|
Greenspan on questionable subprime lending tactics:
"While
I was aware a lot of these [questionable lending] practices were going on,
I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late...I really
didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006".
Greenspan Defends Low Interest Rates ~ 60
Minutes
After Greenspan 'got it', and before the toxic paper started to blowup, what
did he think about the U.S. housing market? That the worst was over, of course:
"I suspect that we are coming to the end of this [housing] downtrend, as
applications for new mortgages, the most important series, have flattened
out...I think the worst of this may well be over" Alan
Greenspan. October 1, 2006
Yes, Alan Greenspan - who will appear on '60 Minutes' this Sunday and release
'Age
of Turbulence' on Monday - is up to his old tricks again: those being to
say one thing and mean another, all the while contradicting what he previously
said. As a quick example, Greenspan said in 1996 that he recognized the "stock
market bubble problem" but he later (after doing nothing to stop the mania)
concluded that bubbles are not identifiable until they burst. Now Greenspan
claims that while he was aware of reckless subprime lending tactics (in 'around
2000'-Gramlich),
he didn't understand how widespread the practice was until 2006, or about the
same time he was calling for a bottom in the U.S. housing market. Who wouldn't
want to read a book written by someone so fascinatingly mad?
Some blame Greenspan for credit crisis - Independent
For the record, temporary Fed interventions are sometimes required
to avert financial calamity in the United States. For better, or more likely
worse, this is also the way most of the world works (i.e. after a financial
crisis the central bank tries to contain the damage, and if they are successful
most people forget that the central bank helped cause the crisis in the first
place). In this context there is nothing specifically right/wrong with Greenspan's
Fed cutting interest rates to 1% in 2003, and doing everything possible after
the Crash in 1987, LTCM in 1998, and 9/11, to restore investor confidence in
the markets. This is the way things work.
With that said, there is something seriously deranged about a 'maestro' that
contends asset bubbles are only identifiable after they blowup, that predatory
lending practices should be ignored, that hedge fund regulation is for the
birds, and that the unregulated OTC derivatives market disperses risk solely
to those that can afford to lose. Although regulatory efforts can sometimes
stifle free market activities, the alternative is not to mindlessly condone
any and all forms of deregulation. During his tenure as Fed Chair Greenspan
did exactly that, and as CBS suggests, he is showing little sign of regret:
Even though one of the Federal Reserve governors raised a red flag on those
lending practices, Greenspan says there was little he could do. "Well, it
was nothing to look into, particularly because we knew there was a number
of such practices going on, but it's very difficult for banking regulators
to deal with that"
Difficult or not Mr. Greenspan you try to deal with it or, at minimum, you
repeatedly acknowledge that there is a problem so that other regulatory bodies
or voices can step into the fray. What you don't do is nothing.
To reiterate previous sentiments, if Fed policies are not sometimes calibrated
to inhibit reckless behavior in the financial markets, timely bailouts serve
to perpetually nurture dangerous asset price bubbles. In Greenspan's case,
the 2000-2002 stock market bust was followed up by the real estate mania. Despite
claiming otherwise, Greenspan knew that both of these manias would end in tears.
What he didn't know was exactly when.
Will the real Greenspan stand up next week and say something of substance?
Will he go back to his roots and extol the advantages of a gold standard, elaborate
on why he did nothing to contain the most blatantly obvious stock market bubble
in history, and apologize for suggesting that adjustable-rate mortgages were
the way to go in 2004? Probably not. Instead Greenspan will likely stick to
his shtick: that the Federal Reserve Board has no business targeting asset
prices, so long as asset prices are rising.
For the record, Greenspan's greatest mistake was not orchestrating too many
bailouts as most of his critics claim, but that he undertook no initiatives
to ensure the long-term stability of the U.S. financial markets. This inaction
on the regulatory front didn't seem to matter when king dollar ruled, no other
country(ies) was driving global growth, and toxic subprime paper was be written
rather than written off. But as Greenspan himself suggests, this may no longer
the case today:
"We were dealing in an environment back there where inflation was easing.
We could have acted without the fear of stoking inflationary pressures. You
can't do that anymore..."
What you can do is blame Greenspan for helping to create the subprime
mess, the hedge fund mess, and the OTC derivatives monster. If you feel the
need, you can also throw the weak dollar into the mix.
But just as the 'blame Greenspan' theme threatens to get rolling next week
everyone will pause, abandon their senses, and beg the Fed for help.
After all, while Greenspan's book will be released on Monday, Bernanke's first
kick at the rate-cut-can is scheduled for Tuesday.
Sir Alan will no doubt watch with much pride and admiration as money managers
quickly go from hedging their risk against comments from a former Fed Chairman
to adopting a bullish straddle against the current Fed Chairman...all done
in unregulated markets with untold amounts of borrowed/leveraged money, of
course.
|