Greenspan Says U.S. Should Consider Breaking Up Large Banks | Hacker News Reader

Greenspan Says U.S. Should Consider Breaking Up Large Banks

bloomberg.com

50 pointsFlemlord65 comments

Now he starts having ideas. I did not hear him make a peep when the largest and most problematic of these banks (Citigroup) was created and when they had to have a complete overhaul of the nations banking laws to create that particular bank. No, he actively supported the new laws intended to create citigroup and which also resulted in another bunch of oversized financial institutions including AIG.

And later he guaranteed bank profits by lowering interest rates whenever banks were in just a little bit of trouble. The inevitable result was an asset bubble and rates so low that when we had an actual crisis, the fed could not do anything.

But now, when he is out of power, he finally figures out that the existence of banks that are so large and powerful that they can get the government to ensure their profitability might not be good for the free market after all. Good job!

He did apologize profusely and say that his beliefs had been proven irrevocably wrong. I'm willing to cut the guy some slack, even if he did fuck up on a level most people aren't allowed to fuck up on.

where did he apologize? Link?

He never really apologized

This blog sums it up:

http://greenewable.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/greenspan-about-...

and

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=bc863544-b90f-4e...

Better to admit his mistakes than never to. Nearly all government officials make mistakes. What fraction admit them? Whatever minuscule n% do, he's in the (100-n)th percentile.

The problem is, he hasn't actually admitted his biggest mistakes. As far as I know, he has never taken responsibility for the credit and housing bubbles.

There's little doubt his loose monetary policy contributed. That said, those bubbles could never have been as severe without wall street's catastrophicly optimistic pricing models and reckless lending practices. Wired has a good description of how pricing models contributed at http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?curr...

I suppose that it is a very small fraction of politicians that admit their mistakes because I did not believe Greenspan did. But after some googling, I have to concede that you are right he did actually admit his mistakes, in a congressional hearing no less. So maybe I should not have been that harsh on him.

Although it would have been nicer if he was more cautious while he was at the FED.

Oh, and thank you for reminding me of grad school entrance exams :).

It's called "attempting to rehab your image". Let's not assume it is a genuine belief.

Agreed. If it's too big to fail, it's to big to exist.

2nd that

And the truth of that statement is not bank-specific.

For example, it applies to financial regulators and even govts....

You really want governments to start failing?

I mean California is getting close, but that's mostly because it hamstrung itself early on by allowing citizens to promote legislation.

While there are a few governments that I would like to be changed (Chinese Democracy anyone), the general trend towards democracy and liberty has been a good thing.

If saw a govt does get too big to fail, having it fail could well lead to chaos or a dictatorship.

I know there is a lot of whinging by Republicans in the US about 'small' government, but really you're not going to get decent change in your country overall unless the federal government acts as the states aren't up to it (seatbelt laws anyone?)

I think in the case of governments it's not that they can be too big to fail, it's that if they get too big, they do fail. Though maybe that's the general case, now that I think about it.

edit s/its/it\'s/g

At the same time the bigger the government the less change the country will have since most of the resources will be used by people in government to maintain the status quo.

I don't think Anamax is saying that he wants appropriate governments to fail, but rather that ginormous governments should be split as well. If a country's failure leads to chaos, perhaps the size of that government should be rethought.

We should step back and realize that a government isn't some sacred perpetual institution but rather a means to represent people. If a government fails to represent it's people, it must be changed.

I thought that that's what I wrote. Thanks.

really you're not going to get decent change in your country overall unless the federal government acts as the states aren't up to it (seatbelt laws anyone?)

The point is that in the U.S. the Federal Government was, by design, to be limited in the powers it could exert over the states and citizens.

I think the argument from those who are for "small government" is not that change such as seatbelt laws are bad or unwanted, but that the cost of and danger in relinquishing to the Federal Government the power to make those decisions is far, far greater.

There is no too big to fail, that is just a ploy to convince you to not be angry at your money being given to them. Sure if they failed it would be bad, but it's going to be bad anyway. All we are doing is prolonging and exacerbating the pain.

Splitting up the banks won't eliminate the "too big to fail" problem. If a systemic crash (like the one last year) causes hundreds of smaller banks to fail, there will be just as much pressure to bail them out as if one giant bank fails.

