Back in 1933, at a time of economic crisis, President Roosevelt forced U.S. Citizens to sell their gold at $20 an ounce - and then subsequently revalued the metal to $35/oz. Could President Obama, a Roosevelt disciple, have similar plans in mind?
(LONDON) - Whether one believes in the GATA premise that the gold price is being held down by a gigantic conspiracy between the World's Central Banks, Governments and some major banking institutions or not, there is little doubt that governmental-initiated currency manipulation does occur, and if one looks at gold as money then it is logical that some degree of manipulation here also takes place at Central Bank level.
Whether one can call this a global conspiracy, or part of the general process of stabilising currencies and exchange rates, depends perhaps on which side of the fence you are sitting. In a way this is similar to the terrorist/freedom fighter debate!
But, history does tell us that the US government, in the days of a fixed gold price, did intervene in a very direct manner with President F.D. Roosevelt banning the "hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates" and thus forcing US citizens to sell to Federal Reserve at $20 an ounce. Subsequently the Fed raised the price of gold to $35 an ounce.
President Obama is known to be a Roosevelt disciple and he must be well aware of what was done at the time, given the parallels of the U.S economy between the present time and the 1930s. There must be a temptation to try the same tactic, and then raise the gold price dramatically in a move which would certainly support reserves within those nations which still have major gold holdings.
Indeed, if monetary authorities worldwide sees the gold price really start to take off, this kind of process has to become even more of a temptation as a big global move into gold could exacerbate the global financial crisis in that it would show that people no longer have faith in the economic status quo (it can be argued that already they don't) and the the current crisis of confidence could be severely worsened by such a rush.
In an article published late last year, Mark Mahaffey of Hinde Capital, argued that such a possibility existed and pointed out that "the fear for anyone who is in credit is that the financial system could become geared towards negating debt which, in turn, would destroy the value of their assets. One way of bypassing this threat is to buy gold. However a general shift to gold would undermine the power of central banks and their influence on the economy."
Of course the monetary situation nowadays is completely different and the banning of gold holdings, and subsequent revaluation would be much harder to accomplish domestically - and even more so globally. Back in 1933 the dollar was on the gold standard which meant that, in theory at least, each dollar could be exchanged for the same value in gold. Nowadays all currencies are effectively fiat money with no solid backing (except perhaps of a fiat dollar), and to revert to a gold standard would require an upward revaluation of the gold price beyond belief.
But, there is a precedent out there and while we think the idea is unlikely, it might appeal to someone who is prepared to try radical means to stabilise the economy if all other measures fail.
And - consider this thought - are shortages of gold coins from national mints due to a total underestimation of demand, or part of government policies to control gold flows into private hands. We think the former, but the conspiracy theorists no doubt have other views.
By Lawrence Williams
Read Entire Article
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Letter From a Chrysler Dealer
May 19, 2009
My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.
We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood.
We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.
I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.
On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them.
My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009.
Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.
Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank
HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?
THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY
This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.
This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.
HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.
Sincerely,
George C. Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu
Read Entire Article
My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.
We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood.
We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.
I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.
On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them.
My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009.
Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.
Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank
HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?
THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY
This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.
This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.
HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.
Sincerely,
George C. Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu
Read Entire Article
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Local Banks Face Big Losses
Journal Study of 940 Lenders Shows Potential for Deep Hit on Commercial Property
Commercial real-estate loans could generate losses of $100 billion by the end of next year at more than 900 small and midsize U.S. banks if the economy's woes deepen, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal.
Such loans, which fund the construction of shopping malls, office buildings, apartment complexes and hotels, could account for nearly half the losses at the banks analyzed by the Journal, consuming capital that is an essential cushion against bad loans.
Total losses at those banks could surpass $200 billion over that period, according to the Journal's analysis, which utilized the same worst-case scenario the federal government used in its recent stress tests of 19 large banks. Under that scenario, more than 600 small and midsize banks could see their capital shrink to levels that usually are considered worrisome by federal regulators. The potential losses could exceed revenue over that period at nearly all the banks analyzed by the Journal.
The potential losses on commercial real estate are by far the largest problem facing the midsize and small banks, easily exceeding losses on home loans, which could total about $49 billion, according to the Journal's analysis. Nearly one-third of the banks could see their capital slip to risky levels because of commercial real-estate losses, the Journal found.
The Journal, using data contained in banks' filings with the Federal Reserve, examined the financial health of 940 small and midsize banks. It applied the loan-loss criteria that the Fed used in its stress tests of the largest banks.
