FedUpUSA

Archive for the ‘Ben’ Category

Submitted by James Bianco of Bianco Research

•    The Wall Street Journal – Fed Proposes Tool to Drain Extra Cash
The Federal Reserve on Monday proposed selling interest-bearing term deposits to banks, a move the U.S. central bank would make when it decides to drain some of the liquidity it pumped into the economy during the financial crisis. The new facility is intended to help ensure that the Fed can implement an exit strategy before a banking system awash with Fed money triggers inflation. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has described term deposits as “roughly analogous to the certificates of deposit that banks offer to their customers.” Under the plan, the Fed would issue the term deposits to banks, potentially at several maturities up to one year. That would encourage banks to park reserves at the Fed rather than lending them out, taking money out of the lending stream.The central bank said the proposal “has no implications for monetary policy decisions in the near term.” “The Federal Reserve has addressed the financial market turmoil of the past two years in part by greatly expanding its balance sheet and by supplying an unprecedented volume of reserves to the banking system,” it said. “Term deposits could be part of the Federal Reserve’s tool kit to drain reserves, if necessary, and thus support the implementation of monetary policy.” Michael Feroli, an economist at J.P. Morgan Chase, said “it’s another step forward in the exit-strategy infrastructure, but it’s been well flagged in advance, so it’s not a surprise.” When Fed officials decide to tighten credit, they would likely use the term-deposits program ahead of — or in conjunction with — adjusting their traditional policy lever, the target for the federal funds interest rate at which banks lend to each other overnight. The Fed also said Monday that its balance sheet rose slightly to $2.2 trillion in the week ending Dec. 23. The Fed’s total portfolio of loans and securities has more than doubled since the beginning of the financial crisis. As part of its efforts to fight the downturn, the central bank is buying $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, a program it says will end in March. The Fed now holds $910.43 billion in mortgage-backed securities, it said Monday.

•    Bloomberg.com – Fed Proposes Term-Deposit Program to Drain Reserves
The Federal Reserve today proposed a program to sell term deposits to banks to help mop up some of the $1 trillion in excess reserves in the U.S. banking system.  The plan, subject to a 30-day comment period, “has no implications for monetary policy decisions in the near term,” the central bank said in a statement released in Washington. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is preparing tools and strategies to shrink or neutralize the inflationary impact from the biggest monetary expansion in U.S. history. Central bankers are also conducting tests of reverse repurchase agreements and discussing the possibility of asset sales. Term deposits may help the central bank “assert operational control over the federal funds rate” once officials decide to lift the overnight bank lending rate from the current range of zero to 0.25 percent, said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC in Jersey City, New Jersey. Excess cash “would be locked up” rather than put downward pressure on the federal funds rate, he said.The Fed won’t begin raising interest rates until the third quarter of 2010, according to the median estimate of 62 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News in the first week of December.

•    The Financial Times – Fed to offer term deposits to banks
The US Federal Reserve plans to offer term deposits to banks as part of its “exit strategy” from the exceptionally loose monetary policy used to fight the recession. In a consultation paper released on Monday the Fed said it planned to change its rules so that it could pay interest on money locked up at the central bank for a defined period. The Fed added that the well-flagged rule change – designed to allow it more influence over the $1,100bn in excess reserves held by banks – was part of “prudent planning. . . and has no implications for monetary policy decisions in the near term”. It is one of a number of measures that has been outlined over the past few months by Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Fed, as an option to drain liquidity from the financial system in a manner that protects the economic recovery while heading off the threat of inflation.

