Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Fed Admits That Yellen Met With Leaker in 2012, DOJ Probe Starts
From the Medley website under the History section:
"Medley Global Advisors LLC (MGA) was founded in 1997 by Richard Medley, former chief political strategist to George Soros, to help investors navigate the opaque yet fascinating intersection of policy and markets. Dan Bogler, MGA's President, joined MGA in March of 2010."
Interesting that the name of George Soros pops up. It doesn't surprise me in the least.
"Fed Admits That Yellen Met With Leaker in 2012, DOJ Probe Starts"
Another great example of destructive innuendo rather than straight reporting from ZeroSmear.
How about something a little more accurate: "Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said the U.S. Department of Justice has joined an investigation into a leak of confidential monetary-policy information in 2012" , from Bloomberg?
A bit more from the Bloomberg article: “The Board’s Inspector General and the Department of Justice are in the midst of an investigation into this matter,” Yellen said in a letter to Representative Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Service Committee, dated Monday in Washington."
Maybe Bloomberg should have said "Yellen admitted in a letter".
I recall Yellen being asked about this during a recent press conference. I think it was a month or so back. She pretty much reitterated the official stance that an investigation is underway and it would be inappropriate to comment further.
There is an element in Congress that has been on the Fed's tail for some time. Philosophically, they're opposed to the concept of an independent Federal Reserve. There may be substance to Zero's alleged violations on the part of Yellen. Than again, it might be an (unfounded) attempt to discredit her and the Federal Reserve by those opponents. I don't think anyone knows at this time.
Reading between the lines on the Boomberg report I get the impression that they actually have some idea of who on the Fed staff they're after, and I don't think that it's Yellin.
"Fed Admits That Yellen Met With Leaker in 2012, DOJ Probe Starts"
Another great example of destructive innuendo rather than straight reporting from ZeroSmear.
How about something a little more accurate: "Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said the U.S. Department of Justice has joined an investigation into a leak of confidential monetary-policy information in 2012" , from Bloomberg?
A bit more from the Bloomberg article: “The Board’s Inspector General and the Department of Justice are in the midst of an investigation into this matter,” Yellen said in a letter to Representative Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Service Committee, dated Monday in Washington."
Maybe Bloomberg should have said "Yellen admitted in a letter".
"*YELLEN SAYS SHE MET WITH MEDLEY GLOBAL ANALYST IN JUNE 2012 *YELLEN SAYS SHE DIDN'T GIVE MEDLEY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION"
So, she met with the leaker. And the DOJ is conducting an investigation. Someone on the Fed leaked information. Perhaps it wasn't Yellen. If she did meet with the analyst in question, what information did she give them?
Better yet, why are FOMC members meeting with various analysts? Should that information not be public, or do only the special people get information ahead of everyone else? (I think I know the answer to that last question.)
How is that wrong to say?
Even if she did leak critical information (and what if she did, will that effect your opinion of the Fed or no?), nothing will ever come of it.
I simply find it interesting that there is an investigation of Fed members leaking information. I don't feel the need to defend the Fed because of a multitude of things. Additionally, as I noted above, the way this country is (I mean, look at the Clinton email server situation, "Gee, was that wrong to do?" "Oh, I'll just delete the server while I'm at it, nothing to see here...." and no one cares, there's so many other examples), even if they did leak information none of them will ever get in the slightest bit of trouble as a result.
Reading between the lines on the Boomberg report I get the impression that they actually have some idea of who on the Fed staff they're after, and I don't think that it's Yellin.
Out of curiosity, how do you get that from that? Or do you just not want to think Yellen was involved?
"Fed has agreed to furnish a congressional panel with the names of its staffers who had contact with Medley Global Advisors in the months before the leak, “with the understanding that the names will be kept confidential."
See, I said no one would get in trouble. The silly public won't even find out the names. LOL.
Question: "Out of curiosity, how do you get that from that? Or do you just not want to think Yellen was involved?"
Answer: "Fed has agreed to furnish a congressional panel with the names of its staffers who had contact with Medley Global Advisors in the months before the leak, “with the understanding that the names will be kept confidential."
Comment: "The silly public won't even find out the names."
Reply: The silly public will certainly find out the name(s) if the DOJ finds a chargeable offense. In the meantime, why would we need to "know the names" of persons who have not been charged with any offense, and the great majority of whom are probably totally innocent of any wrongdoing?
In my opinion, ZeroHedge and other similar mudslinging operations are merely the latest incarnation of Joesph McCarthy. He'd have been a natural for an operation like that. But then, the young people really don't remember...
''No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards." Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll
Because, as reported(NOT editorialized) in the WSJ, Bloomberg, and other reasonably reliable sources, the idea is for the Fed to get as much accurate street info as possible to factor into their discussions and evaluations. Oddly enough, unlike Congress, they feel that they should attempt to deal with reality. Perhaps they should give up on that and just check ZeroHedge for the latest accurate info.
Comments
"Medley Global Advisors LLC (MGA) was founded in 1997 by Richard Medley, former chief political strategist to George Soros, to help investors navigate the opaque yet fascinating intersection of policy and markets. Dan Bogler, MGA's President, joined MGA in March of 2010."
Interesting that the name of George Soros pops up. It doesn't surprise me in the least.
http://www.medleyadvisors.com/history.html
Another great example of destructive innuendo rather than straight reporting from ZeroSmear.
How about something a little more accurate: "Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said the U.S. Department of Justice has joined an investigation into a leak of confidential monetary-policy information in 2012" , from Bloomberg?
A bit more from the Bloomberg article: “The Board’s Inspector General and the Department of Justice are in the midst of an investigation into this matter,” Yellen said in a letter to Representative Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Service Committee, dated Monday in Washington."
Maybe Bloomberg should have said "Yellen admitted in a letter".
There is an element in Congress that has been on the Fed's tail for some time. Philosophically, they're opposed to the concept of an independent Federal Reserve. There may be substance to Zero's alleged violations on the part of Yellen. Than again, it might be an (unfounded) attempt to discredit her and the Federal Reserve by those opponents. I don't think anyone knows at this time.
*YELLEN SAYS SHE DIDN'T GIVE MEDLEY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION"
So, she met with the leaker. And the DOJ is conducting an investigation. Someone on the Fed leaked information. Perhaps it wasn't Yellen. If she did meet with the analyst in question, what information did she give them?
Better yet, why are FOMC members meeting with various analysts? Should that information not be public, or do only the special people get information ahead of everyone else? (I think I know the answer to that last question.)
How is that wrong to say?
Even if she did leak critical information (and what if she did, will that effect your opinion of the Fed or no?), nothing will ever come of it.
I simply find it interesting that there is an investigation of Fed members leaking information. I don't feel the need to defend the Fed because of a multitude of things. Additionally, as I noted above, the way this country is (I mean, look at the Clinton email server situation, "Gee, was that wrong to do?" "Oh, I'll just delete the server while I'm at it, nothing to see here...." and no one cares, there's so many other examples), even if they did leak information none of them will ever get in the slightest bit of trouble as a result. Out of curiosity, how do you get that from that? Or do you just not want to think Yellen was involved?
See, I said no one would get in trouble. The silly public won't even find out the names. LOL.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-06/fed-agrees-name-fomc-leaker-long-congress-keeps-it-secret
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/04/yellen-fed-providing-lawmakers-with-names-of-staffers-in-leak-probe/
Answer: "Fed has agreed to furnish a congressional panel with the names of its staffers who had contact with Medley Global Advisors in the months before the leak, “with the understanding that the names will be kept confidential."
Comment: "The silly public won't even find out the names."
Reply: The silly public will certainly find out the name(s) if the DOJ finds a chargeable offense. In the meantime, why would we need to "know the names" of persons who have not been charged with any offense, and the great majority of whom are probably totally innocent of any wrongdoing?
In my opinion, ZeroHedge and other similar mudslinging operations are merely the latest incarnation of Joesph McCarthy. He'd have been a natural for an operation like that. But then, the young people really don't remember...
''No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards."
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll
Ding. Ring that bell.