FORTUNE -- When it comes to financial crisis bogeymen, Alan Greenspan is often thought of as public enemy, let's say, No. 3.
He may not conjure the same ire as too-big-to-fail bank CEOs, but there are few public figures whose reputation was damaged more by the 2008 financial crisis. Critics from the left assailed him for his overconfidence in the self-regulating power of free markets, while hard-money advocates on the right argued that he fueled the real estate bubble by keeping interest rates too low following the bursting of the dotcom bubble in 2001.
But as economists begin to examine these criticisms, it's becoming increasingly clear that Greenspan can be acquitted of at least the second charge. Sure, there are risks to keeping interests rates too low -- chief among them inflation. But do low interest rates really inflate asset bubbles? According to a paper published Tuesday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, no, they don't.
Researchers studied stock prices from the 1960s up until the financial crisis to determine how they responded to increases in short-term interest rates by the Fed. The result? After short-lived declines in stock prices, values actually rose in the long term.
This makes sense on a conceptual level, if the Federal Reserve is executing its monetary policy decisions as it should. After all, the Federal Reserve should be reacting to economic conditions on the ground rather than acting as the leading cause for why asset prices rise or fall. So, if the Fed raises rates, it's doing so because it has evidence that the economy is growing quickly, that resources are growing increasingly scarce, and that inflation is a concern. All of these factors, all else being equal, would cause stock prices to rise. While news that the Fed is raising rates may cause stocks to temporarily decline in value (because higher interest rates reduce the present value of future income), the overall economic conditions that led the Fed to make the decision to raise rates will continue, in the long run, to drive share prices higher.
The same logic holds when the Fed lowers rates. Cheaper money will cause stock prices to rise, but it can't overcome the many other factors that may be depressing stock values at a given time.
The evidence presented in the NBER paper applies to monetary policy today. Critics of the Fed's stimulative bond-buying efforts often claim that it is stoking asset bubbles in markets as diverse as farm land to tech stocks. But would these assets still look bubble-like to some eyes absent Fed actions? We simply don't know.
The attitude the Fed is taking so far seems to be, "If there isn't widespread inflation, why assume that monetary policy is the reason certain asset prices look expensive?" Charles Evans, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and an FOMC member, has articulated this vision forcefully in recent years. In a 2009 speech, he said:
I agree that the severity of the recent crisis argues against simply waiting and mopping up after the fact if and when the prices of some assets do collapse. But the type of proactive response by a central bank that I envision is not well captured by the expression "leaning against a bubble." I prefer to see policy reacting to apparent exuberance in asset markets and the problematic risk exposure this could create, rather than initiating action out of a strong conviction that these particular assets are overvalued.
In other words, just because we're more aware of the risks that asset bubbles pose, that doesn't make us any more competent in spotting asset bubbles in real time. Furthermore, since monetary policy is a blunt tool that affects the entire economy, it makes little sense to use it as a means to burst bubbles in specific markets. The Fed can use its regulatory powers to help make sure bubbles don't arise, but as much as hard-money folks may want it to be otherwise, it doesn't appear that low interest rates are their cause.
The former Fed chair's take on equity-risk premiums is seriously flawed.
By Shawn Tully, senior editor-at-large
FORTUNE--On CNBC's Squawk Box on June 6, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan made two points in uncharacteristically clear, blunt language that got Wall Street buzzing. Appearing over a Chyron billing him as "The Maestro of the Markets," Greenspan came close to declaring that bonds are in a bubble. "Bond prices have to fall and long-term rates MOREJun 19, 2013 10:46 AM ET
From consumer spending to business investments, it seems nothing is the same this time around.
FORTUNE – It's hard to pinpoint exactly what has continued to hamper the U.S. economy. Economists and the media have popularly adopted the term "The Great Recession" to describe all that's gone wrong since the housing market collapsed several years ago, implying that Americans have just come out of a typical recession that, if anything, was MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Aug 30, 2011 11:39 AM ET
Why Ben Bernanke may come to regret his decision to make the Federal Reserve more transparent.
I'm all in favor of us plain old citizens getting some idea of what our government is doing. But I've got a really bad feeling about Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's plan to make the Fed more "transparent" by holding four news conferences a year. It sounds great, but I think Bernanke will come to regret MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Mar 29, 2011 5:00 AM ET
The U.S. consumer is under attack and the bullish case for equities is becoming less and less defensible.
By Howard Penney, Hedgeye
The rose-tinted view that has driven the S&P 500 to current levels is becoming more and more difficult to justify. As uncertainty around the Middle East mounts, highly significant factors behind the global economy, such as oil, are becoming more and more of a concern for investors. The revolution sweeping MOREMar 11, 2011 10:59 AM ET
We didn't fix the major problems that led to the financial meltdown that produced the "Great Recession," obliterating millions of jobs and dreams. Will next year bring new hope for effective financial reform?
I've performed a painful annual ritual ever since I began writing a column about 20 years ago: re-reading my work for the year, and telling you, my audience, about things I got wrong and things I wish I'd MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Dec 28, 2010 8:34 AM ET
The erstwhile presidential candidate and soon to be head of Congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve talks gold, jobs and the presidency with Fortune.
If there's anything to be said about U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, he sure is persistent. And lately, that inner flame that's helped him gain the reputation for sometimes being the "G.O.P. loner" appears to be paying off.
The soft-spoken obstetrician has represented the 14th District of Texas on MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Dec 14, 2010 11:48 AM ET
The Maestro still believes in Ayn Rand.
Let the free market play. If it messes up, it will somehow know how to correct itself.
That was the general theme former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan trumpeted this morning at the Council of Foreign Relations. The former chairman, who ran the Fed from 1987 to 2006, said government should basically get out of the way and let markets and businesses drive the recovery.
Today MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Sep 15, 2010 11:48 AM ET
If Alan Greenspan hadn't existed, bankers looking to deny their role in the financial crisis would have had to invent him.
Goldman Sachs executives testifying Tuesday before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said they don't believe the firm contributed to the collapse of the financial system two years ago. It was one of the few questions to which they supplied unequivocal answers.
"We did not cause the financial crisis," managing director MOREColin Barr - Apr 27, 2010 3:25 PM ET
|5 people you might not tip (but should)|
|General Mills reverses course on right to sue after backlash|
|Pope Francis challenges the free market - The Buzz|
|Stocks: It's report card time on Wall Street|
|Americans have fallen in love with real estate once again|