“Clearly, derivatives are a centerpiece of the crisis, and he was the leading proponent of the deregulation of derivatives,” said Frank Partnoy, a law professor at the University of San Diego and an expert on financial regulation.
You mean...it wasn't the culluds?
Taking Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy
By PETER S. GOODMAN
“Not only have individual financial institutions become less vulnerable to shocks from underlying risk factors, but also the financial system as a whole has become more resilient.” — Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman, 2004
George Soros, the prominent financier, avoids using the financial contracts known as derivatives “because we don’t really understand how they work.” Felix G. Rohatyn, the investment banker who saved New York from financial catastrophe in the 1970s, described derivatives as potential “hydrogen bombs.”
And Warren E. Buffett presciently observed five years ago that derivatives were “financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.”
One prominent financial figure, however, has long thought otherwise. And his views held the greatest sway in debates about the regulation and use of derivatives — exotic contracts that promised to protect investors from losses, thereby stimulating riskier practices that led to the financial crisis. For more than a decade, Alan Greenspan has fiercely objected whenever derivatives have come under scrutiny in Congress or on Wall Street.
“What we have found over the years in the marketplace is that derivatives have been an extraordinarily useful vehicle to transfer risk from those who shouldn’t be taking it to those who are willing to and are capable of doing so,” Mr. Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee in 2003. “We think it would be a mistake” to more deeply regulate the contracts, he added.
Today, with the world caught in an economic tempest that Mr. Greenspan recently described as “the type of wrenching financial crisis that comes along only once in a century,” his faith in derivatives remains unshaken.
The problem is not that the contracts failed, he says. Rather, the people using them got greedy. A lack of integrity spawned the crisis, he argued in a speech a week ago at Georgetown University, intimating that those peddling derivatives were not as reliable as “the pharmacist who fills the prescription ordered by our physician.”
But others hold a starkly different view of how global markets unwound, and the role that Mr. Greenspan played in setting up this unrest.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Well
"Felix G. Rohatyn, the investment banker who saved New York from financial catastrophe in the 1970s, described derivatives as potential “hydrogen bombs.”
Unfortunately, I believe that was a serious understatement. A more apt analogy might be the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs.
Symptoms, man. Financial
Symptoms, man. Financial derivatives are only symptoms. The central problem is the goal of infinite growth.It is not possible to build a foundation deep and solid enought to support a structure of infinite height. Especially when you run out of proper building material and start deconstructing the foundation for material to build the new upper reaches of the structure.
I really (like, REALLY) want to say the problem is the support of a corporate economy, while ignoring and/or feeding on the human economy, but that's a philosophical choice. The collapse of the international financial system does not equal the destruction of the factors of production, just their disordering. We, the collective nation that we are related to as muscle cells are related to us, can stand still until the dust settlesand rebuild the same damn thing from the rubble. I just wouldn't advise it.