LyrArc Article Gist
Mr Greenspan's libertarian views influenced by a novelist of all people, who is frail just like all of us however intelligent her views may seem, when taken as dogma. Taking his cue from Ayn Rand, who presented collective power as evil force set against the enlightened self-interest of individuals, he proceeded to let this enlightened self-interest run free in an ambitious American experiment devoid of all restraints and common sense. He came in in the days of Reagan and "the evil empire " and the philosophy of Milton Friedman of minimal government intervention in markets, and the view presented by Europeans like Hayek about the economy and freedom. But views become dogma and then defeat common sense. Buffett used common sense and always considered human beings and their frailties as part of the problem as well as the opportunity. Greenspan let these views of his defeat plain common sense and excluded the role of human beings and their weaknesses, in any scheme of things. This undid him and his reputation in the end as far as derivatives like mortgage securities are concerned. Plain common sense required as Buffett did- that as the risks of derivative contracts increased as they practically became the way risk was managed and distributed throughout the economy- to consider their opaqueness, and the way risk was distributed with the failure of one financial firm bringing down the others and the whole economy; with the way each were interdependent and tied up in the risk distribution for the capital that helped run the whole economy. Derivatives were created to soften risk or hedge against investment losses. For example some of the contracts protect debt holders against investment losses on mortgage securites. Their name comes from the fact that their value derives from underlying assets like stocks, bonds and commodities. What they allow to happen is the increase in leveraging and the taking on of more risk as for instance issuing more mortgage debt or corporate debt. As these contracts can be traded they enable companies to take on more risk by spreading the risk among more and more parties. The original issuer of this debt has the sense that somehow, as one expert put it, that by tossing this packaged as a complex derivative type security into outer space this risk would somehow disappear in that cosmos, so that more of the same could be done into infinity. Plain common sense like Buffett's would say otherwise and point to the danger when the whole scheme would get undone by the failure of some big financial firms, as the scheme becomes huge enveloping the economy, the very interdependence would bring down the whole economy. The very complexity of opaquenes of this way of dealing would make it impossible or difficult in the extreme to identify where the risk was lying, and take it out by firm governmental measures in an environment of fear. Requiring days not months for actions to work. This is what has happened. And the crucial weakness of overleveraged investment banking firms which depend on rollng over short term debt was not understood by any of the players, Congress, Greenspan, Summers, Rubin, Cox or Levitt or the quants on Wall Street with their elaborate models. All of these people worked to prevent Congress passing legislation regulating derivatives, or to silence the skeptics in Congress or government agencies as documented by Peter Goodman of the NYT. It was Chase's demand for more collateral of $5 billion to roll over short term debt of Lehman Brothers to pay for the perceived additional risk of overleveraged Lehman at 1:30 ratio of debt to capital, in an extreme risk averse environment, that led to the unraveling of that firm in a matter of days. Good common sense like Buffetts- who described dervatives like the mortgage securities as weapons of mass destruction, that were issued en masse and sent to remote corners of the world including a small town near the North Pole in Scandinavia- considered that this environment of fear of the unknown that brought down the investment banking firms in a matter of days, was also one face of the market. This had to be included in the arithmetic and understanding of the market. He also understood as plain common sense that there are no extraordinary theories and nothing extraterrestrial that will dispense with the basics and exercise of good sense That no matter what fancy name you put on it derivatives derived their strength from being less and less transparent and distribution and interdependence across a vast financial spectrum with higher and higher tight interlinking of financial firms to each other, with all their consequences in an unraveling making the ride down as painful and mass destructive as the joy ride on the way up. ...
Mr Greenspan's libertarian views influenced by a novelist of all people, who is frail just like all of us however intelligent her views may seem, when taken as dogma. Taking his cue from Ayn Rand, who presented collective power as evil force set against the enlightened self-interest of individuals, he proceeded to let this enlightened self-interest run free in an ambitious American experiment devoid of all restraints and common sense. He came in in the days of Reagan and "the evil empire " and the philosophy of Milton Friedman of minimal government intervention in markets, and the view presented by Europeans like Hayek about the economy and freedom. But views become dogma and then defeat common sense. Buffett used common sense and always considered human beings and their frailties as part of the problem as well as the opportunity. Greenspan let these views of his defeat plain common sense and excluded the role of human beings and their weaknesses, in any scheme of things. This undid him and his reputation in the end as far as derivatives like mortgage securities are concerned. Plain common sense required as Buffett did- that as the risks of derivative contracts increased as they practically became the way risk was managed and distributed throughout the economy- to consider their opaqueness, and the way risk was distributed with the failure of one financial firm bringing down the others and the whole economy; with the way each were interdependent and tied up in the risk distribution for the capital that helped run the whole economy. Derivatives were created to soften risk or hedge against investment losses. For example some of the contracts protect debt holders against investment losses on mortgage securites. Their name comes from the fact that their value derives from underlying assets like stocks, bonds and commodities. What they allow to happen is the increase in leveraging and the taking on of more risk as for instance issuing more mortgage debt or corporate debt. As these contracts can be traded they enable companies to take on more risk by spreading the risk among more and more parties. The original issuer of this debt has the sense that somehow, as one expert put it, that by tossing this packaged as a complex derivative type security into outer space this risk would somehow disappear in that cosmos, so that more of the same could be done into infinity. Plain common sense like Buffett's would say otherwise and point to the danger when the whole scheme would get undone by the failure of some big financial firms, as the scheme becomes huge enveloping the economy, the very interdependence would bring down the whole economy. The very complexity of opaquenes of this way of dealing would make it impossible or difficult in the extreme to identify where the risk was lying, and take it out by firm governmental measures in an environment of fear. Requiring days not months for actions to work. This is what has happened. And the crucial weakness of overleveraged investment banking firms which depend on rollng over short term debt was not understood by any of the players, Congress, Greenspan, Summers, Rubin, Cox or Levitt or the quants on Wall Street with their elaborate models. All of these people worked to prevent Congress passing legislation regulating derivatives, or to silence the skeptics in Congress or government agencies as documented by Peter Goodman of the NYT. It was Chase's demand for more collateral of $5 billion to roll over short term debt of Lehman Brothers to pay for the perceived additional risk of overleveraged Lehman at 1:30 ratio of debt to capital, in an extreme risk averse environment, that led to the unraveling of that firm in a matter of days. Good common sense like Buffetts- who described dervatives like the mortgage securities as weapons of mass destruction, that were issued en masse and sent to remote corners of the world including a small town near the North Pole in Scandinavia- considered that this environment of fear of the unknown that brought down the investment banking firms in a matter of days, was also one face of the market. This had to be included in the arithmetic and understanding of the market. He also understood as plain common sense that there are no extraordinary theories and nothing extraterrestrial that will dispense with the basics and exercise of good sense That no matter what fancy name you put on it derivatives derived their strength from being less and less transparent and distribution and interdependence across a vast financial spectrum with higher and higher tight interlinking of financial firms to each other, with all their consequences in an unraveling making the ride down as painful and mass destructive as the joy ride on the way up. ...
