Why do some technologies lead to speculation while others do not? Why were there speculative bubbles in stocks of early radio producers and broadcasters, “aeroplane” manufacturers and airlines, internet storefronts, electronics producers, electric automobile manufacturers, and transcontinental railroads, but not in the stocks of producers of lasers, northeastern railroads, antibiotics, nylon, rayon, cellophane, or televisions? Our proposed work aims to rectify an important methodological flaw in current studies of speculative crises: one cannot identify the causes of bubbles by examining a single case, nor can one identify bubbles based on an analysis of bubbles throughout history. Instead, one must look at cases where there were, and were not bubbles. Identifying causal factors requires (i) a sampling strategy that encompasses episodes of financial euphoria and periods of relative calm and (ii) the identification of assets that are at similar risk of sparking such speculative episodes. In this paper, we develop an inventory of technological innovations that ex post were revealed to be of substantial economic importance. Our initial findings are that bubbles appear under four important conditions. First, consistent with prior research (see esp. Kindleberger, 2005), there must be easy access to credit. Bubbles are rare when interest rates are high. Second, as argued extensively in the financial economics and the economics literature generally, assets that serve as foci of speculative behavior possess high levels of commercial and technological uncertainty (cf., Baker & Wurgler, 2007). The results we observe are consistent with the theoretical finding that uncertain opportunities may warrant high prices due to their high opt... ... middle of paper ... ...ar press, or through existing historical accounts. Through our pilot study, we have demonstrated variance in the formation of asset bubbles surrounding the introduction of significant new technologies. While we find general support for our predictions, the current stage of this work is rudimentary: much work is left to be done. In addition to contributing to an important stream of research, this research has broad implications for public and private policy makers. The pervasive influence of asset bubbles on resource allocation suggests the need for increased understanding of the causes of these episodes. While entrepreneurs and investors may wish to exploit this knowledge to more effectively mobilize capital in support of innovation, regulators and other public authorities need to understand and monitor the mechanisms that can lead to destructive financial events.
Just as the great depression, a booming economy had been experienced before the global financial crisis. The economy was growing at a faster rtae bwteen 2001 and 2007 than in any other period in the last 30 years (wade 2008 p23). An vast amount of subprime mortgages were the backbone to the financial collapse, among several other underlying issues. As with the great depression, there would be a number of factors that caused such a devastating economic
The stock market expanded rapidly during the period of 1921-1929. At this time investors were optimistic about the stock market, so they traded stocks, which caused the stock prices to rise. The stock market boom led to asset prices rising at a fast pace. Which in turn outweighed the true value of the assets. Eventually, since the stock market did not reflect the true value of the stock, this led to a huge bubble followed by a crash. This crash is also known as the Great Depression that led to a severe economic crisis in the United States.
It made benchmark interest rate remains low. Then the excess liquidity made the asset bubble. Finally, the burst of asset bubble thumped the financial system. (Pierpaolo,B and Woodford,M, 2003)
Housing is the most instable component. It gave a new perspective for research that economists did not have. In the Great Recession the housing decreased more than anything. From 1997 to 2005 a momentum (the rate of acceleration of a security's price or volume, Investopedia) was driven. In 1997 no more capital gains taxes on houses up to half million dollars. The Bubble started in 1991.
However, prior to 2008, nearly everyone was blind to their impending doom; investors, bankers, government regulators, the general population, and even the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, a man who was considered the economic guru, was fooled into believing the prosperity America had been enjoying would last for the foreseeable future (“Rethinking” 20). By this time there had been only mild economic downturns or, at most, short periods of turmoil. Financial institutions and large corporations have grown accustomed to the decades of economic prosperity resulting from the post-war economic boom, long forgetting the lessons learned from the Great Depression (“Rethinking” 20). In fact, economists concluded that America had entered a new era of calm.
It is often said that perception outweighs reality and that is often the view of the stock market. News that a certain stock may be on the rise can set off a buying spree, while a tip that one may be on decline might entice people to sell. The fact that no one really knows what is going to happen one way or the other is inconsequential. John Kenneth Galbraith uses the concept of speculation as a major theme in his book The Great Crash 1929. Galbraith’s portrayal of the market before the crash focuses largely on massive speculation of overvalued stocks which were inevitably going to topple and take the wealth of the shareholders down with it. After all, the prices could not continue to go up forever. Widespread speculation was no doubt a major player in the crash, but many other factors were in play as well. While the speculation argument has some merit, the reasons for the collapse and its lasting effects had many moving parts that cannot be explained so simply.