99 have already failed this year, and probably 2 or 3 hundred more will fail before this crisis is over, and their depositors have been bailed out - their stockholders and management haven't, unlike the big guys.

Wow, Greenspan just won a bunch of points in my book.

> while “just really arbitrarily breaking down organizations into various different sizes” goes against his philosophical leanings, something must be done to solve the too-big-to-fail issue.

I have the same sentiments.

> “Failure is an integral part, a necessary part of a market system,”

I agree.

> “If you start focusing on those who should be shrinking, it undermines growing standards of living and can even bring them down.”

I think his proposal is one we should act on.

That's kind of like an airplane pilot getting drunk and crashing a plane, killing hundreds, then saying publicly that pilots shouldn't be allowed to drink.

Although, to make the analogy complete, you have to start with the assumption that people didn't know airline pilots shouldn't be drunk while flying. It seems obvious in hindsight but at the very least, this pilot thought drinking on the job was ok.

Pretty much every bubble in modern financial history, including the great depression, resulted from easy credit with nothing behind it.

Isn't it better to just let them fail next time instead. That would force the big banks to split up themselves.

We need new legislation to provide for a quick route out of bankruptcy for these financial institutions. Regulators should be able to declare a bank insolvent then -- overnight -- wipe out shareholder equity, convert debt and top up tier 1 capital.

For these institutions, a bankruptcy plan should be required like a fire escape plan is required.

No, I think bankruptcy is little better than failure unless the gov. will pump in funds as well. Take AIG for instance, which backs debt at various levels. Clearing the books of that juggernaut would still send ripples through the system, likely freeze up credit markets, and wreak stock market havoc. I think Greenspan is right about breaking up such institutions.

No, I think bankruptcy is little better than failure unless the gov. will pump in funds as well.

That is what topping up tier 1 capital is about. The bankrupt bank may end up being temporarily partially or wholly owned by the government.

Clearing the books of that juggernaut would still send ripples through the system, likely freeze up credit markets, and wreak stock market havoc. I think Greenspan is right about breaking up such institutions.

I suspect you would then have 100 bankrupt companies instead of one. More careful derivatives regulation is obviously prudent, specifically there really ought to be ring-fenced capital backing up derivative instruments (like is required for proper insurance).

That is what topping up tier 1 capital is about.

I'm sorry, but your strategy makes no sense to me. You're proposing a plan basically equivalent to the gov. standing ready to pump more (taxpayer) money into GM in case they get into trouble?

I suspect you would then have 100 bankrupt companies instead of one.

You suspect we would have 100 grossly mismanaged companies - that all fail at the same time - instead of one? I don't think so.

You suspect we would have 100 grossly mismanaged companies - that all fail at the same time - instead of one? I don't think so.

That's exactly what happened. The global banking system collapsed remember?

No, not all global banks, and not even all the banks in the U.S. failed. Many smaller banks failed, and some large ones were failing as well, but each case was different and it was all due to system wide chain reactions. Many U.S. banks were fine and even refused to take TARP funds. The difference is that the FDIC is poised to counter small banks failing, but not behemoths like AIG, where (taxpayer) gov. funds are the only answer.

It's interesting you suggest that considering the credit card holder bankruptcy legislation the banks pushed through preventing this very thing for consumers of their products.

At the cost of devastating the economy for possibly a decade or more, sure, that's a fine way to do things.

Something like a proper second depression, with a collapse in confidence in almost all banks resulting in massive hoarding, head up north of 20% unemployment. Perhaps we could throw in a world war too.

California already has an unemployment rate of around 25%- among 18-25 year olds.

In fact, if we still calculated unemployment like they did in the thirties - we're ahead of the Great Depression's schedule by about four years (we have the same - adjusted for rule changes enacted by jfk to make the nation's numbers look better - unemployment rate now, one year into the 'recession' As was had five years after the great crash that preceeded the Great Depression)

food for thought. (I'm mobile at the moment, or I'd provide sources)

Move somewhere else. You might find there is more work elsewhere.

Moving isn't free, much of that 25% doesn't have extra money sitting around in their bank account.

