SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: nextrade! who wrote (25608)12/4/2004 8:57:41 AM
From: nextrade!Respond to of 306849
 
The Fabulous Destiny of Alan Greenspan

dailyreckoning.com

THE FABULOUS DESTINY OF ALAN GREENSPAN
by Bill Bonner

This week marks an important anniversary.

"How do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions, as they have in Japan over the past decade?" asked the Fed chairman, when he was still mortal. The occasion was a black-tie dinner at the American Enterprise Institute in December - five years ago.

"We as central bankers," Greenspan continued, "need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs, and price stability. But we should not underestimate or become complacent about the complexity of the interactions of the asset markets and the economy. Thus, evaluating shifts in balance sheets generally, and in asset prices particularly, must be an integral part of the development of monetary policy."

Mortals make mistakes. But Greenspan was right on target in '96. It was later, after he became a demi-god, the "Maestro," that the Fed chief erred.

In 1996, the bear market of '73-74 and the crash of '87 were still functioning as caution signs. Greenspan spoke on the evening of the 5th. On the morning of the 6th, markets reacted. Investors in Tokyo panicked...giving the Nikkei Dow a 3% loss for the day, its biggest drop of the year. Hong Kong fell almost 3%. Frankfurt 4%. London 2%. But by the time the sun rose in New York, where the Fed chairman was better known, investors had decided not to care. After a steep drop in the first half-hour, as overnight sell orders were executed, the market began a rebound and never looked back. By the spring of the year 2,000, the Dow had almost doubled from the level that had so concerned the Fed chairman.

But while the maestro was alarmed at Dow 6,437, he was serene at Dow 11,722. Fatal to Greenspan's judgment was a combination of bad information, bad theory and a human nature that - though unchanged for many millennia - seems to have slipped the attention of central bankers.

Greenspan's theory was that by carefully controlling the cost of credit and the money supply he could avoid serious economic downturns. You have suffered enough discussion of this issue here in the Daily Reckoning, dear reader. For today's purpose, we will just point out that Mr. Greenspan has everything he needs to get the economy back on track, except the essentials. He cannot make telecom debt worth what people paid for it. He can't restock consumers' savings accounts. He can't make Enron a good business. He can't erase excess capacity, nor make investment losses disappear.

In addition to the bad theory, Mr. Greenspan had bad information. The "information age" brought more information to more people - including to central bankers...but the more information people had, the more opportunity they had to choose the misinformation that suited their purposes.

Since the late '90s, however, many of the figures used to justify the New Economy have been revised, downward. "The government previously decided that neither corporate profits nor productivity improvements were nearly as good as they appeared to be in 1999 and 2000," reports Floyd Norris in the New York Times. "And now the industrial production numbers have been sharply revised downward."

"The new numbers show industrial production was dramatically overestimated, particularly in the high- technology area," Norris quotes John Vail, the chief strategist of Fuji Futures, a financial futures firm in Chicago.

What was true for the nation's financial performance was also true for that of individual companies. Companies engineered their financial reports to give investors the information they wanted to hear - that they earned one penny more per share than anticipated. But what they were often doing was exactly what Alan Greenspan worried about - impairing balance sheets in order to produce growth and earnings numbers that delighted Wall Street. Curiously, during what was supposed to be the greatest economic boom in history, the financial condition of many major companies - such as Enron and IBM - actually deteriorated.

But by 1998, Alan Greenspan no longer noticed; he had become irrationally exuberant himself. Markets make opinions, as they say on Wall Street. The Fed chairman's opinion soon caught up with the bull market in equities. As Benjamin Graham wrote of the '49-'66 bull market: "It created a natural satisfaction on Wall Street with such fine achievements and a quite illogical and dangerous conviction that equally marvelous results could be expected for common stocks in the future."

Shares rise, as Buffett put it, first for the right reasons, and then for the wrong ones. Shares were cheap in '82...the Dow rose 550% over the next 14 years. Then, by the time Greenspan warned of "irrational exuberance", shares were no longer cheap. But by then, no one cared. Benjamin Graham's giant "voting machine" of Wall Street cast its ballots for slick shares with go-go technology and can-do management. Shares rose further; and people became more and more sure that they would continue to rise.

"Greenspan will never allow the economy to fall into recession," said analysts. "The Fed will always step in to avoid a really bad bear market," said investors. Over the long term, there was no longer any risk from owning shares, they said. And even Alan Greenspan seemed to believe it. If the Fed chairman believed it, who could doubt it was true? And the more true it seemed, the more exuberant people became.

"What happened in the 1990s," says Robert Shiller, author of the book Irrational Exuberance, "is that people really believed that we were going into a new era and were willing to take risks rational people would not take...people did not feel they had to save. They spent heavily because they thought the future was riskless."

But risk - like value - has a way of mounting up, even while it seems to disappear. The more infallible Alan Greenspan appeared...the more "unduly escalated" asset values became. Having warned of a modest "irrational exuberance," the maestro created a greater one.

Regards,

Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning

Editor's Note : Bill Bonner is the founder and editor of The Daily Reckoning. He is also the author, with Addison Wiggin, of The Wall Street Journal best seller Financial Reckoning Day: Surviving the Soft Depression of the 21st Century (John Wiley & Sons).



To: nextrade! who wrote (25608)12/4/2004 11:55:18 AM
From: X Y ZebraRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 306849
 
There are other reasons Asian central banks will probably not lead a panicky charge out of dollars. For one, Asia's economies still depend heavily on exports to the U.S. for growth and jobs. If Asian central banks stop buying dollars and send U.S. interest rates soaring, they will tank their biggest and most strategic market. "It's probable that over time central banks will want to reduce their exposure to a single currency like the dollar," says Nick Bennenbroek, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. "But there's not much risk this will happen anytime soon."

<snip>

The U.S. and Asia can mitigate this risk by moving aggressively to correct the imbalances. The Bush Administration must devise a credible plan to narrow its yawning fiscal deficit and boost savings.

HO HO HO HO... as if it were a possible event....

Asian governments could start cutting their addiction to cheap currencies. "If the U.S. is ever going to reduce its trade deficit, somebody [in Asia] has to reduce their exports and increase domestic demand," notes Akio Mikuni, founder of credit rating agency Mikuni & Co.

Ah... the day when Chinese consumerism (or Asian, for that matter) becomes a reality... who would care for a 290 million people market, when you have 3 billion people to sell to...

the when is the unresolved 'x' not the if...

The doomsayers have miscalculated their timing of their 'common sense' theories, which have failed to materialized, due to power central bankers can still wield; this allows for the inertia of the status quo (i.e. the ability of the dollar to remain as the single most powerful currency) and has saved the US from financial disaster.

But as soon as the Asian economies can evolve from their current export oriented machinery to one more driven by their own domestic markets and/or an inter-country trade (within Asia -or other parts of the world, not being dependant on the US market...)

Then, their financial storm stories may become more real...

[American enterprise may yet come up with a magic sword to slain the threat of a financial dragon... but time is running out]