The United States signaled a new era after the end of World War I. It was an era of hopefulness when many people invested their money that was under the mattresses at home or in the bank into the stock market. People migrated to the prosperous cities with the hopes of finding much better life. In the 1920s, the stock market reputation did not appear to be a risky investment, until 1929.First noticeable in 1925, the stock market prices began to rise as more people invested their money. During 1925 and 1926, the stock prices vacillated but in 1927, it had an upward trend. The stock market boom had started by 1928. The stock market was no longer a long-term investment because the boom changed the investor’s way of thinking (“The Stock Market Crash of 1929”). The Stock Market Crash of 1929 was a mass hysteria because of people investing without any prior knowledge and the after effects that eventually led to the Great Depression.
Cabral, R. (2013). A perspective on the symptoms and causes of the financial crisis. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37, 103-117
] This catastrophic event is caused by the accumulation of a large scale of speculation by not only investors but also banks and institutions in the stock market. Though the unemployment rate was climbing during the 1920s and economy was not looking good, people on Wall Street were not affected by the depressing news. The optimism spread from Wall Street to small investors and they were investing with the money they don’t have, which is investing on margin as high as 90%. When the speculative bubble burst, people lost everything including houses and pensions. The main reason ...
The "subprime crises" was one of the most significant financial events since the Great Depression and definitely left a mark upon the country as we remain upon a steady path towards recovering fully. The financial crisis of 2008, became a defining moment within the infrastructure of the US financial system and its need for restructuring. One of the main moments that alerted the global economy of our declining state was the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on Sunday, September 14, 2008 and after this the economy began spreading as companies and individuals were struggling to find a way around this crisis. (Murphy, 2008) The US banking sector was first hit with a crisis amongst liquidity and declining world stock markets as well. The subprime mortgage crisis was characterized by a decrease within the housing market due to excessive individuals and corporate debt along with risky lending and borrowing practices. Over time, the market apparently began displaying more weaknesses as the global financial system was being affected. With this being said, this brings into question about who is actually to assume blame for this financial fiasco. It is extremely hard to just assign blame to one individual party as there were many different factors at work here. This paper will analyze how the stakeholders created a financial disaster and did nothing to prevent it as the credit rating agencies created an amount of turmoil due to their unethical decisions and costly mistakes.
When subprime mortgages began to flourish, the term housing bubble came into existence. The term relates to the time in which houses sharply increased in value, and consumers often borrowed at less than the lowest rates. People believed that the price of their homes would rise and they could then refinance for lower payments. The problem with that mentality is many people didn’t just refinance for lower payments, they also refinanced for personal spending. Inflation of home prices meant homeowners suddenly had more equity and were able to spend the money as they chose.
Kosakowski, Paul. "The Fall of the Market in the Fall of 2008." Investopedia. N.p., 09 Apr. 2009. Web. 08 May 2014.
According to Perold (2004), ‘CAPM can be served as a benchmark for understanding the capital market phenomena that cause asset prices and investor behavior to deviate from the prescript...
bust to boom: [LONDON 1ST EDITION]. Financial Times, April 8, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed May 13, 2011).
One reason is that many successful investment ventures itself is the outcome of these ‘irrationality’. Risk-taking, which is inevitable in investment, may contribute to the investors’ better performance than others, while with the assistance of proper training, assessment accuracy can be increased(Palich and Ray Bagby, 1995). Also, if without precedent, most of the newly-invented value-maximising approaches or strategy of investment ought to be considered as crude and unthoughtful, but in reality, they are regarded as innovation(Busenitz and Barney, 1997). Furthermore, there are evidence shows that instead of being the hindrance of correct investment decision-making, those biases and heuristics are backed up by probabilistic information. Accurate statistical probability can be evaluated by our inductive reasoning mechanism with a relatively high possibility(Cosmides and Tooby,