• 15789_5.28_000006090065XSmall

    Consumer Financial Protection

    Jul 27 • Financial Markets, Households, Money and Monetary Policy, Regulation • 217 Views

    I have been curious about why the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP), established by the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, is an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve. While I have not discovered a satisfactory answer, I have learned several interesting facts.

    There already is a Consumer Advisory Council (CAC) housed within the Fed. According to its website, the council advises the Federal Reserve Board “on the exercise of its responsibilities under the Consumer Protection Act…” Noting that the CAC had not been effectual, several past and present members suggested that any new consumer protection agency reside elsewhere. Barney Frank, during March, said that a consumer protection council would be a second or third rate group if it were inside the Fed. 

    In addition, there already is another Bureau of Consumer Protection in the Federal Trade Commission. Its website says that, “The Bureau of Consumer Protection works to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices in the marketplace.” Through its Financial Practices authority, the FTC “protects consumers from deceptive and unfair practices in the financial services industry.”


    The Economic Lesson

    A WSJ article noted general facts about the BCFP. Funded by the Federal Reserve, it will create and enforce rules about how financial products ranging from mortgages to credit card fees affect consumers. Its enforcement authority, though, extends only to such large financial institutions as banks with more than $10 billion of assets. Other federal regulators will keep an eye on smaller institutions. Nothing, however, was said about the hierarchy. Does the Fed Chairman have any power over the agency if they provide the funding? 

    The FDIC (1933) and the SEC (1934) emerged through the turmoil of the Great Depression. With 19th century panics in mind, the Federal Reserve (1913) was created specifically in response to the Panic of 1907.

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15787_7.2_000004853053XSmall

    A Chocolate Squeeze

    Jul 26 • Demand, Supply, and Markets, Financial Markets • 198 Views

    One person might have purchased enough cocoa to make 5 billion chocolate bars. And, he is not even in the candy making business. Instead, he is doing what financial speculators have tried to do for centuries. He is trying to corner a market.

    The man is Anthony Ward. His firm, Armajaro, does financial investing that includes commodities trading. One of those commodities is cocoa. Recently, he has purchased a lot of cocoa. 

    Cornering any market requires massive buying, so much buying that little remains for anyone else. The result is control of supply and price. Typically, when a commodities trader makes a purchase of corn, for example, the seller locks in that price. Meanwhile, because with corn the buyer is purchasing a crop that will be harvested in the future, he has the opportunity to take advantage of a price rise. The seller gets security and the buyer is the speculator. Trying to corner a market just involves buying more.

    In 1869, another financial speculator, Jay Gould, tried to corner the gold market. In the Gold Room, located near the Stock Exchange in NYC, traders bought and sold gold. When Gould’s agents (secretly working for him) started to buy and buy, the price of gold moved up. During subsequent months his men continued buying. Ultimately the U.S. government entered the market as a seller and foiled Gould’s plans.

    In the wonderful 1983 film Trading Places, Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd foil a plot to corner the orange juice market.

    The Economic Lesson

    There are many buyers and many sellers in perfectly competitive markets. As a result, no one controls price or quantity. Because all producers are price takers, they have to abide by the price established through the intersection of demand and supply.

    Cornering a market involves taking control away from demand and supply. The demand curve is “hijacked” by an individual. As price goes up, other potential buyers are “squeezed” out of the market. The ultimate result, though, is control of the supply curve.   



    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15783_3.22_000006909090XSmall


    Jul 25 • Businesses, Developing Economies, International Trade and Finance • 237 Views

    The Big Mac Index is out again. Not much has changed. Norway’s Big Macs are most expensive and Chinese Big Macs are cheap.

    What do Big Mac prices tell us? Starting with an average U.S. price of $3.73 (based on 4 cities), we can determine whether other currencies are over valued or undervalued in comparison to the dollar. So, when we see that a euro based Big Mac will cost $4.33, we know the euro is overvalued. Rather interestingly, a Brazilian Big Mac, at $4.91 is also more while Argentina’s Big Mac is very inexpensive at $1.78.

