Guest Post: Why The Bullwhip Effect All But Guarantees Another Poorly-Handled Liquidity Crisis

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Adam Taggart via Peak Prosperity,

I'm about to connect the Federal Reserve to beer. You ready?

The Bullwhip Effect

One of my more memorable moments in business school came during an Operations class. The topic for the day was the Bullwhip Effect, a very real and vexing phenomenon that occurs in forecast-driven distribution systems.

Essentially, when there are multiple parties in a distribution system, the imperfections in each player's forecasts (no forecast is consistently perfect) compound to wreak increasing havoc over time, even if demand stays relatively stable.

Grasping how this works is somewhat non-intuitive. So the professor had us play a game developed by MIT back in the 1960s that uses beer to make the point (thus guaranteeing our full attention).

The Beer Game

The Beer Distribution Game divided us into groups of 4 people each. Each person was assigned a role (factory, distributor, wholesaler, retailer). Our task was to meet downstream demand while trying to avoid costly inventory overages or backorders.

The game was played in rounds, and communication was limited to exchanging pieces of paper via which we either fulfilled downstream demand from our inventories (if we could) or placed orders with our upstream supplier (our forecasts).

As the rounds progressed, the swings in inventory overages and outages became more frequent and more extreme. We each did our best to adjust, but that just seemed to make the volatility worse.

At the end of the exercise, I remember the professor asked a member of each group to go up to the front of the room and draw a chart of the demand curve their team saw during the game. Each group's chart looked wildly different. All were chaotic, and there was no discernible pattern among them.

Then the prof dropped his surprise: You all had the exact same demand from the market throughout the game. In fact, the level of market demand was constant for the first several rounds, increased once, and then stayed at that new level for the rest of the game.

Despite a remarkably simple and stable demand structure, the system spun out of control relatively quickly. With every team.

Of course, that's the point of the exercise: complexity breeds risk. Where there is uncertainty in a system (e.g., when making forecasts about the future), there are both operational and behavioral foibles that must be tightly managed lest they compound to introduce real and non-intuitive instabilities.

The takeaways from the exercise are: simplify processes wherever possible, optimize visibility and communications across the system, align incentives -- and appreciate that even with all these precautions, you'll likely never have a perfect system. So remain vigilant for the emergence of bullwhip volatility in order to reset things before they get out of hand.

The Monetary Supply Chain

All right, so what does this have to do with the Federal Reserve?

Well, the Fed also operates a "forecast-driven distribution channel." It makes forecasts about the health of the U.S. economy and determines how much money should be in supply to best meet its goals for price stability, financial system health, and employment.

With the lessons of the Bullwhip Effect fresh in your mind, you might be wondering: How simple is the system that the Federal Reserve uses to manage the money supply? 

Well, the Fed would like you to think it's as simple as can be. Look at this easy-to-understand schematic:


The Fed gives money to banks to then lend to people. Pretty darn straightforward. What could go wrong?

Oops, but wait a minute. It turns out it's a little more complicated than that. If we dig a little deeper, we see that the U.S. Treasury plays a role in "conduiting money" into and out of the system, and that the Fed (via the FOMC) also interacts with corporations, in addition to banks:


Hmmm. Okay. So there are a few more folks in the pool than we originally realized. Still, the players all fit nicely onto a single chart. It's probably all very tightly coordinated and finely controlled, right?

But wait; each of those boxes in the above chart is actually a vast organization (or collection of organizations). Let's look at each briefly:

The Federal Reserve

The Fed is actually a confederation of private banks, headed by a board of governors composed of both banking executives and political appointees (not the most efficient or effective of combinations):



The U.S. Treasury has more than 100,000 employees. Of course, they don't all interface with the Fed, but multiple departments within the Treasury do.


Member Banks

More than one third of all U.S. commercial banks are members of the Federal Reserve System. That's thousands of banks. They are managed by the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, each of which has oversight of its district. 


Complexity vs. Resiliency

So, the "simple" structure of the Fed providing banks with money actually encompasses the coordination of various departments within the Federal Reserve system, its thousands of member banks, and at least some part of the U.S. Treasury behemoth. Oh, and private corporations, too.

In this context, the near-death experience that the financial system experienced in 2008 due to liquidity issues comes as little surprise. When things begin to get volatile, with this many parties involved, the Bullwhip Effect tells us that those responsible for forecasting are almost guaranteed to be wrong. Especially when additional parties, such as Congress and the Executive Branch, get involved as they do in crises like we saw in 2008.

It doesn't help that even during times of relative stability, the Fed's forecasts are poor at best:


As central banks around the world conduct the greatest monetary experiment in human history in real-time around us, it's important to keep the Bullwhip Effect in mind. The mathematical odds that the world's many central planners, with their manifold partners in distributing fiat liquidity, are going to have the finesse to successfully steer their ships to safety through the shoals of inflation and deflation that threaten on either side, are very low. And that's before taking into account the unintended consequences of their more extreme measures.