•    The Federal Reserve – Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment.
The Board is requesting public comment on proposed amendments to Regulation D, Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions, to authorize the establishment of term deposits. Term deposits are intended to facilitate the conduct of monetary policy by providing a tool for managing the aggregate quantity of reserve balances. Institutions eligible to receive earnings on their balances in accounts at Federal Reserve Banks (”eligible institutions”) could hold term deposits and receive earnings at a rate that would not exceed the general level of short-term interest rates. Term deposits would be separate and distinct from those maintained in an institution’s master account at a Reserve Bank (”master account”) as well as from those maintained in an excess balance account. Term deposits would not satisfy required reserve balances or contractual clearing balances and would not be available to clear payments or to cover daylight or overnight overdrafts. The proposal also would make minor amendments to the posting rules for intraday debits and credits to master accounts as set forth in the Board’s Policy on Payment System Risk to address transactions associated with term deposits.

Comment

We believe the proposal of this new tool signals the Federal Reserve is still flailing around trying to look busy so everyone is assured they have a plan.  The fact is they have no plan and are still throwing everything on the wall to see what sticks. From the November 4 FOMC minutes:

Participants expressed a range of views about how the Committee might use its various tools in combination to foster most effectively its dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability. As part of the Committee’s strategy for eventual exit from the period of extraordinary policy accommodation, several participants thought that asset sales could be a useful tool to reduce the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and lower the level of reserve balances, either prior to or concurrently with increasing the policy rate. In their view, such sales would help reinforce the effectiveness of paying interest on excess reserves as an instrument for firming policy at the appropriate time and would help quicken the restoration of a balance sheet composition in which Treasury securities were the predominant asset. Other participants had reservations about asset sales–especially in advance of a decision to raise policy interest rates–and noted that such sales might elicit sharp increases in longer-term interest rates that could undermine attainment of the Committee’s goals. Furthermore, they believed that other reserve management tools such as reverse RPs and term deposits would likely be sufficient to implement an appropriate exit strategy and that assets could be allowed to run off over time, reflecting prepayments and the maturation of issues. Participants agreed to continue to evaluate various potential policy-implementation tools and the possible combinations and sequences in which they might be used. They also agreed that it would be important to develop communication approaches for clearly explaining to the public the use of these tools and the Committee’s exit strategy more broadly.

The Federal Reserve first hinted at term deposits almost two months ago, although exactly what they were talking about was left vague until now.

Remember that the Federal Reserve has to withdraw over a trillion dollars of excess liquidity.  The easiest way to do this is to sell hundreds of billions of MBS, Treasuries and agencies.   As the bold highlighted passage above implies, they are scared to death of doing this, so they propose complicated schemes to withdraw liquidity like reverse repos and now term deposits.

We have argued that these schemes will not work.  They cannot be done in the sizes necessary or enough to even matter.  The Federal Reserve could possibly drain tens of billions of dollars via these schemes, but collectively that will amount to a rounding error when the goal is to withdraw over a trillion in excess reserves.

The Federal Reserve does not want to admit defeat, so they continue pursuing these strategies that will not make a difference.  We believe they also do it to “look busy” as they are taking measurements and notes as to how to withdraw all the liquidity they have pumped in.  They think this will give the market comfort that someone is on the case and that inflation expectations will not get out of control.  The market is not buying this.  Inflation expectations, s measured by TIPS inflation breakeven rates, are going vertical.

Reinvestment Risk

As to term deposits, the Federal Reserve is proposing an illiquid short term instrument for banks to invest in.  Banks would buy these instruments and “lock up” the excess reserves they now have.  This would have the same effect as draining excess reverses.  The maturities of these instruments would be as long as one year.

It is unclear if there will be a secondary market for these instruments, and if so, how liquid it will be.
Without a secondary market, buyers of these instruments face huge reinvestment risk.  The future course of short term interest rates is arguably to the most uncertain it has been in decades.  Will the Federal Reserve stay near zero until 2012 or will they be forced to raise rates in the first half of 2010?  Given all this uncertainty, who wants to lock up money in something that cannot be sold before maturity?  This is especially true given the Federal Reserve’s statement that the “maximum-allowable rate for each auction of term deposits would be no higher than the general level of short- term interest rates.”

