Taibbi and Morgenson

By Felix Salmon
November 3, 2010
My review of Matt Taibbi's new book is up at Bookforum; I enjoyed it a lot, and even learned from it.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

My review of Matt Taibbi’s new book is up at Bookforum; I enjoyed it a lot, and even learned from it. Meanwhile, Justin’s fair take on Gretchen Morgenson received a lot of pushback in the comments, much of which was unhelpfully ad hominem. (No, Justin is not a sexist misogynist, and criticizing Morgenson doesn’t make him one.)

I actually stand by my March 2007 criticism of Morgenson, in which I said that she didn’t provide any evidence of a looming crisis in the mortgage market. Certainly, with hindsight, I was too bullish back then, but so was Morgenson, whose prognostication was far from being remotely apocalyptic:

Fewer lenders means many potential homebuyers will find it more difficult to get credit, while hundreds of thousands of homes will go up for sale as borrowers default, further swamping a stalled market…

If home prices do not appreciate or if they fall, defaults will rise, and pension funds and others that embraced the mortgage securities market will have to record losses. And they will likely retreat from the market, analysts said, affecting consumers and the overall economy.

I was covering the housing market a fair amount back then, and indeed linked to an earlier post in which I spoke at length to one of Morgenson’s favorite sources, Josh Rosner, and said that “there are lots of reasons to be worried about the future of the mortgage market”. My issue with Morgenson was simply that her arguments didn’t make any sense, and that often her facts were simply incorrect.

If you wanted good reasons to be worried about the mortgage market in early 2007, you went to Rosner, or to Calculated Risk, or to Nouriel Roubini. If you wanted bad reasons to be worried about the mortgage market, you went to Morgenson. Yet still she asks for and gets lots of credit for her columns back then, simply by dint of her prominent perch at the NYT. If she was the blogger and Tanta had the NYT column, no one would have paid any attention to Morgenson at all.

That can’t be said of Taibbi, whose fierce and excoriating journalism for Rolling Stone has performed a very important function: it helped to get people angry, and to really care about issues which can become incredibly dry and boring very quickly.

What’s more, Taibbi’s stuff is fact-checked in a way that Morgenson’s isn’t. He doesn’t make the enormous howlers that Morgenson does, partly because he cares more about the nitty-gritty of this stuff, partly because he spends much more time on each piece, and partly because the RS lead times allow him lots of editorial support.

I can highly recommend that readers of this blog read two chapters in particular in Taibbi’s book: the one on Greenspan, and the one on AIG. The former is the most comprehensive take-down of the Maestro you’ll ever see; I’d be especially interested to see Brad DeLong’s take on Taibbi’s shrillness. And the AIG chapter, which concentrates on the securities-lending operation rather than on AIG Financial Products, actually breaks news about just how incompetent and stupid AIG was, particularly its securities-lending head Win Neuger.

Justin’s point was that if you ignore the detail in Morgenson’s pieces, the big picture is often correct. Taibbi is pretty much the other way around: the detail is fact-checked and correct, but he massively over-eggs the big picture. (Goldman Sachs did not singlehandedly engineer every financial bubble in living memory; Alan Greenspan is not “The Biggest Asshole in the Universe”.)

It’s easy, however, to read Taibbi and even to enjoy the hyperbole without taking it at face value. It’s much harder to separate the useful from the contentious with Morgenson. Which is why I think she’d benefit greatly from much more active, hands-on editing. The question is: who at the NYT has the time, the desire, and the ability to do that?


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Your take on Morgenson v Taibbi seems to contradict your regulation philosophy of favoring principals-based over rules-based.

Morgenson : principals-based regulation :: Taibbi : rules-based regulation

Posted by glenngulia | Report as abusive

True about Taibbi’s overegging of the pudding. Just as one example, Alan Greenspan is clearly beaten out by the captain of that Vogon ship who reads his poetry out loud.

Posted by ottorock | Report as abusive

Felix, I think what you are missing is that most readers just don’t care very much what Justin thinks of Gretchen, let alone what Felix thinks of what Justin thinks of Gretchen. If you want to post a critique of a specific article someone wrote and take on its substance, fine. But more general critiques of journalists as journalists are going to (1) bore readers and (2) come off as snipey no matter how well-considered they are.

Posted by hurtingboss | Report as abusive

Although, for what it’s worth, I think it’s strange that you give Taibbi such a pass on his gross hyperbole, which strikes me as far more dangerous than anything Morgenson ever wrote.

Posted by hurtingboss | Report as abusive


You seem to be missing the point with Taibbi. The shrillness and hyperbole is all part of the act, and that part is simply meant to entertain, and to some extent provoke. But even his most unsophisticated readers get that. It’s difficult for me to see the danger he poses.

What his writing style does, as Felix points out, is get a significant readership interested in an important subject. Most of his readers aren’t going to be reading Stiglitz or Simon Johnson, after all.

So Taibbi is only dangerous to those who fear a little light being shed on Wall Street’s many episodes of gross malfeasance over the last ten years.

Posted by MaggiesFarmboy | Report as abusive

Once again, your self-serving quibbles with Morgenson miss the bigger point: She was right, you were wrong. Let’s move on.

Posted by Citoyen | Report as abusive

Citoyen, she was right? When?

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive

Felix, while you remain by wide margin my econ/finance writer of choice I’ve always found Morgenson’s work to be very much worth reading.

Morgenson’s quote you used did clearly understate the comming crisis by an order of magnatude… no doubts there… but still… anyone yelping cautionary predictions into the stampeed of bullish investors during the bubble is to be commended in my mind.

Best hopes for the new bosses being different than the old bosses… sadly not holding my breath!

Posted by y2kurtus | Report as abusive

y2kurtus, except by March 2007 that the subprime market was going to have a downturn was pretty much par for the course. As I said in the previous article, some investors were getting skittish in 2005 – only to be burnt in 2006 – and between the end of 2006 and when this article of hers was written there was a sharp increase in the premiums on subprime mbses.

Now with the benefit of hindsight you can sort of say well she sort of kind of said that there might be a problem and we know there was a big problem so she was sort of right in a generic sort of way but I don’t believe for a millisecond she had even the remotest inkling of what was about to unfold.

Even the basics seem to fly past her. When i said that she seemed to not understand that mortgages were ASSETS of Freddie and Fannie not liabilities, I got jumped on for being sexist as if it would have been ok for a guy to not know the difference. Why would you waste your time on someone who cannot get the absolute basics right?

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive