So far as I can tell, it looks like Mervyn King is on the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which will be holding an enquiry into QE. A policy he instigated and guided, 2009-2013. I think he should recuse himself really.
Looking into QE questions loom like 'should central banks have done this at all?'. And 'How does this work and what effects will it have?' Both things he is certainly capable of being impartial about, but he has obvious vested interests in defending what he did and said.
It would be better to call him as a witness and grill him about his involvement in QE, rather than have him asking the questions and exerting influence behind the scenes on any HoL report.
A credible process wants to be above any suspicion that witnesses are steered away from topics that might cause the UK originator of QE embarrassment. I am sure MAK would play a straight bat here, but what is the point in risking people think you might not?
The BoE's own Independent Evaluation Office covered territory around how/why QE works, a topic that the profession hasn't settled yet, and one that has dogged communications of central banks about QE....
Eg on instigation, the BoE and MAK in particular stressed the continuity in QE - controlling the quantity of money, when before they controlled the price... and BoE educational material stressed 'injecting liquidity'...
This was actually exactly the channel thought to have little or no effect at the floor to rates. Perhaps unsurprisingly communications shifted towards the effect QE had on longer term yields via squeezing term and credit spreads.
MAK is hardly going to ask a question that elicits comment on this early transmission comprehension / communications flunk. And one can think of many othet examples that would put him in the awkward position of being the BoE rep on the wrong side of the table.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
