A to Z Index | Contact Us | Site Map | Subscribe | What's New
spacer image
Go button to switch sections spacer image
About the Fed Banking Information Services for Financial Institutions Community Development Consumer Information Economic Research and Data News and Events Publications
 

« The Market Solution To The Energy Question... | Main | And The Funds Rate Probabilities Say: 50/50 For Five »

February 06, 2006

The Bigger Picture

Last week was ripe with the wrap-ups to Alan Greenspan's already storied career at the helm of the Federal Reserve, and most of it was decidedly positive.  Most, but not all.  Barry Ritholtz, in particular, takes the occasion to blast away, in a post that also appeared at Barron's.

Barry has some interesting things to say, but is, in my opinion, off the mark.  To the battle:

Myth 1 Greenspan whipped inflation: This is the most pervasive-yet-easiest to disprove Fed Chair legend. As the nearby chart of long term interest rates reveals, inflation spiked in the late 1970s. Paul Volcker became Fed Chair during that period of ugly stagflation. He aggressively changed the way the Fed attacked inflation, and the U.S. has been enjoying the fruits of his labor ever since.

This is only half wrong. The other half is unfair.  Mr. Greenspan, in my experience, never failed to give Mr. Volcker full credit for doing the heavy lifting required to break the inflationary trend the latter inherited in 1979.  I have on many occasions heard Mr. Greenspan argue that his job was made easy because he had the good fortune to inherit the fruits of Mr. Volcker's labors.  To be fair, Barry does not assert that Mr. Greenspan claimed otherwise, but the implication is there.  And it is mistaken.

The wrong half is the implication that the inflation trend was not reduced during the Greenspan years.  The 12-month rate of growth in consumer prices averaged just under 4 percent over the period from 1983-1990.  Since then it has averaged about 2.7 percent.  What's more, the FOMC appears to have managed what it did not in periods past: Containing inflation expectations in the face of heavy pressure from rising energy prices.   

Myth 2 Greenspan’s flexibility met all challenges: Flexible? Hardly. The Fed Chair’s response to every challenge has been the same: inject more liquidity into the system. That’s why Money Supply has risen so dramatically over the past 18 years (M3 included), and why rates are down to unnaturally low levels. To be considered flexible, you would need more than one move in your bag of economic tricks.

It turns out that the Federal Reserve Act provides the basic operating instructions for central bankers in the United States (emphasis added):

To provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve Banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to  establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes.

It is patently at odds with the facts to suggest that the FOMC has responded to rising inflationary concerns -- in 1994, 1999, and now, for example -- with monetary ease.  It is at odds with both common sense and the accepted wisdom from a century of monetary history to suggest that there is  something wrongheaded with responding to crisis (1989, 1998, and 2001, for example) by providing the liquidity required to forestall financial market meltdown.

Myth 3 The Plunge Protection Team: After the 1987 crash, traders claimed the market “mysteriously” managed to stop its sickening fall. While others have laid this myth to rest previously, let’s go right to the source of this one. The Dow had dropped from 2,400 to almost 2,200 on Friday, and then plummeted to almost 1,600 on Black Monday. A 33% peak-to-trough drop is no sign of an invisible hand: That’s a massive, capitulatory distribution which exhausts sellers. That correction brought out bottom-fishing fools and heroes alike – no Plunge Protection Team necessary.

The Greenspan Fed failed to eliminate poverty as well.  You may as well add that one to the list if you want to lay the '87 crash off on the central bank.

Myth 4 The Greenspan Put: While the concept of the “Put” is alive and well, I do recall a recent 78% plunge in the Nasdaq. As of Big Al’s 2nd to last day as Chairman, the Nasdaq was still down close to 60%. If that’s the kind of capital destruction that exists with the “Put,” its really not worth all that much. Indeed, the brutal crash makes it kinda hard to argue that the Put is – or ever was – alive and well.

See Myth 3.

Myth 5 Greenspan as Economic Sage: We laid this fable to rest in 2004 (Ignore the Cheerleader-in-Chief).

OK, I'll accept this one.  Most of the former Chairman's forecasts turned out to be wrong.  Add him to the other 99.999999 percent of the human race.

Bottom line.  As most people have recognized -- Tom Schilling, Robert Barro, John Berry, and Milton Friedman (via Mark Thoma (here and here), Captain Capitalism, to name just a few -- the record is one of which to be proud, and of which to grateful.  To suggest otherwise is to truly miss the big picture.

Equal Time:  Tim Iacono is with Barry -- here and here.  But Daniel Drezner links to another defense against the charge that the FOMC has been lax in the face of asset-price bubbles.

February 6, 2006 in Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef00d8347211b553ef

Listed below are links to blogs that reference The Bigger Picture:

Comments

Ritholtz never claimed that Greenspan was giving himself credit for Volker's inflation work. I read that myth1 bit as a jab at Greenspan supporters more than Greenspan.

re: plunge protection team. The fringe thinks that the federal reserve is secretly supporting the stock market. Ritholtz doesn't. This is not a criticism of Greenspan. I think he's genuinely trying to attack a myth (that most market participants don't take seriously anyway. you've got to wonder why he bothers).

