Rating: 3.8
Bookmark
Save as PDF
Print
Email
Blog It
Stumble It!
Digg It
The Panic of '08: What made investors run for the exits?
"In a few months, I expect to see the stock market much higher than today," Irving Fisher, America's most illustrious economist, predicted in the middle of October 1929. Two weeks later, the Dow Jones index fell by 23 percent over two days.
Fisher's renown was swiftly shredded -- as is the image of latterday oracles who defended the low central bank interest rates, the easy lending and complex financial derivatives blamed for the stocks wreck of October 2008.
Underpinning the faith of these economic wizards is the doctrine of equilibrium -- that the market is a neat, self-balancing machine driven by hard-and-fast "fundamentals."
It says investors make rational choices on buying or selling stocks according to reliable information about corporate performance, macro-economic news and so on that point to potential risks and profit. A stock thus attains a natural balance, based on its true value.
But many researchers say the equilibrium theory falls badly short of explaining the Wall Street Crash of '29, just as it cannot account for the selloff of '08, or indeed any stock boom-and-bust.
In frenzied times, lack of confidence in the sacred data and primeval fears of unquantifiable risk combine with the innate human survival instinct, creating an effect best described in three words: Sell. Sell. Sell.
"What has unleashed the crisis is .. an overall lack of trust in what organisations say," Thierry Libaert, scientific director of International Crisis Watch, a French think tank, told AFP.
In times of deep mistrust, a stampede can be triggered by a small event, he said.
"For instance, if tomorrow some people start to form a queue outside a bank, that can prompt a rush by everyone, especially if the TV cameras show the lines on the evening news."
Robert Zarader, an economist at a Paris consultancy, Equancy, said that for many investors, the financial sector had become a fearful Pandora's Box.
They found it impossible to weigh risks, given masses of interlinked transactions among banks that remained to be unravelled, he said.
"Irrationality is playing a big role in the crisis. There's a feeling that no one's in charge and the known problems are just the tip of the iceberg."
Didier Sornette, a physicist by training who is professor of entrepreneurial risks at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), said the imitative "herd" reflex was rooted in Darwinian survival and was not necessarily irrational.
"Biology has made us evolve as survival machines," he said. "You can get useful information by looking at what your neighbours are doing."
For instance, students taking a difficult exam may peek over their shoulder to see what their neighbour is writing, in the belief that he or she has a better reply, he said.
Flocking among traders, analysts and fund managers also bore responsibility for today's market woes, creating a dangerous culture of mono-thought, said Sornette.
"In the same way that a husband and wife start to look similar after a while, traders who are constantly in contact with each other and talking about the market start to behave similarly," he said.
"Analysts and fund managers also tend to herd to a very significant degree, firstly by the way they collect information, but also because it's better to be wrong with the herd than to be right alone," he said.
"You'd rather be wrong most of the time together, because that way you can say, 'everyone's like me'. If you are wrong alone, then you are killed, you lose your job."
Another intangible factor noted by experts in behavioural finance is social feedback.
Word of mouth, phone calls and email exchanges among small groups of investors who coordinate their actions, sometimes on the basis of mere rumour, can have a domino effect when the market is chronically unstable.
A study published in March by a French physicist, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, and colleagues at Capital Fund Management in Paris poured cold water on the idea that stocks jump in response to news reports, which under the equilibrium doctrine are a key datastream.
The team looked at the news feeds from the Dow Jones and Reuters newswires from August 2004 to August 2006 and compared this to the movements of 893 US stocks.
News items about a stock did not cause prices to become big or volatile, they found. In fact, the opposite occurred: news tended on average to be followed by lower volatility level.
So what caused the big, abrupt movements?
"Volatility is much too high to be explained only by changes in fundamentals," Bouchaud's study said. "The volatility process itself is random."
© 2008 AFP
It says investors make rational choices on buying or selling stocks according to reliable information about corporate performance, macro-economic news and so on that point to potential risks and profit. A stock thus attains a natural balance, based on its true value.
But many researchers say the equilibrium theory falls badly short of explaining the Wall Street Crash of '29, just as it cannot account for the selloff of '08, or indeed any stock boom-and-bust.
In frenzied times, lack of confidence in the sacred data and primeval fears of unquantifiable risk combine with the innate human survival instinct, creating an effect best described in three words: Sell. Sell. Sell.
"What has unleashed the crisis is .. an overall lack of trust in what organisations say," Thierry Libaert, scientific director of International Crisis Watch, a French think tank, told AFP.
In times of deep mistrust, a stampede can be triggered by a small event, he said.
"For instance, if tomorrow some people start to form a queue outside a bank, that can prompt a rush by everyone, especially if the TV cameras show the lines on the evening news."
Robert Zarader, an economist at a Paris consultancy, Equancy, said that for many investors, the financial sector had become a fearful Pandora's Box.
They found it impossible to weigh risks, given masses of interlinked transactions among banks that remained to be unravelled, he said.
"Irrationality is playing a big role in the crisis. There's a feeling that no one's in charge and the known problems are just the tip of the iceberg."
Didier Sornette, a physicist by training who is professor of entrepreneurial risks at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), said the imitative "herd" reflex was rooted in Darwinian survival and was not necessarily irrational.
"Biology has made us evolve as survival machines," he said. "You can get useful information by looking at what your neighbours are doing."
For instance, students taking a difficult exam may peek over their shoulder to see what their neighbour is writing, in the belief that he or she has a better reply, he said.
"In the same way that a husband and wife start to look similar after a while, traders who are constantly in contact with each other and talking about the market start to behave similarly," he said.
"Analysts and fund managers also tend to herd to a very significant degree, firstly by the way they collect information, but also because it's better to be wrong with the herd than to be right alone," he said.
"You'd rather be wrong most of the time together, because that way you can say, 'everyone's like me'. If you are wrong alone, then you are killed, you lose your job."
Another intangible factor noted by experts in behavioural finance is social feedback.
Word of mouth, phone calls and email exchanges among small groups of investors who coordinate their actions, sometimes on the basis of mere rumour, can have a domino effect when the market is chronically unstable.
A study published in March by a French physicist, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, and colleagues at Capital Fund Management in Paris poured cold water on the idea that stocks jump in response to news reports, which under the equilibrium doctrine are a key datastream.
The team looked at the news feeds from the Dow Jones and Reuters newswires from August 2004 to August 2006 and compared this to the movements of 893 US stocks.
News items about a stock did not cause prices to become big or volatile, they found. In fact, the opposite occurred: news tended on average to be followed by lower volatility level.
So what caused the big, abrupt movements?
"Volatility is much too high to be explained only by changes in fundamentals," Bouchaud's study said. "The volatility process itself is random."
© 2008 AFP
» Next Article in General Science - Other: Nobel Prize winner Dr. George Palade dies at 95
Video
Editorials
Free Magazines
Free White Papers
Newsletter
Advanced Search
Goto Archive
Suggest a story idea
Send feedback
If seemingly healthy companies and banks can blow up tomorrow you can't borrow to anyone, not even over night.
Until there's transparency money will keep flowing into treasury bonds and other investments that are equivalent to sticking money into a giant matress.