The sharp drop in the world's stock markets on Aug. 9, after BNP Paribas announced that it would freeze three of its funds, is just one more example of the markets' recent downward instability or asymmetry. That is, the markets have been more vulnerable to sudden large drops than they have been to sudden large increases. Daily stock price changes for the 100-business-day period ending Aug. 3 were unusually negatively skewed in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the US and the UK.
In the US, for example, the Standard and Poor's 500 index last month recorded six days of declines and only three days of increases amounting to more than 1 percent. In June, the index dropped more than 1 percent on four days, and gained more than 1 percent on two days. Going back further, there was a gigantic one-day drop on Feb. 27 this year, of 3.5 percent, and no sharp rebound.
The Feb. 27 decline began with an 8.8 percent one-day drop in the Shanghai Composite, following news that the Chinese government might tax capital gains more aggressively. This news should have been relevant only to China, but the drop there fueled declines worldwide. For example, the Bovespa in Brazil fell 6.6 percent on Feb. 27, and the BSE 30 in India fell 4 percent the next day. The subsequent recovery was slow and incremental.
In the US, the skew has been so negative only three other times since 1960: at the time of the 6.7 percent drop on May 28, 1962, the record-shattering 20.5 percent plummet on Oct. 19, 1987 and the 6.1 percent decline on Oct. 13, 1989.
Stock markets' unusually negative skew is not inconsistent with booming price growth in recent years. The markets have broken all-time records, come close to doing so, or at least done very well since 2003 ( the case in Japan) by making up for the big drops incrementally, in a succession of smaller increases.
Nor is the negative skew inconsistent with the fact that world stock markets have been relatively quiet for most of this year. With the conspicuous exception of China and the less conspicuous exception of Australia, all have had low standard deviations of daily returns for the 100-business-day period ending Aug. 3 when compared with the norm for the country.
The Feb. 27 drop in US stock prices was only the 31st biggest one-day drop since 1950. But all of the other 30 drops occurred at times when stock prices were much more volatile. Thus, the Feb. 27 drop really stands out, as do other recent one-day drops.
Indeed, one of the big puzzles of the US stock market recently has been low price volatility since around 2004, amid the most volatile earnings growth ever seen. Five-year real earnings growth on the S&P 500 set an all-time record in the period ending in the first quarter of this year, at 192 percent. Before that, between the third quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2002, real S&P 500 earnings fell 55 percent -- the biggest-ever decline since the index was created in 1957.
One would think that market prices should be volatile as investors try to absorb what this earnings volatility means. But we have learned time and again that stock markets are driven more by psychology than by reasoning about fundamentals.
Is psychology somehow behind the pervasive negative skew in recent months? Maybe we should ask why the skew is so negative. Should we regard it as just chance, or, when combined with record-high prices, as a symptom of some instability?
The adage in the bull market of the 1920s was "one step down, two steps up, again and again." The updated adage for the recent bull market is "one big step down, then three little steps up, again and again," so far at least. No one is looking for a sudden surge, and market volatility is reduced by the absence of these sharp up-swing movements.
But big negative returns have an unfortunate psychological impact on markets. People still talk about Oct. 28, 1929, or Oct. 19, 1987. Big drops get their attention, and this primes some people to be attentive for them in the future, and to be ready to sell if another one comes.
In fact, willingness to support the market after a sudden drop may be declining. The "buy-on-dips stock market confidence index" that we compile at the Yale School of Management has been falling gradually since 2001, and has fallen especially far lately. The index is the share of people who answered "increase" to the question, "If the Dow dropped 3 percent tomorrow, I would guess that the day after tomorrow the Dow would: Increase? Decrease? Stay the Same?" In 2001, 72 percent of institutional investors and 74 percent of individual investors chose "increase." By May of this year, only 48 percent of institutional investors and 59 percent of individual investors chose "increase."
Perhaps the buy-on-dips confidence index has slipped lately because of negative news concerning credit markets, notably the US subprime mortgage market, which has increased anxiety about the fundamental soundness of the economy.
But something more may be at work. Everyone knows that markets have been booming, and everyone knows that other people know that a correction is always a possibility. So there may be an underlying sensitivity to price drops, which could fuel a succession of downward price changes, amplifying public concerns about problems in the economy and heralding a profound change in investor sentiment.
Robert Shiller is a professor of economics at Yale University, Chief Economist at MacroMarkets LLC, which he cofounded.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers