"Bernanke earns more in one day than he did all of last year as Fed chief" (Reuters/AOL headline)

Awww, isn't this adorable? Big Al 'n' Big Ben, together! Are they on the clock? Holy bank balance, Batman! Or maybe it's like one of those glossy National Geographic photos of a lion or tiger mama tending to one of her cuddly little offspring. (The official caption reads: "US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke (R) speaks with former chairman Alan Greenspan during a ceremony marking the centennial of the founding of the Federal Reserve in Washington, DC on December 16, 2013.")

"Lawyers and agents say Bernanke, 60, should be able to command around $250,000 per speech for a while to come. The paycheck 'sounds reasonable to me,' said one speaking-circuit agent who did not want to be named. Bernanke could have a 'very long shelf life,' he added."

-- from "Bernanke earns more in one day than he did
all of last year as Fed chief," Reuters via AOL

by Ken

Several points before we proceed:

(1) That head that I've made the title of this post, "Bernanke earns more in one day than he did all of last year as Fed chief" -- it's correct, but maybe understates the claim made in the lead for this story by Jonathan Spicer and Mirna Sleiman, which reads: "Ben Bernanke earned more in 40 minutes on Tuesday than he made all of last year as head of the U.S. Federal Reserve" [emphasis added].

(2) Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the speaking-circuit agent quoted above by Spicer and Sleiman even asked for, let alone was granted, anonymity? This is someone who really (and realistically?) believes that he/she puts him/herself at some sort of risk by saying that the quoted figure of $250K per speech "sounds reasonable"? Huh? Note that I'm not questioning the judgment of "reasonableness," or his opinion that Big Ben could have a very long shelf life. After all, the Reuters reporters note that the reported fee leaves Big Ben "well short of former President Bill Clinton -- the gold standard of Americans turning charisma into cash -- who has, by some estimates, earned two or even three times that much for some appearances in recent years." All I'm questioning is the secret source's trepidation at being identified as someone who judges the fee "reasonable" and thinks Big Ben could be riding this gravy train for much time to come.

(3) The Reuters dateline on the story reads "NEW YORK/ABU DHABI, March 4." Does that tell you anything?

NOW THAT THAT'S OUT OF THE WAY . . .

Let's get back to the news. Former Fed Chairman "Big Ben" Bernanke, our faithful Reuters scribes report,

was paid at least $250,000 for his first public speaking engagement, in Abu Dhabi, since stepping down in January, according to sources familiar with the matter. That compares to his 2013 paycheck of $199,700, and the appearance was only the first of three around the world this week.

Now let me say that I'm not sure it's fair to use Big Ben's Fed salary as a reference point, since it was after all an artificially low salary explained by his fervent desire to serve. It's the sacrifice our ruling class makes. Not that I sneer at the $199.7K, apart from its implicit reproach that the wage slave in question just couldn't slip on up over the $200K line. (Or was the salary intentionally held below that line? Perhaps in the knowledge that if he passed over it, he would have to pay for his own light bulbs and postage stamps?) I would think that with certain economies (e.g., buying supermarket store brands wherever possible, relying on Groupons and similar vouchers for as much as possible of one's entertainment and travel needs, scaling back the price level of the strip clubs and hookers one patronizes), it should be possible to squeak by tolerably well on that not-quite-$200K. But the point is, why should so august a personage as Big Ben have to suffer the indignity of such paltry compensation, so far from what he and his people consider his just worth?

At the same time, amusing as it is to characterize the putative $250K payday as compensation for 40 minutes' work (or less, if he had the sense to heed the fidgeting that surely set in long before the 15-minute mark), the fact is that a good deal more time was expended on the speaker's part than those 40 (or however many) minutes. Unless, for example, he happened to be in Abu Dhabi anyway, he would have had to allow travel time -- surely a minimum of a day before and a day after. So already instead of $250K for 40 minutes, Big Ben is taking down hardly more than $83K a day! Or, well, maybe not quite. You see, today Big Ben was scheduled to speak at "a Johannesburg forum hosted by the financial firm Discovery Limited," and on Friday he's in Houston to "discuss the U.S. energy boom at a conference hosted by Siemens and IHS." (I'm assuming that travel expenses and meals, including snacks, were divvied up by the Abu Dhabi, Joburg, and Houston hosts.)

The conference was sponsored by the National Bank of Abu Dhabi, and attendees were charged $2000 a head to soak up the wisdom of Big Ben -- and assorted other speakers, among them former Treasury Secretary "Big Larry" Summers. There doesn't seem to be any information about the size of Big Larry's honorarium, but the Reuters team does note that when Big Ben's predecessor, "Big Al" Greenspan, make his post-Fed trek to Abu Dhabi in 2008, he "garnered a similar fee."

It's pointed out, though, that Big Al ran took some flak when he transitioned from Fed chief to speaking whore.

Greenspan drew criticism for giving high-paying investors a potential leg up on their competitors with closed-door remarks about interest rates shortly after he left office, and for comments in March 2007 on the probability of a U.S. recession that roiled financial markets even as Bernanke was reassuring investors about the outlook. . . .

Greenspan took to the speaking circuit one week after departing office in January 2006 with an appearance at a private dinner hosted by Lehman Brothers. That brought in a reported $250,000, while a private telechat with investors in Japan that same day brought in about $120,000.

Greenspan's take on that first day is equivalent to $433,000 today after adjusting for inflation.

Anyway, the Abu Dhabi banksters were shelling out the full $250K for 40 minutes of Big Ben's yammering. It seems only fair to ask they get for their money. That is, not counting whatever suck-up value may have accrued to an organization prestigious enough to hire whores like Big Ben and Big Larry for a meet-and-greet.

Bernanke, who is now a distinguished fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution think-tank, did not discuss monetary policy, and only brushed on prospects for the U.S. economy. Instead, he choose to elaborate on his experience as chairman, acknowledging the Fed could have done more to battle the financial crisis.

Questions from the audience were relatively soft, leading to a discussion about family and baseball. . . .

Through a Brookings spokeswoman, Bernanke declined to comment on his speaking engagements.

NOW HOLD ON JUST A DARNED SECOND!

Back up, back up! Our Ben acknowledged that the Fed could have done more to battle the financial crisis???

And none of the $2000-a-pop swells had any, you know, follow-up questions? They just wanted to hear about family and baseball??? It might have been nice at least to know on whose behalf Chairman Ben "could have done more to battle the financial crisis." It might be that the "more" he might have done would have been on behalf of, well, people like the nice folks he was speaking to there in Abu Dhabi. Maybe the rest of us should count ourselves lucky that our man Ben didn't do more to battle the financial crisis.

The one thing we can say with reasonable certainty about those speaking fees that are being paid to distinguished citizens like "Big Al" Greenspan, "Big Bill" Clinton, and "Big Ben" Bernanke is that they give us a pretty good idea on whose behalf they were actually working during their years of "public" service.

But then, we already knew that, didn't we?

Never mind.

#