The findings are a stark reminder that the U.S. banking industry's problems stretch far beyond the 19 giants scrutinized in the government stress tests. Regulators and investors have focused on too-big-to-fail banks such as Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. But more than 8,000 other lenders throughout the country are being squeezed by the recession and real-estate crash.
[potential losses through 2010]
"They are in just much worse shape" than the big banks, says Terry McEvoy, an Oppenheimer & Co. analyst who reviewed the Journal's analysis. "There is a lot less earnings power at these banks."
The Fed this month estimated that the 19 stress-tested banks could face losses of $599 billion if the agency's gloomiest economic scenario comes true. For the 10 large companies found to need additional capital, most of the shortfalls are manageable.
Few smaller banks are likely to attract the bargain-hunting investors now expressing interest in recapitalizing the industry's giants. Many smaller banks are trying to bolster their capital by selling assets and making fewer loans.
A further drop in lending threatens to prolong the recession. "It's certainly a challenge for the economy," says Allen Tischler, a senior credit officer at Moody's Investors Service.
Banks unable to replenish capital could face a tightening regulatory vise. Some of the weakest institutions are likely to fail, although few analysts predict anything close to the 1,256 closings between 1985 and 1992. Regulators have seized 58 banks since the start of 2008, including 33 so far this year.
By MAURICE TAMMAN and DAVID ENRICH
Read Entire Article
Commercial real-estate loans could generate losses of $100 billion by the end of next year at more than 900 small and midsize U.S. banks if the economy's woes deepen, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal.
Such loans, which fund the construction of shopping malls, office buildings, apartment complexes and hotels, could account for nearly half the losses at the banks analyzed by the Journal, consuming capital that is an essential cushion against bad loans.
Total losses at those banks could surpass $200 billion over that period, according to the Journal's analysis, which utilized the same worst-case scenario the federal government used in its recent stress tests of 19 large banks. Under that scenario, more than 600 small and midsize banks could see their capital shrink to levels that usually are considered worrisome by federal regulators. The potential losses could exceed revenue over that period at nearly all the banks analyzed by the Journal.
The potential losses on commercial real estate are by far the largest problem facing the midsize and small banks, easily exceeding losses on home loans, which could total about $49 billion, according to the Journal's analysis. Nearly one-third of the banks could see their capital slip to risky levels because of commercial real-estate losses, the Journal found.
The Journal, using data contained in banks' filings with the Federal Reserve, examined the financial health of 940 small and midsize banks. It applied the loan-loss criteria that the Fed used in its stress tests of the largest banks.
The findings are a stark reminder that the U.S. banking industry's problems stretch far beyond the 19 giants scrutinized in the government stress tests. Regulators and investors have focused on too-big-to-fail banks such as Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. But more than 8,000 other lenders throughout the country are being squeezed by the recession and real-estate crash.
[potential losses through 2010]
"They are in just much worse shape" than the big banks, says Terry McEvoy, an Oppenheimer & Co. analyst who reviewed the Journal's analysis. "There is a lot less earnings power at these banks."
The Fed this month estimated that the 19 stress-tested banks could face losses of $599 billion if the agency's gloomiest economic scenario comes true. For the 10 large companies found to need additional capital, most of the shortfalls are manageable.
Few smaller banks are likely to attract the bargain-hunting investors now expressing interest in recapitalizing the industry's giants. Many smaller banks are trying to bolster their capital by selling assets and making fewer loans.
A further drop in lending threatens to prolong the recession. "It's certainly a challenge for the economy," says Allen Tischler, a senior credit officer at Moody's Investors Service.
Banks unable to replenish capital could face a tightening regulatory vise. Some of the weakest institutions are likely to fail, although few analysts predict anything close to the 1,256 closings between 1985 and 1992. Regulators have seized 58 banks since the start of 2008, including 33 so far this year.
By MAURICE TAMMAN and DAVID ENRICH
Read Entire Article
Hedge Funds Making Big Bets on Gold
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Hedge fund firms Paulson & Co. and Lone Pine Capital made big bets on gold during the first quarter, becoming the No. 1 and No. 2 shareholders, respectively, in the SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) exchange-traded fund, according to regulatory filings.
Paulson & Co. - run by John Paulson, who had already been beefing up his exposure to gold companies - bought 31.5 million shares of the ETF during the first quarter, according to its mandatory end-of-first-quarter holdings report with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That stake would be worth more than $2.8 billion if Paulson still holds all those shares at present.
