But you’re right there are more clearly corrupt officials including two fed presidents. This is a systemic problem of poor enforcement and violated norms. The rule of law matters and regulators should be above reproach.
The fed's policies affect every area of the financial system. Can't put it in a bank because they'll almost certainly be above the insured amount and will have an incentive to bail out that bank if it's in trouble, another conflict of interest.
Perhaps some special account at the fed that pays a specific interest rate and is fully insured? But then why do Fed presidents get special access to such an account that normal folks don't?
I don't know that there is anywhere he could put his money and be above reproach, him putting his money in muni's seems like a good faith effort to do that though.
Because otherwise it's easy to just cynically say he's lining his own pockets when in practice the position inherently makes it impossible to have zero conflicts of interest.
Anything would be better than buying the very assets they are meant to oversee.
You’re defending the indefensible here with sophistry about how hard it is to be honest and avoid double dealing. These fed presidents dealt in the very securities they had inside information on.
Traders in financial institutions can invest in assets outside their job and likely those traders don't have the financial muscle to move the values of entire sectors the way the fed can.
Again, there is nowhere existing at present that a Fed chairman can invest that is outside his/her influence, nowhere there is no conflict of interest in the current financial system.
The only real solution is some kind of defined fed official only fund as you and I have both suggested. But while this would get rid of conflict of interest it enters into an issue of equality of why should fed officials get guaranteed safe investments when the public at large do not, which is why it's probably never been done.
An even simpler solution would be to hire someone for this position _who lived off their salary._
The idea that these positions always have to be given to fabulously rich people is why America is in the crappy position it is now.
If they didn't make a lot of money, they probably never rose to positions that gave them the experience they need to do the job?
When they might as well be criminals. Look at the Pandora leaks
It ended[2] up with him transferring his personal assets to a bank account and the ownership of the hedge fund to a charity foundation he had started long before this.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...
[2]: https://www.norges-bank.no/en/news-events/news-publications/...
That seems like a solution. And yes, some leadership positions require you to restrict your private activities outside the job.
Before Trump, it also used to be common courtesy that the president-elect published his tax returns and removed himself from all projects that could lead to a conflict of interest.