Posted by: Anon | February 06, 2006 at 11:26 AM

My critique about these myths has little to do with the now retired Fed Chair Greenspan himself, and is much more about the surrounding hoopla about him.

I always thought Capitalism didn't need Superman to save it -- and thats why the Put myth, and the PPT were so silly. Ayn Rand would spin in her grave over the mere concept.

As to Volcker -- my point is simply that he is the once who brought inflation under control; I was not implying that Greenspan was inappropriately taking credit. Of course, that hasn't stopped people from inappropriately giving him credit.

Posted by: Barry Ritholtz | February 06, 2006 at 12:55 PM

Has there been any explanation for Greenspan's margin rate policy during his tenure and any role it might of had in the finacial problems he is credited with controling? Wasn't he always injecting synthetic liquidity via leverage so useful in arbitrage. Ayn Rand"s blessed certainly did OK as the shift in wealth in the country ilustrates. As an irrational mutual fund investor I tend to wory about ETFs bought on leverage unwinding in some ill conceived derivative. Maybe the rationally selfish insure the derivatives but I irrationally hope my bank isn't invoved.

Posted by: Ed Norberg | February 06, 2006 at 06:46 PM

Anon and Barry -- I'm not sure who has been giving credit to Greenspan and not Volcker, but we run in different circles I guess. But if some are indeed overestimating his contributions, no purpose I see is served by underestimating it.

Ed -- What's "synthetic liquidity?"

Posted by: Dave Altig | February 06, 2006 at 08:37 PM

---
But if some are indeed overestimating his contributions, no purpose I see is served by underestimating it.
---

You appear to be overestimating Barry's underestimation.

Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 | February 06, 2006 at 09:29 PM

I don't understand Barry knocking Greenspan's financial predictions.

stock market circa 1996 - It was overvalued, just because it remained overvalued for another 4 years before adjusting doesn't mean he was wrong.

bond market circa 2003 - I thought he and Bernanke made it clear that while deflation was a small risk, the repercussions could be devasting, hence, in the process of balancing risks, the threat had to be dealt with, and they were successful. And last I looked, fed funds was held low for a long time. The only thing bond investors got surprised by is the now still low level of long term rates.

Oil and natural gas - ok, so he was wrong, so what, he's a monetary guy, anybody who makes investments in commodities based off of what he says is dumb.

Posted by: cb | February 07, 2006 at 09:55 AM

It is easy to take potshots at Greenspan, especially when he has been lionized so much in our 24 hour news culture. Between books (Maestro) and former Senators practicaly making him the King of Finance in pepertuity (Sen Gramm), it is hard to discern the hyperbole from the facts. We have to remember that the times now are politically polarized, and it is an election year! The thing that is clear to us traders is that Greenspan was a voice of reason, and when there was a crisis he spoke clearly and eloquently about what direction the fed was headed. In what arguable were very challenging economic times (forget 1987, 1998 could have been total financial meltdown), Greenspan did as good a job as anyone that has ever held the post as Chairman. I think he set a new standard for performance. Hope Bernacke does as well.

Posted by: jeff | February 07, 2006 at 07:03 PM

Use of synthetic:
I suppose I used synthetic because of my career in plant biology. Cellular metabolism creates molecules that takes extraodinary chemical methods for extracellular synthesis. Artificial or transitory are other choices but all infer more than I understand about the various financial instruments that generate so much cheap capital with low risk seemingly doing so little of what I thought investments should create. I do have the feeling that my investment capital in bond and stock mutual funds is at its highest risk in 18 years. I often wondered what our world would be like today if capital gain taxes were 50% on day one and decreased to 0 over 10 years (used his bully pulpit as he did for tax cuts) or if the margin rate was 90%--that would have been a legacy.

Posted by: Ed Norberg | February 08, 2006 at 12:30 AM

eightnine... OK, maybe I was being a tad sensitive. However, if someone takes the time to write something, and then it gets picked up by Barron's, I assume it is meant to be taken seriously. That said, if, in a bout of hypersensitivity, I turned a tin ear to a tongue-in-cheek tone, I accept the crticism. (But stand by my assertion that the items on the myth list that are wrong, or at least wrong-headed.)

Ed -- The whole risk question is kind of funny. There is a pervasive belief that there are tons of it out there, but it is mysteriously absent in asset prices (i.e. risk premium or market volatility). Perhaps it is because of some massive regulatory failure that has generated a large moral hazard problem, but the evidence of that is strikingly absent at the moment.

Posted by: Dave Altig | February 08, 2006 at 09:06 AM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

 
spacer image


spacer image
spacer image
| Home | About the Fed | Banking Information | Services for Financial Institutions | Community Development | Consumer Information | Economic Research and Data | News and Events | Publications | Archives |
spacer image
spacer image Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1000 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta Georgia 30309-4470 - Tel: 404-498-8500 - webmaster@frbatlanta.org spacer image