I don't live in California, I live in Brooklyn. But my point still stands: a year into this and our unemployment is about the same as it was five years into the great depression. People make light of it because the government's numbers are fudged.

What does this mean? We are moving 5 times faster? We are almost through it? We still have much worse times ahead? This will last at least 5 times as long?

How are you counting that, though? If a 20-year-old is in college, is that "unemployed"?

I'm not sure why you're being downloaded since that's more or less what happened in a general sense last time.

Strong, sensible banking regulations help prevent situations like this. :(

People whose faith on free markets have been challenged by the recent "troubles" have a potential crisis, and they can generally do either of two things: accept that market regulation is a necessary evil; or think that the real problem is that the markets weren't actually free, owing to governments propping up banks and preventing panic.

I believe this second approach is misguided, unrealistic, and frankly juvenile, a position that only those young enough (or cloistered enough) to favour ideology over pragmatics can hold.

It doesn't take much panic for a bank to collapse, owing to how their multipliers work, and when you have three or four banks collapsing around you, it's only reasonable to assume that all banks are dodgy. Getting into that kind of a situation for the sake of an ideological approach to free markets is dangerous, IMHO.

IMO, banks should be small enough that they can fail, and there ought to be a procedure that lets them fail in a relatively clean way. Joe Q. Public should have his savings and deposits protected (up to a limit), and perhaps even small business similarly, but the rest of debt should be converted to equity, and previous shareholders wiped out. But regulations are required, both to limit bank size, and to standardize the procedure so that it's a known quantity (and explicitly removes the bailout moral hazard) and shareholders can apply sufficient pressure to management to avoid self-destruction.

I agree with most of that, but interest-bearing savings accounts should not be insured by the government. If you're earning interest there needs to be some actual risk involved, otherwise it creates too much moral hazard.

How do you expect the saving public to evaluate the stability of the banking organizations they frequent? How on earth do you think they are going to be able to overcome the information asymmetry?

What planet are you from?

Under my proposal, those who can't evaluate the stability of banks should stick to insured, non-interest-bearing accounts.

I get it, only rich people should be allowed to save (since a non-interesting bearing account will actually lose real value over time, i.e. a tax on mere keeping of money).

Riiiight.

You seem to be presuming that consumer price inflation will be perpetually positive. But that isn't desirable, or necessary.

Seems like a scenario worth considering since it has been the case for most modern economic history.

Deposits could just buy treasuries, pay interest and be government guaranteed.

The question is what additional investments you want to allow. I would allow mortgages of high quality (recourse mortgages, size < 2 * earnings and size < 65% of value) when accompanied by appropriate capital.

> People whose faith on free markets have been challenged by the recent "troubles" have a potential crisis

Humans acting stupidly and making bad decisions happens under all economic and political systems. People say things like, "Capitalism is rocky and prone to booms and busts..." but that's a bit off. Despotism, feudalism, slavery-based economies, communism, and so on have all had booms and busts. Humans make bad decisions regardless of how the conditions are. Regulated/unregulated, free/restricted, decentralized/centralized, it doesn't matter - people make bad decisions in all of these conditions.

Throughout history, once bad decisions are made, people are willing to give themselves over to leaders who promise they have the answers and reassure people. These leaders create new power structures that may or may not help fix the problem. Once the emergency passes, the new power structures are retained and used to further agendas. This gradually leads to a legal code and government with complex and inconsistent laws, which is one of the reasons all nations and empires fall eventually. It's not specifically a capitalism/free market thing at all.

Everyone loves to get downloaded.

More fearmongering. There's no proof that any of those disasters would have actually happened.

You can't prove an alternate time line, of course not. But there certainly have been bank panics in the past, and it's pretty clear that many banks were on the point of collapsing, so it's not fearmongering at all - it's well within the bounds of possibility, which is a very good reason for staying away from it.

Maybe, but there is a problem with this approach. Unfortunatly, politicans forget history pretty quickly (at least they act like they do). If something similar happens again in, say, 20 years, there will be preassure on them to do something. In this case, I predict they'll again prop up the banks.

Greenspan's solution is meant to solve the root of the problem. Remove the temptation and, in theory anyway, the government will let banks fail.

