Slashdot Mirror


Greenspan Tells Congress Bad Data Hurt Wall Street

CWmike writes "Former Reserve Bank chairman Alan Greenspan has long praised technology as a tool to limit risks in financial markets. In 2005, he said better risk scoring by high-performance computing made it possible for lenders to extend credit to subprime borrowers. But today Greenspan told Congress that the data fed into financial systems was often a case of garbage in, garbage out. Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, told the committee that bad code led the credit rating agencies to give AAA ratings to mortgage-backed securities that didn't deserve them. Explaining in his testimony what failed, Cox noted a 2004 decision to rely on the computer models for assessing risks — a decision that essentially outsourced regulatory duties to Wall Street firms themselves."

4 of 496 comments (clear)

  1. bad code or bad summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary says bad 'code' led the credit rating agencies to give incorrect scores. The article doesn't say anything about code. It says bad data was responsible.

  2. Re:Outsourcing Their Decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    That comment proves your ignorance of this matter.

    Libertarians did not 'want' a lowered interest rate or deregulation of the fundamentally corrupt banking system. Libertarians want NO socialized banking which means NO federal reserve which means NO federal control of interest rates.

    This whole mess is a failure of socialist banking policy NOT capitalism or free market ideas. The banking system in America is NOT free market and has not been free market since 1913 (The Federal Reserve Act).

    But please continue to let ignorance be your guide...

  3. What the hell are you talking about? by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Informative

    This whole mess is a failure of socialist banking policy NOT capitalism or free market ideas. The banking system in America is NOT free market and has not been free market since 1913 (The Federal Reserve Act).

    What the hell are you talking about?

    Don't blame the CRA, it only prohibited red-lining (denying a loan based on geographic area rather than individual credit rating), and only applied to banks, not independent mortgage companies.

    Don't blame Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac either. They weren't the ones making the loans.

    The government didn't force these independent mortgage firms to push sub-prime loans, along with predatory rate structures, at high credit risks, nor did anybody force private investment firms to snatch up securitized mortgage bundles made from them.

    Nobody forced the financial institutions to horribly over-leverage their assets on incomprehensibly complex securities

    Ironically, it was the repeal of the section of the Glass-Steagall Act (passed in response to the depression) which strictly separated banks from securities firms (to help assure the stability of banks) which exacerbated this mess and resulted in such massive failures.

    TLDR version:
    Deregulation under the notion the "free market" and "competition" would result produce stability allowed financial officers to engage in horrendous risks (pursuing increased revenue like any company should).

    The federal reserve and FDIC are the unsung saving grace of this crisis. Without the guarantees on deposits, main street would have long ago run the banks, resulting in economic devastation which would have made the depression look like a quiet, happy picnic.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:What the hell are you talking about? by rohan972 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In an unregulated market fractional reserve lending should be prosecuted as fraud. It is fractional reserve lending that is the root cause of the collapse in the money supply. This is entirely due to government regulation. Fiat money precludes the possibility of a free market and even with an ostensibly gold backed currency is in reality a fiat currency if the government allows fractional reserve lending.

      As I've said before, I'm not against people financing the operations of others for profit, but they shouldn't be allowed to inject fictional currency into the money supply to do so. Only with government interference in the market or criminal activity is this possible.