal Reserve System often sit
before committees of Congress to discuss aspects of monetary
policy.

Meanwhile, System staff produce a steady stream of

analyses of the economy and critiques of policy that are

4
published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin. Reserve Bank Reviews.
and the academic press.
To sum up my views on the issue of disclosure, the central
concern is the quality of monetary policy decision-making, which
depends upon the effectiveness of the FOMC deliberative process.
I believe a substantial degree of confidentiality is necessary to
ensure the effectiveness of this deliberative process.

It is my

view that, on the whole, the current process works well and
proposed substantial changes in disclosure of FOMC deliberations
would threaten the quality of monetary policy decisions, and
therefore such proposed changes would not, in my view, serve the
public interest.
With respect to the other information requested in your
letter of invitation, during FOMC meetings I do occasionally note
very rough summary observations which are subsequently kept in my
locked confidential files and are destroyed after approximately
one year's time.

I also keep edited notes of some of my personal

oral interventions in the FOMC meetings in my locked files.

I

have observed others present at FOMC meetings occasionally
engaged in note-taking as well.

As I believe Chairman Greenspan

plans to discuss, I am aware that FOMC staff do retain some
detailed, though edited, notes and rough transcripts for use in
preparation of FOMC minutes.
As for your third question, I do not know of any case of
willful or intentional leaking of confidential FOMC information
to the press or the public, although I am aware that there has

5
been confidential communication with appropriate senior
administration officials.

While all involved are very careful to

avoid release of confidential information, it is possible that
leaked stories may have resulted from inadvertence or skillful
inferences.

In my view,

it is imperative that we ensure the

confidentiality of FOMC information, and I can assure the
Committee that we are making every effort to do so.