|
Alan
Greenspan's instinct for self-exculpation reached new heights in the March
17, 2008, Financial
Times. In "We Will Never Have a Perfect Model for Risk," he writes
a model essay intended to eliminate risk - the risk he might be held accountable
for the imploding banking system that he failed to regulate. Nowhere would
the reader glean the author had a hand in the topics he speaks of with such
authority. Nowhere would the reader detect a hint that the practices and models
the former Federal Reserve chairman now condemns were once either blessed or
ignored under his authority.
We read in the FT: "The crisis will leave many casualties. Particularly
hard hit will be much of today's financial risk-valuation system, significant
parts of which failed under stress. Those of us who look to the self-interest
of lending institutions to protect shareholder equity have to be in a state
of shocked disbelief."
His shock and disbelief should be directed to his own failure. If he paid
the least attention to the banking system during his tenure, he would know
that the banks have acted in self-interest. Self-interest took the form of
sucking their institutions dry to pay themselves larger bonuses. Alan Greenspan
stepped down as Fed chairman on January 31, 2006. In March 2006, Bernstein
Research reported the banking system draw down of reserve-to-loan ratios and
outright reserve releases accounted for 75% of the industry's pre-tax income
growth since 2002. If the bankers hadn't absconded with the life preservers,
annual earnings growth would have been 3% over the previous four years rather
than the reported 10%. Greenspan allowed this to happen under his watch, yet,
told the FT: "[W]e cannot hope to anticipate the specifics of future
crises with any degree of confidence." We can't now and we couldn't then. "Never
prepared," seems to be his motto.
In the wake of Bear Stearns' failure, Greenspan writes: "Risk management systems
- and the models at their core - were supposed to guard against outsized losses.
How did we go so wrong?"
One reason "we" went so wrong was to trust the then-Federal Reserve chairman.
Derivatives were the cat's pajamas. He couldn't tell us often enough how they
diversified risk and removed balance-sheet liabilities from the banking system.
In May 2003, at a conference on Bank Structure and Competition: "Derivatives
have permitted financial risks to be unbundled in ways that have facilitated
both their measurement and their management... As a result, not only have individual
financial institutions become less vulnerable to shocks from underlying risk
factors, but also the financial system as a whole has become more resilient."
Alan Greenspan is ill-equipped to discuss the topic of derivatives vis-à-vis
the financial system. Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), a large hedge-fund
with models constructed by two Nobel laureates, brought the world's financial
system to its knees in 1998. Greenspan was credited with saving the world (see
cover of Time magazine, February 15, 1999) yet he was ignorant of the
relationship between banks and hedge funds.
On September 29, 1998, the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) met.
(The chairman was apt to be more forthcoming at FOMC meetings since transcripts
are not released for five years.) The staff and Fed governors briefed Greenspan
on Long-Term Capital Management's counterparties - the banks that lent to LTCM.
He was told that none of the banks, with the exception of Banker's Trust, had
an up-to-date balance sheet for LTCM. Even this was "only a small piece of
the whole action." Greenspan was at a loss: "The question is why it happened
in the first place. Is it just that the lenders were dazzled by the people
at LTCM and did not take a close look?" The Fed, too, may have been dazzled
by the entire banking system since a Federal Reserve staff member told the
FOMC that the banks "were saying the right things in terms of the kinds of
risk management processes they had in place" but "the question is how effectively
the banks were actually implementing them...." In Greenspan's remaining decade
at the helm, this gap was left to fester. His competence was never questioned
yet, in mid-September 1998, Greenspan had told the House Banking Committee "[h]edge
funds [are] strongly regulated by those who lend the money."
He writes in the Financial Times: "I hope that one of the casualties
will not be reliance on counterparty surveillance, and more generally financial
self-regulation, as the fundamental balance mechanism for global finance." Greenspan
is not so much a proponent of self-regulation as of self-promotion. At the
same September 29 FOMC meeting, Greenspan remarked: "It is one thing for one
bank to have failed to appreciate what was happening to [LTCM], but this list
of institutions is just mind-boggling." So boggled was the man that the Greenspan
Fed allowed the financial system to leverage as never before, suck reserves
from its balance sheets and write $400 trillion worth of derivatives between
then and now - without so much as a dollar bill of reserves.
Today, Greenspan fears "[t]he current financial crisis in the US is likely
to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the second
world war.... The crisis will leave many casualties.... Since summer 2006,
hundreds of thousands of homeowners, many forced by foreclosure, have moved
out of single-family homes into rental housing."
It is a tribute to the man's survival instincts that he deflects attention
from his personal endorsement of CDOs - at just the time those derivatives
were beefing up the subprime market. In April 2005 at the Federal Reserve Community
Affairs Research Conference: "Lenders have taken advantage of credit-scoring
models and other techniques for efficiently extending credit to a broader spectrum
of consumers... Where once more-marginal applicants would simply have been
denied credit, lenders are now able to quite efficiently judge the risk posed
by individual applicants.... These improvements have led to rapid growth in
subprime mortgage lending."
Greenspan's chosen topic for the FT article, risk models, is not a
surprise. He built his career by using and abusing them. In a March 1998 FOMC
meeting, the stock-market bubble alarmed him: "We have an economic policy that
is essentially unsustainable.... There is no credible model of which I am aware
that embodies all of this...." In June 1999, he told Congress the Fed could
not assess an "unstable bubble" before it popped. (No models.) Congress accepted
the chairman's hallucination and the stock market ran wild. When he met with
the FOMC in October 1999, Greenspan dismissed the notion of a stock market
bubble because the models used by the Fed were "increasingly obsolete."
In December 2000, the bubble fading in memory, but Greenspan not having admitted
there had been one, he told the FOMC: "The key question, and one that we can
not answer, is whether growth has stabilized. At this point we cannot know....
The problem, as I've indicated on numerous occasions and as a number of you
have commented, is that we do not have the capability of reliably forecasting
a recession." Anybody outside an economist's laboratory could have answered
that question: several trillion dollars had been lost in the stock market and
layoffs were in the tens of thousands. But Greenspan exempted the Fed from
addressing the possibility of a recession since one couldn't be modeled.
Recusing himself from responsibility to regulate the banking system, he told
an audience in 2005: "The use of a growing array of derivatives and the related
application of more sophisticated approaches to measuring and managing risk
are key factors underpinning the greater resilience of our largest financial
institutions." The former chairman squirmed on The Daily Show. He told
Jon Stewart in September 2007: "I've been in the forecasting business for 50
years. ... I'm no better than I ever was, and nobody else is. Forecasting 50
years ago was as good or as bad as it is today. And the reason is that human
nature hasn't changed. We can't improve ourselves." (Stewart lost faith
in America at that point: "You just bummed the [bleep] out of me.")
Yet, his FT advice column has the solution: "The essential problem
is that our models...are still too simple to capture the full array of governing
variables that drive global economic reality." This advice will be quoted,
university faculties will nod in approval, central banks will calculate third-derivative
proofs of Greenspan's wisdom, even as the financial system tries to salvage
itself. He can soak in his bathtub, much as the cartoon character who left
ruin behind, and exclaim, "Oh, Magoo, you've done it again!"
|