Stephen Mandel's Lone Pine bought 26.5 million shares of the ETF, which would be worth $2.4 billion if it still holds those shares. Lone Pine didn't immediately return a message seeking comment.
Many hedge fund managers have been increasing their gold investments lately. More than 28% of the SPDR Gold Trust ETF's outstanding stock was owned by hedge funds as of the end of the first quarter, according to Factset Research Systems.
The increased bets on gold come as the price of the yellow metal have remained high, above $900 an ounce. Funds also see hard assets as insurance against further turmoil in the financial system, including a decline in the value of paper currency.
Most active investing in gold has been by Paulson.
In March, Paulson paid $1.3 billion to buy Anglo American PLC's (AAUK) remaining stake in South African miner AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. (AU). Paulson also recently introduced to investors a new share class pegged on the price of gold.
David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital, who had also been buying more gold-exposed stocks, added to his SPDR Gold Trust position during the first quarter as well.
Paulson, a merger arbitrager by trade, became the highest-paid hedge fund manager in 2007 when he bet against securities tied to subprime mortgages. His funds also produced double-digit gains in 2008, when the industry as a whole showed an average loss of 19%, according to Hedge Fund Research.
Mandel's Lone Pine, which according to Factset now has almost 20% of its equity portfolio in the ETF, stumbled last September along with other hedge funds. The firm, however, was not among the funds reported to have barred investors from withdrawing money from its funds.
-By Joseph Checkler, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4297; joseph.checkler@dowjones.com
Read Entire Article
Paulson & Co. - run by John Paulson, who had already been beefing up his exposure to gold companies - bought 31.5 million shares of the ETF during the first quarter, according to its mandatory end-of-first-quarter holdings report with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That stake would be worth more than $2.8 billion if Paulson still holds all those shares at present.
Stephen Mandel's Lone Pine bought 26.5 million shares of the ETF, which would be worth $2.4 billion if it still holds those shares. Lone Pine didn't immediately return a message seeking comment.
Many hedge fund managers have been increasing their gold investments lately. More than 28% of the SPDR Gold Trust ETF's outstanding stock was owned by hedge funds as of the end of the first quarter, according to Factset Research Systems.
The increased bets on gold come as the price of the yellow metal have remained high, above $900 an ounce. Funds also see hard assets as insurance against further turmoil in the financial system, including a decline in the value of paper currency.
Most active investing in gold has been by Paulson.
In March, Paulson paid $1.3 billion to buy Anglo American PLC's (AAUK) remaining stake in South African miner AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. (AU). Paulson also recently introduced to investors a new share class pegged on the price of gold.
David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital, who had also been buying more gold-exposed stocks, added to his SPDR Gold Trust position during the first quarter as well.
Paulson, a merger arbitrager by trade, became the highest-paid hedge fund manager in 2007 when he bet against securities tied to subprime mortgages. His funds also produced double-digit gains in 2008, when the industry as a whole showed an average loss of 19%, according to Hedge Fund Research.
Mandel's Lone Pine, which according to Factset now has almost 20% of its equity portfolio in the ETF, stumbled last September along with other hedge funds. The firm, however, was not among the funds reported to have barred investors from withdrawing money from its funds.
-By Joseph Checkler, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-4297; joseph.checkler@dowjones.com
Read Entire Article
Brazil and China Eye Plan to Axe Dollar
Financial Times
Brazil and China will work towards using their own currencies in trade transactions rather than the US dollar, according to Brazil’s central bank and aides to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s president.
The move follows recent Chinese challenges to the status of the dollar as the world’s leading international currency.
Mr Lula da Silva, who is visiting Beijing this week, and Hu Jintao, China’s president, first discussed the idea of replacing the dollar with the renminbi and the real as trade currencies when they met at the G20 summit in London last month.
An official at Brazil’s central bank stressed that talks were at an early stage. He also said that what was under discussion was not a currency swap of the kind China recently agreed with Argentina and which the US had agreed with several countries, including Brazil.
“Currency swaps are not necessarily trade related,” the official said. “The funds can be drawn down for any use. What we are talking about now is Brazil paying for Chinese goods with reals and China paying for Brazilian goods with renminbi.”
Henrique Meirelles and Zhou Xiaochuan, governors of the two countries’ central banks, were expected to meet soon to discuss the matter, the official said.
Mr Zhou recently proposed replacing the US dollar as the world’s leading currency with a new international reserve currency, possibly in the form of special drawing rights (SDRs), a unit of account used by the International Monetary Fund.
