March 22, 2010
On Friday, March 19, former Federal Reserve chair, Alan Greenspan appeared before the Brookings Institution to present his 48-page paper entitled, “The Crisis”. The obvious subject of the paper concerned the causes of the 2008 financial crisis. With this document, Greenspan attempted to add his own spin to history, for the sake of restoring his tattered public image. The man once known as “The Maestro” had fallen into the orchestra pit and was struggling to preserve his prestige. After the release of his paper on Friday, there has been no shortage of criticism, despite Greenspan’s “enlightened” change of attitude concerning bank regulation. Greenspan’s refusal to admit the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy had anything to do with causing the crisis has placed him directly in the crosshairs of more than a few critics.
Sewell Chan of The New York Times provided this summary of Greenspan’s paper:
Mr. Greenspan, who has long argued that the market is often a more effective regulator than the government, has now adopted a more expansive view of the proper role of the state.
He argues that regulators should enforce collateral and capital requirements, limit or ban certain kinds of concentrated bank lending, and even compel financial companies to develop “living wills” that specify how they are to be liquidated in an orderly way.
* * *
. . . Mr. Greenspan warned that “megabanks” formed through mergers created the potential for “unusually large systemic risks” should they fail.
Mr. Greenspan added: “Regrettably, we did little to address the problem.”
That is as close as Greenspan came to admitting that the Federal Reserve had a role in helping to cause the financial crisis. Nevertheless, these magic words from page 39 of “The Crisis” are what got everybody jumping:
To my knowledge, that lowering of the federal funds rate nearly a decade ago was not considered a key factor in the housing bubble.
The best retort to this denial of reality came from Barry Ritholtz, author of Bailout Nation. His essay entitled, “Explaining the Impact of Ultra-Low Rates to Greenspan” is a must read. Here’s how Ritholtz concluded the piece:
The lack of regulatory enforcement was a huge factor in allowing the credit bubble to inflate, and set the stage for the entire credit crisis. But it was intricately interwoven with the ultra low rates Alan Greenspan set as Fed Chair.
So while he is correct in pointing out that his own failures as a bank regulator are in part to blame, he needs to also recognize that his failures in setting monetary policy was also a major factor.
In other words, his incompetence as a regulator made his incompetence as a central banker even worse.
Paul La Monica wrote an interesting post for CNN Money’s The Buzz blog entitled, “Greenspan and Bernanke still don’t get it”. He was similarly unimpressed with Greenspan’s denial that Fed monetary policy helped cause the crisis:
This argument is getting tiresome. Keeping rates so low helped inflate the bubble.
* * *
“The Fed wasn’t the sole culprit. But if not for an artificially steep yield curve, we probably would not have had a global financial crisis,” said John Norris, managing director of wealth management with Oakworth Capital Bank in Birmingham, Ala.
“Greenspan and Bernanke are missing the point. It all stems from monetary policy,” Norris added. “If you give bankers an inducement to lend more than they ordinarily would they are going to do so.”
From across the pond, Stephen Foley wrote a great article for The Independent entitled, “For the wrong answers, turn to Greenspan”. He began the piece this way:
The former US Federal Reserve chairman, the wizened wiseman of laissez-faire economics, shocked us all — and probably himself — when he told a congressional panel in 2008 that he had found “a flaw in the model I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak”. He meant that he had realised banks cannot be trusted to manage their own risks, and that markets do not smoothly self-correct.
But instead of taking that revelation and helping to point the way to a new, post-crisis financial world, he has shuddered to an intellectual halt. It is the same intellectual stop sign that Wall Street’s bankers are at. The failure to move forward is regrettable, dangerous and more than a little self-serving.
These reactions to Greenspan’s paper are surely just the beginning of an overwhelming backlash. The Economist has already weighed in and before too long, we might even see a movie documenting the Fed’s responsibility for helping to cause The Great Recession.
The Best Argument For Financial Reform
March 26, 2010
Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, spoke out in favor of financial reform on Wednesday in a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The shocking aspect of Hoenig’s speech is that it comes from the mouth of a member of the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee (FOMC) which sets economic policy. Beyond that, Hoenig brutally criticized what has been done so far to tilt the playing field in favor of the megabanks, at the expense of smaller banks. Here are some choice bits from what should be mandatory reading for everyone in Congress:
Hoenig’s speech comes at a time when the Senate is considering a watered-down version of financial reform that has been widely criticized. Economist Simon Johnson pointed out how any approach based on U.S. authority alone to “resolve” or break up systemically dangerous banks would be doomed because “there is no cross-border agreement on resolution process and procedure — and no prospect of the same in sight”.
Blogger Mike Konczal expressed his disappointment with what has become of the Financial Reform Bill as it has been dragged through the legislative process:
The notion that bribery has been an obstacle to financial reform became a central theme of Karl Denninger’s enthusiastic reaction to Hoenig’s speech:
Thomas Hoenig provided exactly the type of leadership needed and at exactly the right time to give a boost to serious financial reform. We can only hope that there will be enough responsible, ethical people in the Senate to incorporate Hoenig’s suggestions into the Financial Reform Bill. If only . . .