Sorry, stopping the next crash is impossible
The boom-and-bust cycle is here to stay, and there is no certain way to determine whether prices are really in a bubble or not until the bubble bursts.
By John Aziz, The Week
Robert Shiller, who shared 2013's Nobel Prize for Economics, is worried about the financial system and wants to see measures taken to prevent future crashes:
"Just as most people are more interested in stories about fires than they are in the chemistry of fire retardants, they are more interested in stories about financial crashes than they are in the measures needed to prevent them. That is not a recipe for a happy ending." [Project Syndicate]
But are financial crashes really preventable? I don't think so. The world is just too unpredictable.
First off, changes to the price of assets are very hard to foresee -- their value is not just based on what people think they are worth today, but what people believe other people will think they are worth in the future. It's as messy as it sounds.
Second, there are all kinds of uncontrollable and unpredictable events -- like wars, terrorism, droughts, hurricanes, pandemics, technological and scientific discoveries -- that can completely change investors' perceptions and precipitate a financial crash or a financial boom. Preventing every financial crash or burst asset bubble would mean preventing all of these kinds of shocks.
Beyond that, investors don't all interpret events in the same way. If inflation rises, many investors today would interpret that as an exciting sign that the economy is recovering. Other investors might interpret it as a dangerous sign that central banks' unconventional monetary policies are starting to harm the economy.
But, surely, some crashes are preventable? After all, lots of economists and financial pundits -- including Robert Shiller -- successfully predicted the housing bubble last decade. If Congress and the Federal Reserve had been listening to Shiller and others who warned of a housing bubble, could they have prevented the financial crisis by deflating the housing bubble?
Well, there is no certain way to determine whether prices are really in a bubble or not until the bubble bursts. Sometimes a price rise -- like the rising value of land in cities like New York, Chicago or London, or shares in Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT) and Google (GOOG) -- will hold for a very long time.
Sometimes a price rise -- like dutch tulip bulbs, shares in Enron, or Beanie Babies -- will collapse quickly and disastrously. And many of the pundits who correctly identified the housing bubble whiffed the aftermath. Pundits like Peter Schiff and Marc Faber got the call right on the housing bubble, but have since warned about bubbles in the stock market, in treasury bonds, and in the dollar itself. Identifying bubbles is hard, if not impossible to do consistently.
And on a practical note, who in the government would be in charge of making the call?
Should it be the Fed? The last time the Federal Reserve tried to tighten to deflate a perceived bubble, it actually sparked a financial crash. This was in 1929, the year of the great Wall Street Crash that led to the Great Depression.
What about Congress? Given how it's acted in the past, I am dubious that it would make the difficult decisions necessary to prevent a crash, even if it could. While many blame Congress for inflating the housing bubble last decade, the laws that Congress made that led to the risky government-backed subprime lending didn’t emerge from nowhere. They were in response to massive lobbying by the financial industry, which was looking for easy profit, and constituents who wanted help to become homeowners. If politicians don't make the laws people want, they get voted out. So it’s hard to expect lawmakers to not make laws that are widely demanded by lots of different groups of people just because of the future possibility of an economic bubble and financial crash.
But these examples are pretty moot: Even if the Fed had acted correctly in the lead up to 2008 or if Congress had not backed subprime lending, there's no guarantee there wouldn’t have been a similar bubble and a financial crash. Why?
As the mid-20th century economist Hyman Minsky put it, stability is destabilizing. The American economy experienced a period of relative stability from the end of stagflation in the early 1980s until the 2008 financial crash. Ben Bernanke called this period The Great Moderation. But how do people react to a stable world? Very often, they become more tolerant of risky behavior.
During the Great Moderation, the financial industry began to make riskier loans at higher leverage ratios, with lower deposits, and even to individuals with no income and no job or assets (NINJAs). And risk-takers began hiding the risks by selling the future income from these risky loans on as asset-backed securities. Financial regulations like Glass-Steagall that separated publicly-guaranteed depository banks from investment banks -- and which may have been partially responsible for the relative financial stability between the Great Depression and the 2008 recession -- were repealed. Politicians were convinced by the financial industry, and by the long period of relative stability that such curbs on risk-taking were no longer necessary. The long period of stability destabilized the system by making politicians and the financial world more risk-tolerant. Successful regulations became victims of their own success. Stability is destabilizing.
Ultimately, I think we need to move beyond the impossible dream of preventing financial crises before they occur. Laws to prevent theft, fraud, intentionally misleading investors, and gambling with other people’s money or with an implicit guarantee (like Glass-Steagall) are prudent regulations. But they do not eliminate booms and busts. Booms and busts are normal behavior in markets, because the future is so hard to predict and people are so unpredictable.