The general level of short-term interest rates is set on known instruments that have generations of history and active secondary markets.  If the Federal Reserve wants to introduce a new, and wholly unknown instrument with an uncertain secondary market and offer no interest rate premium, then we cannot see how this will work beyond a token amount after some arm twisting to get them sold.  The Federal Reserve will have to offer a premium for uncertainty and illiquidy to make this fly in any major way, something they said they will not do.

Complicated Is Simple

The Federal Reserve owns 80% of AIG.  With each passing day it looks like the Federal Reserve is adopting AIG Financial Product’s business practices.  That is, when faced with a financial problem, they create complicated tools (like CDS).  When critics says these new products will not work, tell them they do not know what they are talking about and create even more complicated tools to dazzle everyone.  Once the tools are so complicated that no one understands them, you will be hailed as an expert with no peer.  You might even be named TIME’s Person of the Year.

From The Daily Capitalist.

Dear Santa:

Since you give away stuff for free, I hope you aren’t a socialist and ignore my wish list during the annual potlach. By the way, it seems that the Obama Administration is way ahead of you in giving out free stuff to everyone. I hope you can catch up.

I think I’ve been a pretty good boy this year. I have regularly bitten my tongue in my commentary so as not to be accused of being a flamer. I don’t think I’ve defamed anyone. And I try to write as much original material as possible to avoid being labeled a “scraper” (lifting stuff off the Net and publishing it under my own name). And, I haven’t sold out my opinions for mere money. For a blogger, that’s a pretty good record.

Here’s my wish list. I couldn’t find where to post it on Amazon, so here goes:

1. Kill The Bill

No, not the Uma Thurman thing. I’m talking about the health care “reform” bill going through Congress right now. If your magical powers extend that far, please put economic sense into our politicians’ collective heads that government control over the system is not a way to “save money” or create “efficiency.”

2. Put in the Fix

Instead of eliminating market forces in health care, please convince Congress to fix it by peeling back the convoluted rules and regulations that have screwed it up in the first place. Suggest these four little things we could try first that actually would work, save billions, and cover more people:

Give Medicare enrollees a voucher and the freedom to choose any health plan on the market;

Give workers control over their health care dollars with “large” health savings accounts which would allow them to purchase secure health coverage from any source;

Break up state monopolies on insurance and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines; and

Block-grant Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to prevent massive waste and encourage states to target resources to the truly needy.

3. Turn the Sausage Makers into Sausage

I understand it’s Christmas and it would be kind of negative to wish political ill fortune on someone, but, there’s this especially despicable sentator, Ben Nelson, that I would like for you to arrange to catch him with a hooker or taking a bribe. Whatever you think would work, Santa. Make sure there are tapes. I have lots more names, but I’d be happy with Ben.

4. Firing Suggestions

Please arrange for Obama to fire Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Timmy Geithner, and Christina Romer.

5. Hiring Suggestions

To replace the above, how about Ron Paul at the Fed, and the following economic advisers: Walter Block, Russ Roberts, and Joseph Salerno. They are all fine economic scholars and would steer our President in the right direction.

6. Freeze Congress

Don’t let Congress pass any more bills until they’ve all read, and discussed with the No. 5 guys, Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, the best little book on economics, ever. Televise it.

7. Bring Back the Real Constitution

Please have Obama appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. Nominees who understand natural law, and that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments actually mean something. Maybe we’d get our individual sovereignty back.

8. Make Work is No Work

Let Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid see the folly of the American American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a useless $787 billion bill that is nothing other than intergenerational theft. Someone has to pay for it and I’m afraid it will be my children, grandchildren, and ten generations of my great-grandchildren.

9. Beautiful Sunsets

Require Congress to sunset every spending law they pass. You know how they promise that a program will be very effective and that it will only cost so much? Make them prove it, say every two years. If the bill fails to cure the perceived ill, get rid of it. If the program exceeds its budget, get rid of it. It will also provide us with a handy voting guide at election time.

10. Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom

Sprinkle some free market magic dust on the economics departments of our major universities. Maybe that will help the sheep break from Keynesian orthodoxy and actually begin to think.

Thank you, Dear Santa. I’m forever hopeful.

Econophile

One day, Vince McMahon will pay handsomley to get Ben Bernanke and Alan Grayson in the squared circle. Until that day, we should just hope and dream. In the meantime, we have litters and public appearances by the Florida Congressman, who takes the latest AIG “taxpayer payback” opportunity to remind everyone of just how deeply he loves the “we create money out of thin air” institution that is the Federal Reserve.

I write with concern about two announced deals that are lauded by AIG CEO Robert Benmosche as AIG’s plan to ‘pay back the taxpayer’. In reading through the deal, it looks to me like the Federal Reserve is simply engaged in yet another disguised bailout of AIG. It’s not surprising that the New York Fed continues to shovel money at AIG using its balance sheet, since this seems to be official policy, but this time, the bailout also involves cheating the IRS.

In describing the deal specifics:

This relationship is not significantly different from just making the subsidiaries collateral for the existing loan from the New York Fed, with four exceptions. One, the FRBNY’s right are downgraded in this deal from creditors to preferred shareholders. Two, AIG gets to claim “repayment” and take a tax loss to reduce the company’s income taxes. Three, the FRBNY credit facilities are already collateralized. Four, the New York Fed owns nearly 80% of AIG, putting it on all sides of the deal.

And most brazenly, and deserving of applause, the allegation that Bernanke is implicilty breaking the law by his most recent AIG bailout:

As the New York Fed owns most of AIG, this deal could be considered a faked sale to generate a capital loss for the purposes of injecting Treasury funds into AIG without the consent of Congress. Please explain the legality of the arrangement.

Full Grayson letter to Bernanke:

By Tyler Durden and Geoffrey Batt

These days catching the Fed chairman telling the truth as opposed to a b(a)ld faced lie is in itself a six sigma event. Sadly this post will continue with hugging the median. Some observations on the most recent fabrications by the chief money printer himself, which go to show just how willing Bernanke is willing to bend reality and/or his perception of it as the occasion suits.

A week ago Zimbabwe Ben wrote an op-ed in Washington Post last week in which he said:

“Now more than ever, America needs a strong, nonpolitical and independent central bank with the tools to promote financial stability and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation.”

Recovery without inflation is another way of articulating the Fed’s quixotic dual mandate.  Of course, everyone knows the Fed does not care about inflation, or, it seems, the economy, unless of course Goldman Sachs recently changed its name to Inflation Economy, Inc. But what’s striking about this sentence (the last sentence, no less, of a decidedly political op-ed), is that it directly contradicts what he says about QE in two papers in 2004.
 
In the May 2004 edition of The American Economic Review, Bernanke and Reinhart published “Conducting Monetary Policy at Very Low Short-Term Interest Rates.”  ZH cited this paper before as evidence that Bernanke considered monetizing equities viable in a debt deflation.  This time, however, it’s useful because he claims aggressive QE may “have expansionary fiscal effects.” 

Furthermore:

“So long as market participants expect a positive short-term interest rate at some date in the future, the existence of government debt implies a current or future tax liability for the public. In expanding its balance sheet by open-market purchases, the central bank replaces public holdings of interest-bearing government debt with non-interest-bearing currency or reserves. If the increase in the monetary base is expected to persist, then the expected interest costs of the government and, hence, the public’s expected tax burden decline. (Effectively, this process replaces a direct tax, say on labor, with the inflation tax.)”

Then in the Fed Minutes from Nov 4th we get:

“Participants noted that the recent fall in the foreign exchange value of the dollar had been orderly and appeared to reflect an unwinding of safe-haven demand in light of the recovery in financial market conditions this year, but that any tendency for dollar depreciation to intensify or to put significant upward pressure on inflation would bear close watching.”