In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Mr Zhou said the goal would be to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations”.
In September, Brazil and Argentina signed an agreement under which importers and exporters in the two countries may make and receive payments in pesos and reals, although they may also continue to use the US dollar if they prefer.
By Jonathan Wheatley in São Paulo
Read Entire Article
Brazil and China will work towards using their own currencies in trade transactions rather than the US dollar, according to Brazil’s central bank and aides to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s president.
The move follows recent Chinese challenges to the status of the dollar as the world’s leading international currency.
Mr Lula da Silva, who is visiting Beijing this week, and Hu Jintao, China’s president, first discussed the idea of replacing the dollar with the renminbi and the real as trade currencies when they met at the G20 summit in London last month.
An official at Brazil’s central bank stressed that talks were at an early stage. He also said that what was under discussion was not a currency swap of the kind China recently agreed with Argentina and which the US had agreed with several countries, including Brazil.
“Currency swaps are not necessarily trade related,” the official said. “The funds can be drawn down for any use. What we are talking about now is Brazil paying for Chinese goods with reals and China paying for Brazilian goods with renminbi.”
Henrique Meirelles and Zhou Xiaochuan, governors of the two countries’ central banks, were expected to meet soon to discuss the matter, the official said.
Mr Zhou recently proposed replacing the US dollar as the world’s leading currency with a new international reserve currency, possibly in the form of special drawing rights (SDRs), a unit of account used by the International Monetary Fund.
In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Mr Zhou said the goal would be to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations”.
In September, Brazil and Argentina signed an agreement under which importers and exporters in the two countries may make and receive payments in pesos and reals, although they may also continue to use the US dollar if they prefer.
By Jonathan Wheatley in São Paulo
Read Entire Article
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Housing Bubble: Greenspan's Wayward Son
Peter Schiff
When, during the invasion of Iraq, the United States Government issued its famous deck of playing cards with the 52 arch villains of the Iraqi police state, Saddam Hussein's face adorned the Ace of Spades. If the Obama Administration wanted to engage in a similar public relations campaign for the real estate crisis, the top card should be reserved for Alan Greenspan.
Yet in a speech this Tuesday before the National Association of Realtors, Sir Alan “the-bubble-blower” claimed that his low interest rate policies in the early and middle years of this decade had no effect on mortgage rates or real estate prices. As a result, he claims no responsibility for the subprime mortgage crisis. But even current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who shared interest rate policy responsibility as governor of the New York Fed during the Greenspan regime, recently admitted that overly accommodative policy helped inflate the bubble. So what does Greenspan know that everyone else doesn't?
His primary defense is that mortgage rates were a function of long-term interest rates which were simply not responding to the movement in short term rates, which he did control. While it is true that the flow of capital from foreign creditors with excess dollars did keep long rates low despite rising short rates, this “conundrum” was not the leading factor in the housing bubble. Although rates on thirty-year fixed rate mortgages are based on long-term bonds, by 2005 such loans had become an endangered species. The housing bubble was all about adjustable-rate mortgages with 1-7 year teaser rates primarily based on the Fed funds rate.
The rock bottom teaser rates, permitted by the 1% Fed funds rate, were the primary reason that many home buyers were able to qualify for mortgages they couldn't otherwise afford, and in turn, to bid up home prices to bubble levels. By pushing down the cost of short-term money, the Fed enabled homebuyers to make big bets on rising real estate prices. Without the Fed's help, few borrowers would have “qualified” for these risky mortgages and real estate prices never would have been bid up so high.
Greenspan expresses exasperation now, as he did then, that his careful nudging of interest rates higher by quarter point increments did not translate into corresponding increases in long-term rates. Unfortunately, according to Greenspan, the markets would not cooperate with his wise guidance, and to his dismay, mortgage rates fell despite his best efforts. As they say in Texas, this dog will just not hunt. If the “measured pace” of his quarter point hikes were too slow to produce the desired effect, why didn't Greenspan jack up the pressure? With interest rates far below the official inflation rate for many years during the bubble, he certainly had plenty of room to maneuver. The claim that he was unhappy results of his rate hikes, despite his having done nothing to adjust that policy, is ridiculous.
