November 15, 2024

Days Before 2007 Crisis, Fed Officials Doubted Need to Act

Worries about the health of financial markets dominated a meeting of the Fed’s policy-making committee on Aug. 7, but officials decided there was not yet sufficient evidence that the problems were affecting the growth of the broader economy.

Just three days later, the Fed’s chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, convened an early-morning conference call to inform them that the central bank had been forced to start pumping money into a financial system that was suddenly seizing up. More than five years later, the system remains heavily dependent on those pumps.

“The market is not operating in a normal way,” Mr. Bernanke said on that August call, in a moment of historic understatement. “It’s a question of market functioning, not a question of bailing anybody out. That’s really where we are right now.”

The actual conversations from the Fed’s meetings are released once a year after a five-year delay. With a wealth of detail beyond the terse statements and formal minutes issued in the hours and weeks after the meetings, the transcripts provide fresh insights into the debates, actions and judgment of policy makers.

August 2007 was the month that the Fed began its long transformation from somnolence to activism. Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues would continue to wrestle with misgivings about the extent of the Fed’s powers, and about the limits of appropriate action. At times they would hesitate or move slowly. At times they even would reverse course, most importantly in standing by as Lehman Brothers collapsed the following year. But it is now widely accepted that their efforts helped to arrest the economic chaos unleashed by the financial crisis.

Some of what followed might have been predicted by close readers of Mr. Bernanke’s work as an academic. He had long argued that the big lesson of the Great Depression was that a central bank should never allow its financial system to run short of money. Even more than its efforts to reduce borrowing costs, the Fed’s policy over the coming years would be defined by its determination to provide the funding private investors were withholding.

But in the face of an unprecedented crisis, Mr. Bernanke also would set aside his own work. He had long argued that the Fed should strive to respond to economic circumstances as transparently and predictably as possible, a break from the intuitive and unpredictable style of his predecessor, Alan Greenspan.

By the end of 2007, even as the available economic data remained fairly strong, Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues instead concluded that they could see the future, that they did not like what they saw, and that it was time to act.

“Intuition suggests that stronger action by the central bank may be warranted to prevent particularly costly outcomes,” Mr. Bernanke said in an October 2007 speech that marked the beginning of his public embrace of the need for pre-emptive action.

The Fed’s most dramatic steps did not begin until December 2007, when it created the Term Auction Facility, the first in a series of new programs intended to pump money into the financial system, and arranged to pump dollars into the European financial system in partnership with the European Central Bank.

And by January 2008, the Fed’s response to the crisis was in full swing.

The Fed began 2007 still deeply immersed in complacent disregard for problems in the housing market. Fed officials knew that people were losing their homes. They knew that subprime lenders were blinking out of business with every passing week. But they did not understand the implications for the broader economy.

“The impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained,” Mr. Bernanke said in Congressional testimony in March.

The mortgage industry was imploding by the time the Fed’s policy-making committee met on Aug. 7. American Home Mortgage, a leading subprime lender, had filed for bankruptcy the previous day. One week earlier, the investment bank Bear Stearns had liquidated a pair of mortgage-focused hedge funds. But officials did not cut interest rates. The economy, they said, “seems likely to continue to expand.” The statement did not even mention the housing market.

The transcripts show that many Fed officials at the August meeting remained deeply skeptical about the likely economic impact of those problems.

“My own bet is the financial market upset is not going to change fundamentally what’s going on in the real economy,” William Poole, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, told the committee on Aug. 7.

That was a Tuesday. The image of calm would last exactly two more days. By Thursday morning, the European Central Bank was offering emergency loans to Continental banks and the Fed was following suit. And Mr. Poole and his board voted that day to ask for the Fed to reduce the interest rate on such loans, becoming the first official arm of the central bank to push for stronger action.

Two weeks later, at 6 p.m. on a Thursday, Fed officials dialed in to an emergency conference call where they agreed to adopt the St. Louis Fed’s proposal.

The central bank began to make it easier for strapped financial companies to borrow money, an effort that would expand dramatically over the coming years as the crisis intensified and private investors withdrew funding.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/business/economy/fed-transcripts-open-a-window-on-2007-crisis.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Amazon Book Reviews Deleted in a Purge Aimed at Manipulation

After several well-publicized cases involving writers buying or manipulating their reviews, Amazon is cracking down. Writers say thousands of reviews have been deleted from the shopping site in recent months.

Amazon has not said how many reviews it has killed, nor has it offered any public explanation. So its sweeping but hazy purge has generated an uproar about what it means to review in an era when everyone is an author and everyone is a reviewer.

Is a review merely a gesture of enthusiasm or should it be held to a higher standard? Should writers be allowed to pass judgment on peers the way they have always done offline or are they competitors whose reviews should be banned? Does a groundswell of raves for a new book mean anything if the author is soliciting the comments?

In a debate percolating on blogs and on Amazon itself, quite a few writers take a permissive view on these issues.

The mystery novelist J. A. Konrath, for example, does not see anything wrong with an author indulging in chicanery. “Customer buys book because of fake review = zero harm,” he wrote on his blog.

Some readers differ. An ad hoc group of purists has formed on Amazon to track its most prominent reviewer, Harriet Klausner, who has over 25,000 reviews. They do not see how she can read so much so fast or why her reviews are overwhelmingly — and, they say, misleadingly — exaltations.

“Everyone in this group will tell you that we’ve all been duped into buying books based on her reviews,” said Margie Brown, a retired city clerk from Arizona.

Once a populist gimmick, the reviews are vital to making sure a new product is not lost in the digital wilderness. Amazon has refined the reviewing process over the years, giving customers the opportunity to rate reviews and comment on them. It is layer after layer of possible criticism.

“A not-insubstantial chunk of their infrastructure is based on their reviews — and all of that depends on having reviews customers can trust,” said Edward W. Robertson, a science fiction novelist who has watched the debate closely.

Nowhere are reviews more crucial than with books, an industry in which Amazon captures nearly a third of every dollar spent. It values reviews more than other online booksellers like Apple or Barnes Noble, featuring them prominently and using them to help decide which books to acquire for its own imprints by its relatively new publishing arm.

So writers have naturally been vying to get more, and better, notices. Several mystery writers, including R. J. Ellory, Stephen Leather and John Locke, have recently confessed to various forms of manipulation under the general category of “sock puppets,” or online identities used to deceive. That resulted in a widely circulated petition by a loose coalition of writers under the banner, “No Sock Puppets Here Please,” asking people to “vote for book reviews you can trust.”

In explaining its purge of reviews, Amazon has told some writers that “we do not allow reviews on behalf of a person or company with a financial interest in the product or a directly competing product. This includes authors.” But writers say that rule is not applied consistently.

In some cases, the ax fell on those with a direct relationship with the author.

“My sister’s and best friend’s reviews were removed from my books,” the author M. E. Franco said in a blog comment. “They happen to be two of my biggest fans.” Another writer, Valerie X. Armstrong, said her son’s five-star review of her book, “The Survival of the Fattest,” was removed. He immediately tried to put it back “and it wouldn’t take,” she wrote.

In other cases, though, the relationship was more tenuous. Michelle Gagnon lost three reviews on her young adult novel “Don’t Turn Around.” She said she did not know two of the reviewers, while the third was a longtime fan of her work. “How does Amazon know we know each other?” she said. “That’s where I started to get creeped out.”

Mr. Robertson suggested that Amazon applied a broad brush. “I believe they caught a lot of shady reviews, but a lot of innocent ones were erased, too,” he said. He figures the deleted reviews number in the thousands, or perhaps even 10,000.

The explosion of reviews for “The 4-Hour Chef” by Timothy Ferriss shows how the system has evolved from something spontaneous to a means of marketing and promotion. On Nov. 20, publication day, dozens of highly favorable reviews immediately sprouted. Other reviewers quickly criticized Mr. Ferriss, accusing him of buying supporters.

He laughed off those suggestions. “Not only would I never do that — it’s unethical — I simply don’t have to,” he wrote in an e-mail, saying he had sent several hundred review copies to fans and potential fans. “Does that stack the deck? Perhaps, but why send the book to someone who would hate it? That doesn’t help anyone: not the reader, nor the writer.”

As a demonstration of social media’s grip on reviewing, Mr. Ferriss used Twitter and Facebook to ask for a review. “Rallying my readers,” he called it. Within an hour, 61 had complied.

A few of his early reviews were written by people who admitted they had not read the book but were giving it five stars anyway because, well, they knew it would be terrific. “I am looking forward to reading this,” wrote a user posting under the name mhpics.

A spokesman for Amazon, which published “The 4-Hour Chef,” offered this sole comment for this article: “We do not require people to have experienced the product in order to review.”

The dispute over reviews is playing out in the discontent over Mrs. Klausner, an Amazon Hall of Fame reviewer for the last 11 years and undoubtedly one of the most prolific reviewers in literary history.

Mrs. Klausner published review No. 28,366, for “A Red Sun Also Rises” by Mark Hodder. Almost immediately, it had nine critical comments. The first accused it of being “riddled with errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation.” The rest were no more kind. The Harriet Klausner Appreciation Society had struck again.

Mrs. Klausner, a 60-year-old retired librarian who lives in Atlanta, has published an average of seven reviews a day for more than a decade. “To watch her in action is unbelievable,” said her husband, Stanley. “You see the pages turning.”

