According to a recent report by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), forex volume is down in nearly every major category. “However, turnover declined by over 20 per cent between October 2008 and April 2009 to US$2.5 trillion, to be at its lowest level in over two years, a move reflected in all six markets indicating global, rather than location-specific, causes. The largest markets – the United Kingdom and the United States – experienced the sharpest percentage falls.”

The report was based on a survey of the world’s six largest forex trading hubs – US, UK, Japan, Canada, Singapore, and Australia – and produced a few interesting revelations. The first is that forex volume peaked well after other capital markets. This can probably be attributed to the notion that there is never a bear market in forex. In other words, after stocks and bonds began to collapse in the summer of 2008, investors embarked on a mission, unprecedented in its speed, to move capital from risky countries to safe-haven countries. This switch, by definition, required the forex markets to facilitate.

This point is further illustrated by the fact that, “the decline in turnover of spot and forwards occurred somewhat later than that in foreign exchange swaps and derivatives….Spot turnover reported in October 2008 was likely to have been supported by large cross-border capital flows as investors sought to reduce risk by repatriating foreign investments. In addition, the high frequency and impact of news at the height of the crisis would have generated the need for investors to frequently adjust their positions.”

The final revelation is that the change in forex volume was not always commensurate with changes in trade volume. A general relationship between trade and forex turnover has been observed, although speculators ensure that currency is exchanged much more frequently than actual goods and services. The two currency pairs registering the greatest unbalance are the CHF/USD and CAD/USD. Forex volume for the former fell much more sharply than trade, while the opposite is true of the latter. One can only speculate as to why this is the case. As for the CHF/USD, forex volume probably suffered disproportionately more because both the Swiss Franc and US Dollar were perceived as safe haven currencies, in which case it would be relatively less useful to exchange them for each other. In the case of the CAD/USD, meanwhile, it makes sense to view the imbalance in terms of the spectacular decline in trade, which was largely a product of declining commodity prices.

It’s impossible to predict whether forex volume will remain depressed. Given the efforts underway to increase regulation and curtail leverage, I don’t personally expect volume to recover for a while. As for the implications, the less might be to stick to the majors. If volume is declining, it will probably affect emerging market currencies most. Lower liquidity might translate into higher volatility. However, it’s worth pointing out that volatility has been declining ever since it skyrocketed after the collapse of Lehman Brothers last fall. In that case, it might be that investors are behaving more prudently with less funds to trade with.

Earlier this week, President Obama officially nominated Ben Bernanke to a second four-year term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank’s Board of Governors. The reaction was relatively muted, perhaps because most pundits had already anticipated the news. Bernanke himself probably sealed his own re-appointment with the public relations campaign he embarked on last month, ostensibly to offer a rationale for his response to the credit crisis. “In a profound departure from the central bank’s tradition as an aloof and secretive temple of economic policy, Mr. Bernanke has plunged into the public spotlight to an extent that none of his predecessors would have contemplated.”

Most of the sound-byte reactions came from politicians, and focused on whether he deserved another term, rather than the potential ramifications of his re-nomination. Heavyweights Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd both offered tepid support. Ron Paul referred to the news as irrelevant. Meanwhile, “European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet on Tuesday said he was ‘extremely pleased’ by President Barack Obama’s decision.”

The reactions from investors, likewise, ranged from ambivalent to moderately supportive. Equity markets rose to a 2009 high the day after  the story broke, while the Dollar fell slightly. The re-appointment was deliberately awarded five months ahead of schedule in order to help the president’s credibility with investors. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look it), the fact that the markets didn’t react much, shows that they don’t really care. In other words, “President Obama overstated matters when he said that Mr. Bernanke had kept us out of a Great Depression” not only because “this remains to be seen,” but also because the ebbs and flows of GDP are contingent on more than just monetary policy.

Regardless of how much credit Bernanke actually deserves, he will certainly have his work cut out for him in his second term. “Bernanke’s Next Tasks Will Be Undoing His First,” encapsulated one headline. At some point, the Fed must raise interest rates, return credit markets to normal functioning, and remove hundreds of billion of dollars from the money supply.

But this is easier said than done: “If the Fed shifts too quickly from the role of savior to that of strict disciplinarian, it risks aborting the recovery and tipping the nation back into a recession, essentially repeating mistakes made in 1937 after the economy had begun to rebound. If the Fed moves too slowly, it risks the kind of intractable inflation it experienced in the 1970s and fueling another bubble.”

The consensus is that, for better or worse, he will err on the side of price stability, perhaps at the expense of economic growth. “A Fed chaired by Ben Bernanke will follow a policy uncomfortably tight as the 2012 election looms into sight. Bernanke has espoused a commitment to low inflation over his entire career,” argued one economist. Meanwhile, the markets aren’t expecting rate hikes at least until 2010, although Bernanke, himself, has conveyed a sense of optimism – and hence hawkishness – about a quick exit from recession.

What does all of this mean for the Dollar? It’s impossible to say exactly, and depends largely on whether Bernanke can unwind the easy money policy of the last year just as deftly as he deployed it.And of course, there is the wild card of the US National debt, and the potential for a loss of confidence to induce a run on the Dollar, which even Bernanke would be powerless to solve.