Additionally, if you really beleive in institutions that are "too big to fail" then you can't do this. I'm not sure if I do, and at least one person below doesn't, but maybe Greenspan does.

Greenspan is the poster boy and enabler of this thing. Way back in June 2005 I registered http://AlansBubble.com to memorialize him. Sadly, but not surprisingly, this same "bubble ==> crash ==> bailout" will happen again in the not too distant future, except it will be bigger.

What can be done? Here are some ideas from Nassim Nicholas Taleb: "Ten Principles for a Black Swan-proof World": http://chrisco.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/ten-principles-for-a... (see also the Nouriel Roubini links there)

The problem is that they will be broken up "poorly". The bigwigs will keep the good parts, and give the crappy, debt-ridden parts to the government, or let them fail.

Kinda like GM (although I'm not sure there were any good parts).

This is exactly what Northern Rock did in the UK.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/plans-for-no...

Compared to Gordon Brown, Greenspan is an economic genius.

Another problem is that a former Fed chairman should know how to break up the banks instead of simply saying 'break up the banks'. There's already a clearly defined line in which to break up each bank. It's called the Chinese wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Finance

However, by converting the major investment banks to bank holding companies, Paulson basically got rid of this division. There should be risk-taking investment sides of large investment firms which do not have the luxury of being bailed out (i.e., people who trade CDSs, etc.), but equally there should be large commercial banks that form the backbone of our financial industry and provide the largest channels of liquidity. And these two sides of the company (buy side and sell side) should always be separate companies.

But obviously there need to be people with actual investment banking experience or who know enough of how the industry works, but also have an interest (which to most financiers would appear highly irrational) in fairness for the general public.

Such people just don't exist yet. Hopefully in the future they will tho. Anyhoo.

I respectfully disagree with using the Chinese Wall (only a little bit though).

Seems like it would work in general, but I believe there are groups that sit on top of the Chinese Wall.

Stil, its a reasonably good place to start.

Good point. Like you say there are those who oversee both sides. It is inherently problematic to have anyone oversee both sides.... But people always assume that the worse case scenario is that if the sell side gets screwed, well that means some corporations (which are clients on the buy side) have dumped stocks on some poor, unsuspecting semi-wealthy retirees. Or if the buy side gets screwed, some investment adviser has leaked information to one of his or her clients about a company's new issue of shares or something.

But where the American public gets screwed is in the case where financial instruments are developed that, like the occasional large-scale computer bug, get into some sort of perfect storm / infinite loop. The markets have a way of dealing with that though, but they can't deal with it when the sell-side is attached to the buy-side -- and can't be afforded to fail. Anyway, just thoughts off the top of my head. Lots of people interpret buy side / sell side in different ways. But there is definitely a tendency to overlook how these banks are structured. The structure is not all that complicated, but of course it's not really in the bank's interest to analyze and fix it -- not unless you have a very long-term interest in the health of the industry or something.

I strongly believe it is time now to regulate market capitalization to twice their quarterly revenue. I have petitioned SEC which is actively considering it.

Every time I hear or read what Greenspan says I become more and more convinced that his goal is to bring down the system ala Atlas Shrugged style. These are not the words of an objectivist, they are the words of a statist. Or, at very best, an extremely pragmatic capitalist. Dude is trying to bring down the whole Money as Debt and Corporatism system in on swoop.

Note to the strikers: Bring me with you.

While it's true that Greenspan was a close associate of Ayn Rand for years, it rises to the level of conspiracy theory to suppose that Atlas Shrugged was meant as some sort of blueprint for real world action crafted in the 1950's and slowly implemented over time by Rand's associates. Right up there with the theory that Rand is a member of the Illuminati and Atlas Shrugged is the Illuminati game-plan to take over the world.

Honestly, I'm more than happy with my bank (JP Morgan/Chase) staying as one big conglomerate. They certainly proved they knew what they were doing during the crisis and have managed to stay on top of things. The government doesn't have the right to punish private corporations for being too good, too smart, and too successful; though they have a huge track record of trying to do so.

I'd appreciate someone pointing out any incongruent remarks in my statement above. It's a fact that JP Morgan succeeded where the others failed during the recession, it's a fact that their customers are happy with what they're doing, and it's NOT a fact that the government knows their business better than they do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com