格林斯潘逝世引发市场波动，美联储沟通策略再引热议

This is Bloomberg Business Week Daily, reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead with insight on the people, companies, and trends shaping today's [music] complex economy. Plus, global business, finance, and tech news as it happens. Bloomberg Business Week Daily with Carol Masser [music] and Tim Stenc on Bloomberg Radio. >> Hi everyone, welcome to the weekend edition of Bloomberg Business Week. This past week, the financial world marked the loss of Federal Reserve Chairman Ellen Greenspan, who passed away at the age of 100, prompting a deep reflection on his immense economic legacy and decades of market influence. >> His passing happened at the start of what turned out to be a volatile week for global markets. Meanwhile, geopolitical tension still top of mind as fastmoving, everchanging US Iran negotiations aimed at cementing a final peace deal to end the war take shape. For all the important details on these developing stories, head on over to bloomberg.com and always check out the Bloomberg terminal. >> With that in mind, this hour we bring a deep look at the macro market backdrop, AI, monetary policy via the Fed and also the legacy of the late former Fed chair Alan Greenspan. >> Plus, the latest global phenomenon that's driving billions of dollars into unregulated markets. From Silicon Valley and online fitness communities, the obsession with peptides has triggered a black market boon. More on that a little later. >> It's a great Business Week story. All of that to come. We do begin with a comprehensive market and macroeconomic check-in. For that, we leaned on Jim Karen, who is chief investment officer of portfolio solutions at Morgan Stanley Investment Management. >> We covered a lot with Jim, but of course, Carol, we had to start on the life and legacy of Alan Greenspan. >> He was a legend. So, I you know, if we put this in perspective, and I think it's very important to have context around this. He started his position as chair in 1987. He ended in 2006. That's a 19-year period. So for most people, that's that's a large chunk of their career. I started in the business in '9192. That's all I knew for 14 or 15 years of my of of the starting point of my career. He was uh somebody that was not going to be challenged easily by other members of the Fed. It's whatever he said went and that was it. So, but he also did uh a bunch of different things. He he changed things at the Fed in the sense that he made it a lot more transparent, if I could say those words. The So, what the way the Fed operated and we take this for granted today that you find out on Wednesday at 2:00 what the Fed's decision was and we all go to work. Prior to Greenspan, it was Vulkar. And what happened at about 4:15 4:10 on a Thursday afternoon, you got money supply data. Based on what the money supply data was, that was the change in policy. You had to figure it out. Nobody told you if it was 25 or 50 basis points. You were guessing and you were trying to analyze and figure out what that was. So what Greenspan started to introduce through communications and things like that was what today we take for granted was absolutely monumental and groundbreaking as far as saying, "Hey, by the way, we just hiked or cut 25 basis points and that's and that's all it is." >> Is it too much though?

Like would some say it's gone too far? >> So there's been iterations like there's there's preg green span and then there's post green span, right? So what happened in the 19 years subsequent um you know from 2006 to 200 uh uh you know 2026 um what what we've had now is Bernani Yellen and Powell they've all followed effectively the Greenspan mode but they added on to it now clearly Bernani had a very special situation the financial crisis he had to do enhanced communications and things like and things of that nature. Um, I think that uh what is is it too much today?

Um, in terms of communication, I I'm going to say that it it it is a bit >> um because what the Fed is trying to do is they're trying to telegraph and televise too much such that they're actually directing and dictating how the markets should think about things as opposed to what War said, which is let the markets figure it out. I mean, so so the way I think about managed. >> Well, I mean, you know, the way I think about Kevin Walsh, if if I'm going to put him in this in this period of time from 1987 to 2026, >> I'm going to say that what Green what what Worsh is trying to do is bring us back to the period that was uh pre Ben Bernani. So, it was Greenspan in the 1990s. So, very similar economic setup too. Big capback cycle, big productivity boom, you know, that you know that we're going through. And and I think what Wars is trying to do is bring us back to that period where he lets the markets assess what monetary policy ought to be as opposed to what Greenspan did. Greenspan was the guy that really started to come in because like Vulkar and everybody else just looked at money supply M1 M2. They were you know very very much that that's what they did. Greenspan was the one who started saying, you know, we should think about GDP growth and the labor market and inflation and let's talk about inflation anchoring and and all of these various things. Things that we think of today is very common was very uncommon at the time. So, I'd say let's give Kevin Worsh an opportunity. This is his moment in history. He wants to remake the Fed, but this isn't groundbreaking what I think Worsh is trying to do. I think he's just getting back to a period that looks more like the 1990s. So, it's it's fair to say you see a a hint or more of Allen Greenspan in Kevin Worsh today. >> Yeah, I I do. Now, now now [snorts] whenever you compare somebody to like somebody who was a legend and somebody who's just starting out, that's always a very very diff difficult, you know, we'll see how Worsh does, right?

It's going to be a long journey and long road ahead. Um, but I think on paper, conceptually, what Kevin Walsh is trying to do is get the Fed back to a much more narrow focus. Not as narrow as the Vulkar Fed, which which was just money supply, but something that's a little more growth, inflation outlook, uh, jobs market, but let's ease up on the communications. I think he's really just going back to a 1990s Greenspan model right now. And that's my perspective. And a lot of people weren't even around in the '90s in in this business practicing, right?

So, they don't really have a good perspective on this. It wasn't chaos. It was fine. You know, you just have to get used to the new there's a new shower in town. >> What's the downside of kind of where we are and what we expect from today's Fed?

>> I think the downside is that there's a lot of mission creep with the Fed, right? So, now we have to we have to put this in context as well. Prior to the financial crisis, we had this much more narrow rem. This is what Greenspan kind of created. I mean, he opened it up more transparency. Then Bernani kicked the door wide open. He had to. We had a financial crisis. We had interest policy. We had QE. We had policy rates at zero. So, he had to find a way to communicate policy to the markets. I totally get it. But what happens is is that once the Fed starts to have this mission creep and they start to be asked to do more and more even from a regulatory standpoint or even you know the Fed was being asked what's your policy on climate you know you know things like that this is not what the Fed's job is the Fed and and according to Kevin Worsh should color in a very very narrow set of lines and stick to what their job is under Vulkar it was money supply >> but what if but what if the economy has gotten more complicated. Climate change is an issue. Companies have to think about it, you know, because it is ultimately going to impact their bottom line. >> But does it affect a dual mandate?

I guess some might say. >> Well, it might because people can't work. Yeah. >> Y