Bottom line: If another liquidity crisis hits (which Chris is warning may be at our doorstep), the one thing we can count on is that the response from our leaders will be ill fitting to the situation. Prepare accordingly.

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 07/03/2013 - 15:45 | 3719314 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

All that matters is stawks is GREEN YAY!!

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 15:46 | 3719316 Row Well Number 41
Row Well Number 41's picture

The Pirates of accountancy.


Wed, 07/03/2013 - 15:50 | 3719330 Go Tribe
Go Tribe's picture

It's a good thing banks haven't become larger and more integrated since 2008, or this complexity thing could get way out of hend.

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:02 | 3719371 CPL
CPL's picture

Exactly they should diversify and sell a horrible derivative nightmare like insurance as well....oh wait...I see what you did there.

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 15:55 | 3719348 Tinky
Tinky's picture

Very good post, Adam. The complexity and interconnectivity of the Western financial system, coupled with what Taleb correctly points out as extremely dangerous suppression of volatility (e.g. interest rates), is a recipe for disaster.

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:05 | 3719373 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Very 'AVERAGE' post Adam... CHEESEPOPES print money out of thin air [for themselves & their cronies], to stuff in their pockets, & manipulate the price of physical goods worldwide... If you bitch about it, they SUE you...

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:26 | 3719435 Tinky
Tinky's picture

The intentions of those in charge of policy – criminal or otherwise – only add further potential volatility to the mix. They don't in any way undercut Adam's basic analysis.

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 17:24 | 3719605 blindfaith
blindfaith's picture




yes....and what 'banks' are lending to what 'public'. PLEAZZZZZZZE !!!!   Seems the expressed idea is cir.1960 not 2013.  Fed plays a very different game now.

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:08 | 3719386 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Thing is, he inadvertently ends up being an apologist for criminal activities.

One man's "extremely dangerous suppression of volatility" is another's "let no crisis go to waste."

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 15:58 | 3719356 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

The effect is much the same as trying to compensate for a skid in your car.  Overcompensation is the norm and it results in a disaster.   Look out for the cliffs ahead!  That warning just exacerbates the over-corrections which makes full recovery impossible.   Not to mention the backseat driver giving you instructions.  All these automotive factors have counterparts in the money system.

Thu, 07/04/2013 - 08:57 | 3720941 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Pssst...both brakes and steering have been decoupled from the wheels.

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:04 | 3719365 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

I am not an economist from an Ivy league school, so I dont know dick.  But, your beer game was based upon tangible product which was based upon real demand and the issues involve with supply.  Do you beleive the outcome of your game would have been different if you only had a couple of customers (primary drinkers) and could give unlimited supply (create beer from nothing) at a moments notice (instantly brewed beer)?  

And BTW, your balance sheet doesnt matter either, you can just brew an infinite amount of beer until everyone is drunk and passed out. And another thing, you are the only show in town (no other brewers).

Thu, 07/04/2013 - 08:35 | 3720901 Davilis
Davilis's picture

And you get to change the rules of the game as you play, like suspend mark-to-market accounting.

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:03 | 3719372 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Hmmm, beeer

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:04 | 3719374 Rainman
Rainman's picture

Humans have a long and rich history of FUBAR activity. The mess they have now made is right in character.

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:07 | 3719384 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

This assumes that they're actually trying to 'correct the skid' when I'm convinced they're just lying while planning the grand implosion, in order to bring in their centrally controlled planet with 1 bank and 1 currency. 

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:12 | 3719395 toadold
toadold's picture

Reminds me of all the old saws, KISS, 5P, and never reinforce failure.  If you invent a foolproof system some one will invent a bigger fool. Primative societies have a more complex language structure than advanced ones do. 

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:41 | 3719471 BadDog
BadDog's picture

That's great.  I have one question.  When does it crash?

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:57 | 3719485 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

No offense to the writer of the article but I think we're all experiencing the BULLSHIT EFFECT from the Banking Cabal!

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:48 | 3719494 Al Huxley
Al Huxley's picture

The FED has an advantage over the students in the example, though, in that they can lie about both the results and the targets.  This is the secret to their remarkable success in the face of all odds.

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 16:51 | 3719505 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

The Fed definitely has a 4.0 in lying.

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 17:23 | 3719592 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Great article.

They will still send out money on the 1st of each month if it collapses won't they?

If not somebody else will have to set up virtual currency centers and state militia will have to restore order and help bring things back on line because Frankenstein operating out of Washington will only makes matters worse--much worse.

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 17:55 | 3719664 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

I might also add that I don't believe we have a liquidity crisis but a solvency crisis.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!