Greenspan Answers His Critics

Tuesday's Wall Street Journal contained a long piece focusing on Alan Greenspan's recent, continuing efforts to defend himself against mounting criticism of his reign as Fed Chairman.


Of course, last fall, it was a different story. Back then, I wrote two posts, here and here, which included this passage,


"Grant pulls no punches in questioning Greenspan's consistency as a libertarian, and acolyte of Ayn Rand, by ending up as the sole determiner of the economy's key interest rate. He makes clear Greenspan's lack of significant accomplishment as an economist or equity savant, prior to his role as Fed Chairman, and his misunderstanding of housing finance, after he took the position.


As Joe Kernen, an anchor on CNBC, articulated, Grant also seems to question Greenspan's motive in writing this book. Whereas Kernen opined that Greenspan wants back in the limelight, Grant suggests it's about trying to write his own legacy, before someone else writes a less flattering one."


And, in fact, Jim Grant, of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, was entirely correct. But it seems that Greenspan's pre-emptive effort has failed.


According to the Journal article,


"The criticisms that get under his skin are those from friends and former colleagues, many of them respected economists who backed his policies at the time but now say, in hindsight, that the calls were wrong. "I do take it seriously if my peers think I have misstated the facts," he says. "But where's the evidence? Too many people make accusations by assertion. I think it's improper." "


Which, as I noted last September in that second post, is true. There was insufficient objectivity about Greenspan back in the day. Too many people put him on a pedestal to begin with.


One subject on which I agree with Greenspan, which is vitally important right now, is the genesis of asset bubbles. The Journal article continues with,


"Mr. Greenspan now admits he was wrong about the improbability of a housing bubble. Yet he has long maintained that bubbles are an unavoidable feature of a dynamic economy. He pulls out a 1999 speech and shows, underlined in green marker, passages in which he warned of recurring but unpredictable patterns of overconfidence followed by investor panic. He does not share some foreign central bankers' belief that their job is to defend against excessive asset-price inflation: No sensible policy, he maintains, could have prevented the housing bubble.

"I am reasonably certain that I am right here," Mr. Greenspan says. If proved wrong, he says, "I will change. I do not have a vested interest in holding wrong ideas." "


But with Greenspan's last statement, I disagree. Obviously the former Fed Chairman has a very great, vested interest in having his actions sustained and generally regarded as correct. Who, after such adulation as Greenspan achieved, would not be worried that his image would be sullied afterward?


Greenspan's book and subsequent consulting deals smack of someone a lot less secure in his actions at the Fed than, say, Paul Volcker.


For instance, consider this passage from the Journal piece,


"Mr. Greenspan says many of the criticisms against him are unjust. He is particularly perturbed by attacks over a 2004 speech in which he suggested that more borrowers would benefit from adjustable-rate mortgages. Interest rates were at a historical low at the time, which means that those who held on to the mortgages would have seen rates adjusted upward.

Mr. Greenspan says the speech merely pointed out that many people who get a 30-year mortgage move or refinance long before it matures. Eight days after giving the speech, he says, he clarified his comments to say he didn't mean to disparage 30-year fixed-rate mortgages. "I find it profoundly disturbing" that critics cite the recommendation and not the retraction, he says, tapping his fingers on the table in front of him. "In all seriousness, this is really quite unfair." "


You can't say that Greenspan is unfamiliar with how the media treat public pronouncements by him. To complain that the headline got all the attention, and a minor clarification didn't, is to believe Greenspan is naive. But he's not. He was a longtime power player in Washington, and well knows how quotes can be misused.


Further, it's hard for Greenspan to now duck his explicit hesitancy to conduct closer supervision of specific, mortgage-related bank and bank-subsidiary lending practices.


For what it's worth, I don't really think we should rely on Federal regulators to take the place of commercial bank risk managers when it comes to lending practices, once guidelines are set. However, would it have been so bad for Greenspan to observe the rush to no-money-down mortgages and insist on 10% or 20% downpayments, instead?


This way, the Fed wouldn't have second-guessed bank risk management, so much as simply aligned housing purchases with those of financial assets, which the US long ago put on a higher-margin basis.


Reviewing the history of Greenspan's tenure as Fed Chairman, it's probably fair to say that he handled specific crises well. He showed flexibility with rate movements in response to various challenges to the economy, but was probably slow to return low interest rate levels to more appropriate ones consistent with a stronger dollar. And, finally, he didn't exercise as much influence over safe lending terms for mortgages as he could have, given the Fed's inherent ability to do so.


It's too bad that Greenspan is pouting about the changing sentiment regarding his Fed reign. It's not like he is being viewed as a failure. But, after last fall's public coronation of the man as the 'best central banker' of all time, it's understandable that he's suffering from a reduction in public esteem.


It may well be that, with more time, either Volcker or Bernanke will more fittingly be judged worthy of the title that Greenspan so clearly wants to keep.