    I wondered, though, whether a low price would be inexpensive domestically and discovered that we can also look at the Big Mac Index from an average net wage perspective. In March, 2009, someone buying a Big Mac in Chicago, Tokyo, or Toronto would have needed 12 minutes of work time. By contrast, workers in Nairobi, Mexico City, and Jakarta worked longer than 2 hours. The global average, based on 73 cities, was just below 40 minutes.   

    The Economic Lesson

    As economists, the Big Mac Index takes us to purchasing power parity. A 2 page St. Louis Fed paper clearly and briefly connects the Big Mac Index to economics. Starting with a “one price” theory, they explain that price deviations can vary because of local productivity. If workers producing exports have higher wages, other workers benefit, and prices move up. Looking at supply and demand, Big Mac prices relate to the cost of local labor and the amount consumers are willing and able to spend. Does export activity relate to Brazil’s position on the list?


    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15781_7.24_000002972427XSmall

    Institutionalized Trust

    Jul 24 • Economic History, Economic Thinkers, Macroeconomic Measurement, Thinking Economically • 189 Views

    The production path of a pair of Levi’s stonewashed 501 jeans could have started in a Mississippi Delta cotton farm, continued with a North Carolina fabric weaver, and included the Dominican Republic and Haiti for cutting, sewing, and finishing. Then, the jeans would have returned to the U.S. to one of countless retail outlets, to a consumer, and maybe even to a recycled life afterwards in some other country.

    Commenting on these “production paths” economist Tim Harford  says they ultimately lead to economic growth but only if the path is preserved by trust. The trust he refers to is primarily an institutionalized trust. We “trust” that money will have a certain value. We “trust” that a contract will be enforced. We “trust” transactions that involve Visa and American Express. We “trust” that we will receive a package that we order from Amazon.

    Correspondingly, in economies where corruption and bribery abound, economic development is constrained. Explaining why Haiti has made little progress rebuilding its main harbor, the Miami Herald points out that the project is “mired in cronyism, waste, scandal, and inertia. They could also have said that there was no institutional trust.   

    The Economic Lesson

    Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton realized that the sanctity of contracts was essential for U.S. economic development. As a result, when he had to decide who owned Revolutionary War bonds, the benevolent patriots who had sold the bonds at a discount or the ruthless speculators who bought them, he chose the speculators. Why? Government has to enforce a legal contract. A nation has to have “institutional trust.”

    Contemporary economists have researched the role of trust in the market system. You might want to look at “Adam Smith’s Essentials: On Trust, Faith, and Free Markets,” and “Trust and Growth“. 


    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15779_4.30_000007182674XSmall

    Green Jeans

    Jul 23 • Businesses, Environment • 207 Views

    Reading about a new Eco Index started me thinking about competition. The Eco Index is somewhat comparable to the Energy Star rating created by the EPA in 1992. For appliances, Energy Star ratings convey energy efficiency information. For apparel, the Eco Index provides a green score.

    As described in a WSJ article, the Eco Index is composed of questions that relate to environmental and labor practices. Using information about the entire, “… life of a product, from raw-material production to manufacturing, shipping, and even disposal,” a score is assigned. Levi’s, for example, elevated its Eco Index score for stonewashed 501 jeans by rerouting trucks to save carbon emissions and suggesting cold water washing. 

    Having started during the 1850s with a basic, utilitarian pair of Levi Strauss jeans, now the jeans market involves many firms, many designs, many price points. So, when I saw the Eco Index, I perceived it as a way for firms to differentiate themselves. 

    The Economic Lesson

    Levi’s and other jeans makers compete in a monopolistically competitive market. The characteristics of monopolistic competition include many sellers with a similar product, sellers creating an individual unique identity, and sellers having some control over price. The Eco Index will enable certain sellers to convey this unique identity.

    From most competitive to least competitive, the four basic competitive market structures are perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. 

    No Comments

    Read More