Correction of Greenspan exuberance period

Published: March 2, 2009 - 05:43
This article received :  3 Comments

The credit bubble in the US and the subsequent financial crisis will be the subject of many books and comments in the year to come. The role of some architects of the financial system will be discussed, and some of them will not escape unharmed from the retrospective analysis.

In the book 'Econoshock',I explain that the monetary policy of Alan Greenspanhas been one of the direct causes of the financial crisis.
Greenspan, the former US central bank president, had two very distinctive periods while governing the US federal reserve.

In the first, he acted as a monetary Saint, and he rebalanced successfully the US macro-economic fundamentals. The chart shows that the money supply balanced with the economy after 25 years of excess growth. That would have been a glorious moment for Greenspan to leave the Fed ast the best central banker in history.

Almost at that time, he gave his famous 'exuberance speech', back in December 1996.

The speech marked a second period in Greenspan's carreer. That in which he started to experiment with the monetary variables. Money grew faster than the economy, and fueled a bubble. Greenspan famously bailed out the LTCM hedge fund, creating a huge moral hazard problem in the form of the 'Greenspan put', the belief that the Fed would always bail out troubled risk takers ...

I was looking at some charts, and discovered that some data are now approaching the 1996 levels. They are therefore readjusting to pre-bubble levels. Yesterday, the Dow Jones closed below the level reached in February 1997. The Dow at 6,500 would be roughly the point of Greenspan's Saint Nicolas 'exuberance speech'. The S&P500, a better stock market index, has reached that level already.

Another important graph is that of the housing in the US. The ratio of home prices to rent prices is a very good indicator of the balance between buying and renting a house. It is a comparison between two competing markets. In that sense, a good ratio for judging the equilibrium in the housing market.

The ratio has been historically between 1.0 and 1.2. In 1996, he was almost spot on the equilibrium level. He then ballooned for the next ten years. At the top of the housing bubble in 2006, he was at almost 1.8. It means that housing prices were overvalued by some 45% compared to rents. The correction has gone very fast however, and the ratio was at 1.2 towards the end of 2008. We can assume that he further declined in January and February, and is now well within the historic range. This does not mean however that the drop in house prices is completely over. Rent prices are starting to decline, which could put further downward pressure on the real estate market.

The bubble period has taken 10 years to build. The adjustment phase has been very painful because of its speed. Over the last three years, excesses of a decade had to be corrected. With new housing constructions now at a 500,000 beat, the inventory adjustment can also start to take place.

The housing market is adjusting quickly. But it has been the first to correct, and other economic areas have only started to follow.Consumption for instance has more room to fall. Especially as employment, another lagging economic variable, has now started to contract sharply.

3 Comments

  1. Luk 

    On 1 Mar, 2009

    Great post!

    Another issue is that markets tend to exaggerate both on the way up and on the way down. But this is when opportunities arise...
  2. Frank 

    On 1 Mar, 2009

    5 things this graph shows:

    1. The period of "saint" was only 10 years long
    2. Greenspan was a bigger "sucker" than he was a "saint"
    3. The great creditexperiment is only 30 years old
    4. The great creditexperiment took a huge kickoff in the past 10 years
    5. The "saint" period fell duriing the savings and loan crisis

    a few questions:

    1. Can I trust this info since it comes from the FED
    2. What do they mean by money supply: M1,M2,M3,MZM, all of the above?
    3. Do they include bank borrowings and reserve bank credit from the FED?

    Final remark. If you inflate the money supply you always have a lag effect to when that money starts inflating GDP. Money velocity is also very important when it comes to inflation. Is it possible that the money growth before the "saint" period started inflating GDP in the "saint" period so that in a sense money contraction in the "saint" was'nt really so big because GDP rose faster than money supply contracted?

    Thanks Geert
  3. Jeroen 

    On 2 Mar, 2009

    Beste Geert,

    Interessant artikel.

    Sinds enige tijd volg ik met interesse wat de Austrian School of Economics te vertellen hebben.

    Ik las - omtrent deflatie/inflatie - echter een ander standpunt dat me minstens aan het twijfelen brengt. Het is te lezen op:

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/02/fiat-world-mathematical-model.html

    Altijd benieuwd naar een reactie daarop... .

    Jeroen

Post a comment

max. length of 1500 characters