Mrs. Klausner, who says ailments keep her home and insomnia keeps her up, scoffs at her critics. “You ever read a Harlequin romance?” she said. “You can finish it in one hour. I’ve always been a speed reader.” She has a message for her naysayers: “Get a life. Read a book.”

More than 99.9 percent of Mrs. Klausner’s reviews are four or five stars. “If I can make it past the first 50 pages, that means I like it, and so I review it,” she said. But even Stanley said, “She’s soft, I won’t deny that.”

The campaign against Mrs. Klausner has pushed down her reviewer ratings, which in theory makes her less influential. But when everything is subject to review, the battle is never-ending.

Ragan Buckley, an aspiring novelist active in the campaign against Mrs. Klausner under the name “Sneaky Burrito,” is a little weary. “There are so many fake reviews that I’m often better off just walking into a physical store and picking an item off the shelf at random,” she said.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/technology/amazon-book-reviews-deleted-in-a-purge-aimed-at-manipulation.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: Long-Term Care Insurance and Our Collective Denial

This weekend brought more depressing news on the long-term care insurance front — and continued evidence that we have our heads in the sand about these issues.

First came the news that the Obama administration was scrapping the Class Act. The act was intended to create a new, government-sponsored long-term care insurance system. It wouldn’t have paid for all needs, but it would have helped pay for some of them.

Alas, the program wasn’t actuarially sound, which kind of makes you wonder who allowed an uneconomic program to get passed in the first place. Now, the idea of government-endorsed insurance that would look anything like this has been tarred and feathered as something that only financially irresponsible people dream up.

Pair the Class Act news with an essay in the Sunday Review section of The Times by Jane Gross on how Medicare ultimately fails so many elderly people, and you start to get a sense of the size of the problem we are facing. Plenty of people think Medicare will cover all their needs, but it doesn’t pay for nursing homes and similar care most of the time. And if you want high-quality care and are paying for it out of your own pocket, it can sometimes cost $100,000 a year or more.

Sure, you could try to buy insurance via the private market. But the companies that offer it are no dummies. They see what is coming, and they are either rapidly raising prices or getting out of the industry altogether. And if you do have insurance and need to file a claim? You may have to fight to get what the policy promises. After all, there are often judgment calls about who is truly in need of care and what is actually covered.

So how would you solve this problem? I’m out of ideas but still enraged by the fact that nobody wants to talk about this.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=62920710943df772cac9c690ef8fa8ba

About Financial Planners: What You Need to Know

What follows is advice on how to pick the best financial planner. First things first: Anyone can use the title financial planner. It’s not quite like being lawyer, where state bar associations decide who gets to practice law. As a result, all sorts of accountants and insurance agents refer to themselves as financial planners.

That said, there is a subset of financial professionals who are “certified” financial planners, or C.F.P.’s. To become a C.F.P., you need to meet certain educational and experience requirements and pass a difficult exam that covers an array of financial topics. If you’re looking for a complete, wide-ranging analysis of your financial standing, a C.F.P. is the person to see.

But first you have to find one. As with any professional service, you’ll want to start by asking people whose judgment you trust for help. Ask acquaintances who have needs similar to yours, since a planner focused on the needs of young families may not be a good choice for recent retirees.

You can also search on the Web. The C.F.P. standards board maintains a database of people who have passed its test, as does the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (Napfa) and the Garrett Planning Network.

How do you tell one planner from another? Many differentiate themselves on the basis of how they make money, so this will be one of the first things to consider. Though some financial planners earn a salary plus bonus, most make their living one of two ways. They can make money through annual, hourly or flat fees paid by you for their time and advice. Or they earn commissions from companies, like life insurers, whose products they sell. Some planners may earn money both ways.

Napfa planners make money only through customer fees, and they have an almost religious conviction that this is the best way to operate. In their view, planners who earn commissions may be tempted to act in their own best interest, not the customer’s. Fee-only planners, like the ones who are Napfa members, might charge you 1 percent of your assets each year or charge a flat $2,000 fee for a financial plan. Garrett Planning Network members, meanwhile, pledge to work by the hour if a client desires. This might cost $200 an hour.

Planners who work on commission, meanwhile, defend their way of doing business by noting that their customers may not pay any fees for their advice. Fair enough. The question is whether they are, in fact, acting in your best interest. So ask them directly whether they intend to operate as a fiduciary, the legal term for a person who must recommend the very best product for you, even if it causes them to earn less money somehow.

Napfa publishes a thorough list of additional questions you should ask financial planners before picking one to work with. Any reputable professional ought to be willing to meet with you free to get acquainted and answer anything you ask.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/your-money/financial-planners/primerplanners.html?partner=rss&emc=rss