• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Bernanke and Regulation: The Perils of Headline Writing

    Interpreting statements of Federal Reserve Chairmen has long been considered a high art form. During Alan Greenspan’s time, journalists and financial analysts made huge efforts to understand his cryptic comments on the economy, with the result that a few sentences could spawn literally pages of analysis designed to “explain” the possible contents of Greenspan’s comments. Most of that analysis was incorrect.

    Now, journalists and especially headline writers are attempting to apply the same techniques to Ben Bernanke’s comments. The most widely quoted sentence contained in a scholarly paper he delivered on January 3 before the American Economic Association (AEA) was: “Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders’ risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates.”

    The sentence was promptly interpreted by the New York Times under the headline “Lax Oversight Caused Crisis, Bernanke Says”, while the Washington Post’s headline for the entire talk was “Fed chief Bernanke urges better financial regulation to prevent crises.” Meanwhile, Bloomberg said that “Bernanke Says Regulation Came ‘Too Late’ to Curb Housing Bubble” and the Financial Times claimed “Fed chief calls for tougher regulation.”

    The press’ attention was certainly warranted since there is a pressing need to modernize financial regulatory agencies so that they better reflect the realities of today’s financial markets. The existing system is mainly a relic of the 1930’s and divides agency responsibilities by product distinctions that vanished long ago. It contains too many confusing regulations and too many confused regulators. Realigning and combining regulatory agencies along with eliminating scores of obsolete and burdensome regulations is long overdue.

    The press’ attention was further warranted by a congressional debate that unfortunately has focused on creating still more regulatory agencies and piling new restrictions on top of existing ones under the seeming theory that shear quantity is a good substitute for quality. However, this was not really the subject upon which Bernanke spoke.

    What Bernanke Actually Said

    The Fed Chairman did not deliver a routine policy speech before the AEA, but a scholarly paper responding to charges by certain academics that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decisions were a major cause of the recession. Thus, while certain sentences can be quoted as though they deal with legislation before congress, they should actually be read as part of a paper on monetary policy and whether the Fed’s decisions in that area caused the housing bubble.

    The full paragraph where the quoted sentence appears makes this clear:

    What policy implications should we draw? I noted earlier that the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders’ risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases. [Emphasis added.]

    In short, this is a discussion about whether monetary policy changes would have prevented the housing bubble, and not about what congress should do about it going forward.

    Similarly, when Bernanke said that: “The lesson I take from this experience is not that financial regulation and supervision are ineffective for controlling emerging risks, but that their execution must be better and smarter,” he is not necessarily calling for MORE regulation as more effective regulation, a position that conservatives can happily endorse. In fact, just about everyone agrees that current regulatory policies must be improved.

    Finally, when the Fed Chairman said that “[a]ll efforts should be made to strengthen our regulatory system to prevent a recurrence of the crisis, and to cushion the effects if another crisis occurs,” he says so in the context of noting that otherwise, the Fed will be forced instead to try to use monetary policy to deal with the next bubble.

    In past statements to Congress, Bernanke has endorsed certain elements of the financial regulatory bill, legislation with serious flaws, but his recent lecture to the AEA was not one of those occasions. It was a scholarly talk designed for a technical audience that just happened to fall on a slow news day.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Bernanke and Regulation: The Perils of Headline Writing

    1. Merrill Smith, Washi says:

      He was also oblivious to the political context of the supposedly weak or ineffective financial regulation, namely that the government was deliberately pressing financial institutions to issue mortgages to persons less likely to be able to pay them and implying that the government would bail lenders out on the downside. (Heads, you win; tails, the taxpayer loses. Ironically, this was *all too* effective.)

      His major point, however, was that, according to global regression analysis, loose monetary policy after the dot-com bubble burst only explained five percent of the subsequent increases in housing prices in various countries. The danger of inflating the money supply, however, is not so much that it will directly cause any specific bubble but that enables and exacerbates bubbles in general.

      In the same paper, in fact, Bernanke attributes some 31 percent of the U.S. housing boom to capital inflows from emerging markets (read China et al.). He dismisses monetary responsibility for this by saying that loose money generally reduces capital inflows. The flood of money into our housing market from export-oriented countries, however, was not only not deterred by low interest rates, it likely would not have existed on such a scale but for the consumption artificially stimulated by loose monetary (and fiscal) policy.

      Stronger regulation to restrict the government from further politically motivated efforts to manipulate credit markets, would be good but I don't think that's exactly what Congress is proposing. In the meantime, isn't it dangerous enough to allow the government to spend irresponsibly without also giving it the power to set interest rates?

    2. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Today's federal congress and executive office are like chronic habitual spenders with no regard for the nation's overdrawn credit. Their attitude is "we'll just rob Paul to pay Peter while at the same time greatly reducing tax payers' disposable income". Such situations are justifiable grounds for dissolution of any union. States would be within their constitutional right to divorce themselves from such irresponsible governance. It's a matter of these states' economic survival.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.