An odd remark considering what Bernanke et al said in Monetary Policy Alternatives at the Zero Bound: An Empirical Assessment Author(s): Ben S. Bernanke, Vincent R. Reinhart, Brian P. Sack Source: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 2004, No. 2 (2004), pp. 1-78. More specifically:

…quantitative easing may work through a signaling channel if its implementation marks a general willingness of the central bank to break from the cautious and conventional policies of the past. A historical episode that may illustrate this channel at work (although the policymaker in question was the executive rather than the central bank) was the period following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s inauguration as U.S. president in 1933. During 1933 and 1934 the extreme deflation seen earlier in the decade suddenly reversed, stock prices jumped, and the economy grew rapidly.Christina Romer has argued persuasively that this surprisingly sharp recovery was closely associated with the rapid growth in the money supply that arose from Roosevelt’s devaluation of the dollar, capital inflows from an increasingly unstable Europe, and other factors. Because short-term interest rates remained near zero throughout the period, the episode is reasonably characterized as a successful application of quantitative easing.

It appears despite Bernanke (and Geithner’s) repeated appearances, admonitions and Fed Minute posturings to the contrary, Bernanke is fully aware of what his actions will do to both inflation and the dollar, and that the devaluation of the greenback is critical to the success of his campaign of bailing out CREs laden bank balance sheets. Yet in the meantime on every TV and congressional appearance the Chairman will eagerly lie and prevaricate, hoping his listeners have short memories, and have not bought a Kindle yet (difficult to imagine judging by Amazon’s 1,000,000,000,000,000 (non)inflation adjusted P/E) to have read his own scribblings on the matter of impending dollar devaluation. America deserves all it gets if it allows its Senators to reconfirm this human being for the most important post in the world.

This exciting development from Firedoglake:

As Ben Bernanke’s confirmation hearing begins in the Senate Banking
Committee, a source tells FDL News that one Senate staffer and an
outside source confirmed to him that at least one Republican on the
committee will also place a hold on the Federal Reserve chairman,
throwing the process into potential turmoil and giving Chris Dodd a
difficult series of choices to make.

Dodd, who just announced his intention to vote for Bernanke’s
confirmation in the Banking Committee and on the floor of the Senate,
would be in charge of the decision to honor or ignore that hold. The
fact that Dodd tried to place a hold on the FISA Amendments Act in
2007-08, and was generally ignored by Harry Reid, just adds a layer of
irony to the process.

The source, speaking on condition of anonymity because of his work
behind the scenes on the Bernanke confirmation, told me that two
separate sources assured him that the Republican hold would be made
public after today’s hearing. One staffer said that two Republicans
would place the hold, while the other said it would just be one. The
source said that the trans-partisan nature of opposition to Bernanke,
with a conservative Republican and a socialist independent uniting to
block the appointment, shows the intensity of the feelings on the
issue. “It’s great to see everyone come together – Democrats,
Republicans, progressives and libertarians, against this Federal
Reserve, which is not federal, and not a reserve, just a group printing
money and giving it to their buddies,” the source said.

While most people think that the multiple holds would delay the
process, it’s unclear whether or not it would succeed. Dodd would
probably have the discretion to roll over the hold in committee, though
he may be reluctant to do so, experts in Senate procedure said. Harry
Reid could also seek cloture on the motion to proceed on Bernanke’s
nomination on the floor, which would require 60 votes.

At the very least, this delay and the publicity surrounding
bipartisan opposition to Bernanke would bring attention to the issue of
the Federal Reserve and the desire for transparency, like the movement
to audit the Fed. That provision has already passed in the large
financial reform bill in the House Financial Services Committee, and Barney Frank said yesterday
that he didn’t expect any changes to the bill as it passed the House,
citing the public anger over the issue of transparency. There is
language on Fed audits in the draft financial reform bill written by
Sen. Dodd, which also strips the Fed of some of its power, but it is
not the same as Bernie Sanders’ audit the Fed bill, which has as many
as 30 cosponsors.

