from The Great Debate UK:
Greenspan and the curse of counterfactual
- Laurence Copeland is a professor of finance at Cardiff University Business School and a co-author of “Verdict on the Crash” published by the Institute of Economic Affairs. The opinions expressed are his own. -
Suppose that, instead of appeasing Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938, Neville Chamberlain had taken Britain to war, what would today’s history books say about the episode?
It is of course impossible to know. Perhaps something along the lines: “the British prime minister’s stubborn refusal to compromise resulted in a war which dragged on for 6 months at a cost of over 300,000 lives.....” Make up your own scenario.
We can never know. But we can be 100 percent certain the history books would NOT now say anything like: “by refusing to appease the dictators, Neville Chamberlain saved more than 30 million lives, prevented the division of Europe and saved the world from 40 years of Cold War”.
In the same way, we can be absolutely sure that, if former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan had raised interest rates and tightened credit in 2005 or 2006, putting a stop to the lending boom before it could become a risk to the banking system as a whole, he would not today be feted as the man who saved the world from the worst financial crisis in 60 years.
More likely, opinion would be divided over whether the ensuing recession, with the loss of maybe 1 percent of GDP and 100,000 jobs, was at all necessary.
Critics would have called for Greenspan’s head and possibly even for the Fed to lose its independence, while the defence would have been left lamely quoting the famous dictum of a previous chairman that it is the job of the Fed to take away the punchbowl just as the party gets going.
Credit control will be much more intrusive in future
– John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –
The international system of bank regulation, epitomised by the Basle II process and the light-touch principles-based regulation of Britain’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) has comprehensively failed.
In too many instances, light-touch principles-based regulation with an emphasis on banks’ internal risk controls turned out to be no effective regulation at all.
Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan was the most prominent proponent of this approach, which relied on the profit-maximising self interest of financial institutions to limit risk-taking to prudent levels.
In this view, bank leaders themselves could be relied upon to manage their institutions prudently — after all bankruptcy is not in the interest of shareholders. Previous bank failures (such as Barings) were the result of failure to measure risks properly, or failures of internal communication and control.
So the job of regulators was to set out principles and ensure banking institutions had adequate internal systems and controls, then allow senior management to ensure the overall level of risk was prudent.
This reliance on internal risk-management systems has proved to be a huge error. As Greenspan himself noted recently, bank leaders had not acted in the careful manner he had expected when he pushed for them to be freed from the old, more restrictive regime.
Why this backlash against Basel II?
The first lesson I learned 15 years back when I joined an Indian Bank (incidentally by name Indian Bank) as Probationary Officer was to never ever get in to the Real estate lending. The Real estate lending was seen, is seen and will be seen by the public sector banks in India that cautiously. It’s a kind of taboo for public sector banks in India. Over a period, they have also liberalized their policies but still with a lot of caution. Indian public sector banks have largely survived the present turmoil. I am not blaming the banks who are bullish on the real estate funding. But, it reflects the underlying risks involved in this exposure.
Let’s visit American market for once:
1. Banks knowingly take exposures on sub-prime borrowers.
2. They are nicely wrapped under CDSs
3. CDSs are rated high in the market.
4. Banks buy nicely packed CDSs at high premiums without knowing the crap under the wrap.
5. Sub-prime borrowers default.
6. Banks collapse.
7. Basel II has failed.
Why can’t the so called John Kemps and Alan Greenspans say for once CDSs failed? The high bonus driven profit maximization strategies of the banks with least sympathy to the public funds are prime reasons for the market turmoil.
Let us now get in to a story mode:
I earn 100 bucks a month, I can invest a maximum of 100 bucks in stock market or take an exposure for 5 times of that which is 500 bucks if I do day-trading (depending upon the margin requirements, assuming 20 per cent). I invest in good scrips based on the market research and some kind of tips from my broker. (This is similar to the Standardized Approach for credit risk suggested by Basel II wherein banks take external ratings supplied by Moodys, S&P, Fitch etc. into consideration). Once I get some sort of maturity as a player in the market I develop my own mechanisms to identify which company is good and which company is bad etc. (This can be correlated to the Internal Ratings based approach suggested by Basel II wherein you rate your own customers based on various risk parameters and risk profiling). I make all my sincere efforts to understand the market dynamics before taking any exposure. I leave no stone unturned to dig out the risks involved. After all, it is my hard earned money. I don’t require any Basel II here.
Let us suppose, my stock market exposures are regulated by Basel II, then Basel II has given me ample room to initially understand the market over a period (The Standardized Approach) and then move on to my own developed mechanisms (The Advanced Approach). Do I still expect Basel II suggest me to restrict my exposure to only 500 bucks, as this is the maximum I can leverage? Can’t the so called best brains of the world (Harvards, London BSs, IIMs) working with Lehmans with fab bonus driven packages understand the basic risk management principle in any walk of life, in this case the LEVERAGE (Mind you, there is a leverage point in dealing with spouse also). When Lehmans were collapsed, their leverage was well above 25 times.