In addition to his colossal errors on interest rate policy there were many other ways Greenspan blew air into the real estate bubble. One example was what the market called the “Greenspan put.” By creating the perception in word and deed (since proven accurate) that the Fed would backstop any major market or economic declines, lenders became more comfortable making risky loans. In an often quoted 2004 speech, Greenspan went so far as to actively encourage the use of adjustable-rate mortgages and praised home equity extractions for their role in contributing to economic growth. In fact, rather than criticizing homeowners for treating their houses like ATM machines, he often praised the innovative ways in which such homeowners were “managing” their personal balance sheets. Greenspan was as much a proponent of leverage for homeowners on Main Street as he was for bankers on Wall Street.
The bottom line is that Greenspan fathered the housing bubble and now he refuses to acknowledge kinship of his wayward child. His denial of responsibility is an act of stunning bravado, and is a testament to his ability to turn even the simplest of situations into an impenetrable tangle of theories and statistics. The private sector jokers who now hold top dishonors in our pack of economic villains are easily trumped by the Maestro. The fact that Greenspan still has any credibility shows just how little understanding the general public, including Wall Street and the media, actually have about this crisis.
Read Entire Article
When, during the invasion of Iraq, the United States Government issued its famous deck of playing cards with the 52 arch villains of the Iraqi police state, Saddam Hussein's face adorned the Ace of Spades. If the Obama Administration wanted to engage in a similar public relations campaign for the real estate crisis, the top card should be reserved for Alan Greenspan.
Yet in a speech this Tuesday before the National Association of Realtors, Sir Alan “the-bubble-blower” claimed that his low interest rate policies in the early and middle years of this decade had no effect on mortgage rates or real estate prices. As a result, he claims no responsibility for the subprime mortgage crisis. But even current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who shared interest rate policy responsibility as governor of the New York Fed during the Greenspan regime, recently admitted that overly accommodative policy helped inflate the bubble. So what does Greenspan know that everyone else doesn't?
His primary defense is that mortgage rates were a function of long-term interest rates which were simply not responding to the movement in short term rates, which he did control. While it is true that the flow of capital from foreign creditors with excess dollars did keep long rates low despite rising short rates, this “conundrum” was not the leading factor in the housing bubble. Although rates on thirty-year fixed rate mortgages are based on long-term bonds, by 2005 such loans had become an endangered species. The housing bubble was all about adjustable-rate mortgages with 1-7 year teaser rates primarily based on the Fed funds rate.
The rock bottom teaser rates, permitted by the 1% Fed funds rate, were the primary reason that many home buyers were able to qualify for mortgages they couldn't otherwise afford, and in turn, to bid up home prices to bubble levels. By pushing down the cost of short-term money, the Fed enabled homebuyers to make big bets on rising real estate prices. Without the Fed's help, few borrowers would have “qualified” for these risky mortgages and real estate prices never would have been bid up so high.
Greenspan expresses exasperation now, as he did then, that his careful nudging of interest rates higher by quarter point increments did not translate into corresponding increases in long-term rates. Unfortunately, according to Greenspan, the markets would not cooperate with his wise guidance, and to his dismay, mortgage rates fell despite his best efforts. As they say in Texas, this dog will just not hunt. If the “measured pace” of his quarter point hikes were too slow to produce the desired effect, why didn't Greenspan jack up the pressure? With interest rates far below the official inflation rate for many years during the bubble, he certainly had plenty of room to maneuver. The claim that he was unhappy results of his rate hikes, despite his having done nothing to adjust that policy, is ridiculous.
In addition to his colossal errors on interest rate policy there were many other ways Greenspan blew air into the real estate bubble. One example was what the market called the “Greenspan put.” By creating the perception in word and deed (since proven accurate) that the Fed would backstop any major market or economic declines, lenders became more comfortable making risky loans. In an often quoted 2004 speech, Greenspan went so far as to actively encourage the use of adjustable-rate mortgages and praised home equity extractions for their role in contributing to economic growth. In fact, rather than criticizing homeowners for treating their houses like ATM machines, he often praised the innovative ways in which such homeowners were “managing” their personal balance sheets. Greenspan was as much a proponent of leverage for homeowners on Main Street as he was for bankers on Wall Street.
The bottom line is that Greenspan fathered the housing bubble and now he refuses to acknowledge kinship of his wayward child. His denial of responsibility is an act of stunning bravado, and is a testament to his ability to turn even the simplest of situations into an impenetrable tangle of theories and statistics. The private sector jokers who now hold top dishonors in our pack of economic villains are easily trumped by the Maestro. The fact that Greenspan still has any credibility shows just how little understanding the general public, including Wall Street and the media, actually have about this crisis.
Read Entire Article