The source, who has been working on the Federal Reserve issue for
five years, marveled at how the issue has gained so much new attention
during the financial crisis. “Up until last year, nobody knew what the
Fed was. Ron Paul got 5 co-sponsors on his audit bill when he first
introduced it, and now we have 300.”

Sen. Dodd’s office has not yet responded with a comment.

Tomorrow’s Bernanke reconfirmation hearing just got more interesting, courtesy of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders who has stated he will put a “hold” on the Bernanke confirmation process, meaning the Senate will need to amass 60 votes in order to override and proceed with the confirmation process. Yet as the NYT notes: “though the Senate has been paralyzed by similar blocking tactics on
countless other issues, Mr. Bernanke probably has enough support in
both parties to clear the 60-vote hurdle.” It is time to call your Senators and remind them that at best only 21% of Americans favor Bernanke’s reappointment.

More from the NYT:

Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, said Wednesday that he would try to block the Senate from confirming Ben S. Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The move is unlikely to derail Mr. Bernanke’s reappointment, but it
could slow the confirmation process and give the Fed’s critics
additional opportunity to press their case. As a practical matter, it
means Senate Democratic leaders will have to line up 60 votes in favor
of Mr. Bernanke rather than a simple majority at a time when the
Federal Reserve is under increasing populist attacks from lawmakers on
both the right and the left.

Mr. Sanders, an independent, is not a member of the Senate Banking
Committee, but he has frequently accused the Federal Reserve of bailing
out Wall Street firms and the banking industry at the expense of
ordinary citizens.

“In this country, there is profound disgust
at what happened on Wall Street,” Mr. Sanders said in a telephone
interview. “People want a new direction and people are asking, where
was the Fed? How did the Fed allow this to happen, when one of their
mandates to oversee the safety and soundness of the banking system?”

Mr.
Sanders said he would place a “hold” on Mr. Bernanke’s nomination when
it reaches the Senate floor. Under Senate rules, lawmakers would need
to amass 60 votes to override Mr. Sanders and proceed with a vote on
the nomination.

As pointed out previously, Bernanke is a Bush legacy, yet is somehow supposed to represent Obama’s “change” agenda:

The Fed chairman was originally appointed by President George W. Bush
and took over the central bank in February 2006. Despite his Republican
ties, Mr. Bernanke forged a close working relationship with President Obama and his top economic advisers during the financial crisis.

And some more potential wild cards in tomorrow’s historing hearing:

Senator Christopher J. Dodd,
Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the banking committee, has said
Mr. Bernanke was “probably” the best person to lead the Fed because he
responded valiantly to the financial crisis when it began two years ago.

But
Mr. Dodd has also proposed stripping the Federal Reserve of virtually
all its powers as a banking regulator, and consolidating all the
federal government’s bank regulatory efforts in a new agency. In an
Op-Ed article last Sunday in The Washington Post, Mr. Bernanke sharply
criticized Mr. Dodd’s proposal.

Senator Richard C. Shelby
of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, has
also been sharply critical of the Federal Reserve but has not yet said
how he would vote on Mr. Bernanke’s nomination.

Even with Zero Hedge polling indicates a mere 11% of our readers would support Bernanke’s reconfirmation, a different poll by Rasmussen finds a comparable result: only 21% favor Bernanke as Chairman.

And here is a reminder of the confirmation whip count in the Senate Banking Committee:

Definite no: 2
Lean no: 3
No indication: 6
Lean yes: 7
Definite yes: 5
Definite no: 2

Bernie Sanders (I-VT):

Senator Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent who isn’t on the banking committee, said Nov. 29 on ABC television’s “This Week” that he will “absolutely not vote for Mr. Bernanke” and that the Fed chief is “part of the problem.”