Further extension to the above story, If I am greedy enough, I start borrowing from my next door neighbor and invest in the market and when market collapses, I sit pretty and blame my wife (Banks blame Basel II) as I was never told by my wife not to borrow from others. I apply for an IP and there ends my liability to my next door neighbor.
Basel II is aimed at improving the risk management practices, not policing against deeds and misdeeds of the banks. If the Banks’ management chose to be dishonest, Basel 20 or 200 also can not help.
Fed unleashes greatest bubble of all
– John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –
Like the sorcerer’s apprentice, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his predecessor Alan Greenspan have unleashed a series of ever-larger asset bubbles they cannot control.
Now the Fed’s decision to cut interest rates to between zero and 0.25 percent, coupled with a promise to keep them there for an extended period, and the threat to conduct even more unconventional operations in the longer-dated Treasury market risks the biggest bubble of all, this time in U.S. government debt.
THE ASYMMETRIC EXPERIMENT
Bubble mania is no accident. It is the direct consequence of the Fed’s asymmetric response to shifts in asset prices. Pressed to “lean against the wind” and adopt counter-cyclical interest rate and credit policies in the asset market, senior Fed policymakers have repeatedly demurred.
Led by Bernanke and Greenspan, officials have argued it is too hard and subjective to identify bubbles until afterwards, and not the Fed’s job to second-guess asset allocation decisions of professional investors.
Even if bubbles could be identified, they argue, pricking them would require swingeing rate rises that would inflict widespread damage on the rest of the economy.
I cant help but read the hundreds upon hundreds of posts much like the ones on this board claiming the ultimate bankruptcy of the largest economy (and largest tax base) in the world. There is no doubt that the housing bubble represents the largest challenge facing the U.S. since the second world war as far as hardships are concerned. However, any student of economics and history for that matter will take note of the real effects of fiscal stimulus. Yes the national debt has skyrocketed with the bailouts, but a bankrupt country’s debt will not be issued at less than 1% rates. Are these rates artificially conceived? Maybe, but no less real. And inflation really is of no concern at this point. I would hope for some inflation right now as this would certainly drive some of the loads of cash into assets that protect inflation- stocks, commodities and could possibly stabilize housing prices somewhat. The Chinese have benefited in terms of relative economic power. But it has not and will not successfully decouple from a strong relationship with the U.S. As for the goldbug survivalist crowd- it has proven to be an historically wrong sided bet against the collapse of civilization. Sure things have changed, but countries adapt and do not collapse within a framework of a few financially troubling years. Britain successfully re-engaged with a globalized world following the second world war and their dissolution of the world’s superpower, as the U.S. will most certainly do in the coming years. However, the U.K. still remains and economically and politically to this day even after the “collapse” of their empire. We will spend less – probably good, be a world leader- Obama is good start, and we will quite possibly looked upon with amazement in the years ahead that we were able to “print” our way out of this mess.
Commodities and the Great Conundrum
– John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –
By John Kemp
LONDON (Reuters) – By driving up long-term real interest rates, the forthcoming flood of U.S Treasury borrowing threatens to crowd out the amount of capital for investing in other asset classes, creating a much tougher environment for commodity prices over the next two to three years.
Like many other asset classes, commodity prices have benefited from an influx of funds in recent years driven by three related factors:
(1) The long-term downtrend in inflation, greater macroeconomic stability, and heightened confidence in fiscal and monetary policy since the early 1980s have resulted in a steady reduction in both nominal and inflation-adjusted interest rates. Real rates are down from +8.0 percent in 1984 and +4.5 percent at the start of 1995 to -0.5 percent in H1 2008, or +1.5 percent if rising food and energy costs are excluded (see chart https://customers.reuters.com/d/graphics/US_RLINT1108.gif).
As real returns on benchmark government bonds have shrunk, investors have shifted into higher risk asset classes (equities, hedge funds, private equity and commodities) in search of better returns.
(2) Current account surpluses from China’s export-related boom and OPEC’s torrent of petrodollar revenues have been smoothly recycled back into debt markets, private equity, hedge funds and other instruments in North America and Western Europe.
Replace tax with inflation? that’ll mean that the billionaires are effectively being taxed the same rate as the minimum wagers – This will just push more people below the poverty line, creating an even bigger drain on society. Sure, if you think that is a good policy, go for it.
All we need is Banker’s salary/bonus should be consistent to other sectors. Huge bonus makes them greedy and force them doing creative accounting to boost bonus. We need to stop all bonuses, if they want to go away, they are most welcome. There will be no shortages of bankers in this job market.
Actually government and we the general public are responsible for their activities. We made them too greedy. In developing countries bankers doesn’t have those benefits,yet doing their job.
So I’m agree with Laurence and want lower payments for bankers. If they need more money, they are most welcome to leave job and do their own business. Only then they will realize life is not a bed of roses.