In fact, this strategy is known as the Greenspan put, in reference to interest rate reductions in the aftermaths of severe financial turmoil, such as the stock exchange downfall of 1987, the collapse of LTCM in 1998, or the technological stocks in the early 2000s. 7 In fact, from the standpoint of liquidity provision and potential downward pressures on inflation, a reduction in interest rates is generally recommended. The problem is that this response provides an incentive to adopting more risk-prone behavior, since investors perceive that they will have the put option available later. Therefore, it is advisable to not only provide the liquidity, but also carefully monitor the market’s operation to prevent overexposure to these risks in the future. Indeed it can be argued that bubbles are difficult to identify. For example, Gürkaynak (2005) finds that, for every work identifying a bubble, there is another one finding the opposite. At the same time, it is not so clear how much of a given bubble can be affected by raising the interest rate and the necessary magnitude of the adjustment in order to make any difference, because, by definition, a bubble is determined by “non-fundamental” price movements. Thus, although after seeing the critical situation that developed financial markets have been enduring, a more proactive monetary policy strategy might have been advisable, but it is hard to believe that such a strategy could have averted this crisis by itself.
Vergara, R. (2003). “El Dinero Como Indicador de Política Monetaria en Chile”. Cuadernos de Economía 40(121): 707-715. 8  BIS Review 150/2008