Jim Bunning (R-KY):

Jim Bunning, the Kentucky Republican who was the only senator to oppose Bernanke’s first nomination in 2005, hasn’t changed his views.

‘His job rating would be zero minus F,’ Bunning said in an interview yesterday. ‘He has catered to the big banks, to the Wall Street elitists, to every major money concern in the country and in the world.’

It is possible that one or both of these Senators will place a “hold” on the nomination.  Such a procedural move would at least delay a vote on Bernake, which would provide opponents of his reconfirmation time to organize.  For more details on what a “hold” is, check Tom Coburn’s website (no one places more holds than Coburn).

Lean no: 3
Jim DeMint (R-SC):

“He’s [Bernanke's] going to face some tough questions because he’s got a lot to answer for,” leading Fed critic Sen. Jim DeMint said through a spokesman. “The Fed’s mission is to guard the value of the dollar and to focus on employment, and right now their track record is looking very poor.”

Richard Shelby (R-AL):

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Banking committee, would not say how he would vote on Bernanke’s nomination, only encouraging reporters to stay tuned for the chairman’s hearing this week.

“I used to be a big defender of the Fed,” he said, adding he believes the institution has “utterly failed” in its role for regulating financial institutions.”

David Vitter (R-LA): As a support of auditing the Fed, everything I have heard is that Vitter is a no–and is even possibly willing to put a hold on Bernake.  Still, lacking a public statement to that effect, I won’t put him in the “definite no” category.

No indication:  6
Michael Bennet (D-CO):  No word for Bennet one way or the other.  His primary challenger, Andrew Romanoff, might be an interesting way to move Bennet on this one.

Mike Crapo (R-ID): Praised Bernanke’s nomination in 2005, but no word on where he stands now.

Herb Kohl (D-WI)

Three said they’re undecided, including Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl, Jon Tester of Montana and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

Kay Baily Hutchinson (R-TX): I can’t find any indication on Hutchison, one way or the other.

Jeff Merkley:

Three said they’re undecided, including Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl, Jon Tester of Montana and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

Jon Tester:

Three said they’re undecided, including Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl, Jon Tester of Montana and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

Lean Yes:  7
Robert Bennett (R-UT)

Utah’s Robert Bennett said he’ll probably vote in favor

Sherrod Brown (D-OH):

“He’s been far from perfect,” Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, said in an interview yesterday. “He was not quick enough responding last year to many of these issues that we care about, particularly in housing. I want him to focus on jobs. But I think he’s generally done a decent job.”

Tom Carper (D-DE):

“Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) all said they’d wait until hearing from Bernanke.”

Bob Corker (R-TN)

Corker noted that he leans toward supporting a second term for the Fed chairman, who was nominated in August to a second term by President Barack Obama, but acknowledged gripes toward the Fed chairman on the left and the right.”

Chris Dodd (D-CT, chair):

I’m inclined to be supportive. I think he’s done a far better job in the last couple of years than he did initially.

Charles Schumer (D-NY):

Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) all said they’d wait until hearing from Bernanke.

Mark Warner (D-VA): Over email, a spokesman for Mark Warner told me “Senator Warner is inclined to be supportive of Bernanke’s reappointment, but he’s certainly not a fan of expanding the role or the power of the Fed as part of financial re-reg.”

Definite Yes: 5
Daniel Akaka (D-HI):  Bloomberg reports Akaka is a yes.

Evan Bayh (D-IN):  Bayh was the first prominent Democrat to support Bernanke in 2005.  According to Bloomberg, also support him in 2009.

Judd Gregg (R-NH):

Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, said Nov. 20 he will “absolutely” vote for Bernanke.

Mike Johanns (R-NE):

Among Republicans, Nebraska’s Mike Johanns said Bernanke “will have my support.

Tim Johnson (D-SD):

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) — a favorite of Wall Street — told HuffPost that he has decided to vote to confirm Bernanke.