On the Fed’s role, transparency, and risk

I’ll make it clear immediately: I think the Fed bailing out failed companies is a bad idea. It’s clear to me that until there is a real relationship between risk, reward, and failure, we’ll go nowhere fast.

If I’m a financial company, I know that I can risk it all for huge reward (big upside), and get bailed out if I fail (no downside), I’m certainly doubling-down on risk.

And I get why the government is bailing them out: When a financial company fails, many people are hurt. Innocent people. People who had no idea what was going on.

But that’s just the thing: if people did know what was going on, it wouldn’t have nearly the impact.

Here’s a proposal: Instead of trying to fix things after the fact, let’s make some rules for financial companies beforehand. How about the following:

  • Every quarter, the financial companies must disclose, in plain language (if Warren Buffett can do it, so can they), what they’re investing in. They don’t have to give away secrets — fairly broad strokes would be fine to get the point across. The key here is to ensure that they’re not hiding information.
  • This way, shareholders can decide whether or not to invest their money in the company because they actually know what they’re investing in.
  • Moreover, if a company is perceived to be investing in more risky things, why would anyone open an account for the same interest rate as a less risky company? The transparency created here will help keep your “safety” money (emergency fund, etc) safe, and help make you more money on the rest — with the understood knowledge that there’s a higher chance of failure.
  • Overall, this transparency will fuel efficiencies in the market, help individuals make more informed choices, and stop the Fed from having to bail out private companies.

Thoughts?

Wednesday, September 17, 2008   ()