In the long run, I think policy must focus on being more responsive to the booms and busts of the market by minimizing real world damage as problems occur. This means more firefighting -- to prevent damagingly excessive unemployment or a deflationary spiral following a financial crisis. That may not be as clean and satisfying as making the problem go away altogether. But if the problem of financial crashes is inherent to financial markets -- which it certainly appears to be -- making it go away altogether is not an option.
More from The Week
- Is the government helping or hurting savers?
- Japan shouldn't be buying America's bourbon industry
- The five most common career mistakes
I think this article is off the mark. Describing the period 1980 - 2008 as a period of great stability which caused banks and people to take mroe and more risky behavior is way off the mark. During that period there were 2 legislative episodes of financial deregulation which helped fuel the massive risk taking and bad lending. The first was the Reagan-led de-regulation of the Savings & Loan industry which collapsed that banking sector, required a big bailout and led up to the Recession of 1989-92. The 2nd was the Clinton-led de-regulation which eliminated the Glass-Steagall act and allowed big banks to gamble recklessly with depositors' money, causing a huge bailout, the massive Crash of 2008 ---- (we are still in it in many ways as jobs have yet to recover).
The period of Stability that actually promoted growth and prosperity that we should be celebrating and emulating is the post-war period 1948 - 79. During that period, Depression-era regulations on banks remained in place. Savings & Loans made modest car and home loans. Glass-Steagall kept big investment banks in check, wage income was more evenly distributed - promoting a stronger middle class, and the economy grew .... until it hit the stag-flation of the mid-1970s (partly caused by the Vietnam War). Paul Volcker cured stag-flation with Fed actions. But Reaganomics launched Congress into a de-regulatory frenzy that Clinton echoed and that got us into the mess we are in today. Dems and Repubs both responsible.
six years of Obama and all we talk about is the next crash - how accurate!!!
All he has done is bad for America -
1. multimillion dollar vacations.
2. further divided race relations
4. has further grid-locked Congress
7. National debt is now approaching $20 Trillion
8. gross increase in food stamps, WIC, etc.
9. transparent administration - you MUST be kidding!!
Obama = the worst president in American history.
To regulate or not to regulate, that is the question.
For many years I bought into the Greenspan philosophy that big government regulations were holding the market and economy back from it's full potential. This ideology made sense and Rush Limbaugh confirmed my beliefs daily. So one by one we deregulated the banks and the markets, sub prime loans gave banks more flexibility in lending decisions, the repeal of Glass steagle would make American Banks more competitive on the world markets and deregulation of derivatives would healthy and fuel foreign investment in America. Greenspan believed that banks would self regulate and not give loans that weren't in their self interest.
Well we were wrong, the failure of deregulation is an axiom, greed is more powerful than common sense, trillions were made by giving out bad loans, foreign investors fueled the madness by buying every Mortgage Backed Security in site and banks showed no regard for the end game because they were now to big to fail.
The next time someone says deregulation is the way to go, you know what to tell them.
You said "And on a practical note, who in the government would be in charge of making the call" then you asked "Should it be the Fed?"
So my question to you is, do you realize that the Federal Reserve has absolutely nothing to do with the government of the USA - it is a group of private bankers, trusted and supported by all financial organizations. In fact it is trusted so much that the currency it prints is legal tender everywhere in the USA. The Federal Reserve is controlling the economy, and the government has very little influence.
Busts don't worry me... It's a bust that causes our deficit to spiral out of control. All this "slapping on a band-aid" every month isn't stopping the leak. Even if our economy survives and we go back to business as usual, that isn't going to magically erase our debt which is roughly 28k per infant child adult in this country. That correlates to about 85k per family. Imagine adding 85k in credit card debt to each family in America. Any Tom Dick or Sally can understand that it's not a pretty picture. Especially when we aren't cutting that price, only raising it. The interest on that alone is frightening. The stock market right now is so over bloated with Fed QE's, each of us are wondering constantly... Stay in it and make more? or Pull out now while I'm ahead?? Anyone notice how gold bottomed out about 5 months ago, yet stocks have surged since then?? Gold should have kept sinking, but didn't. So what to do now....? That's the big question. The fed is continuing to pump 75 Bill a mo into the economy for a while. Is that enough anymore??? Maybe, maybe not
How can the next crash not come? Housing prices are back to pre-recession levels while unemployment is still over 6.5% How in the world did prices increase as fast as they did? Stocks are at all time highs despite a lot of companies not making record profits. In fact the Christmas shopping season was a huge bust considerably below analyst expectations which tells me people either aren't spending money or they don't have money to spend. Seeing how we aren't seeing a huge rise in savings account deposits I would say there just isn't the money out there we are led to believe there is. So the market is due for a correction (a real correction this time about 25 - 30% drop) and the housing market needs another correction as well.
Just because Apple or Google posts a hefty profit doesn't mean every company with publicly traded stock needs to increase its value 2% that day. But that's how investing in the market today works.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
4 analysts downgrade the stock the day after a disappointing quarterly report.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.
Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.
Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.