Almost every day, we learn of yet another greedy US corporate chief executive who conspired with accountants, lawyers, and investment bankers to defraud the investing public. But beyond the scandals, the public should be more aware of the erratic nature of today's financial markets. Exchange rates and stock market prices deviate enormously from long-run fundamental values, which can cause major dislocations in the real economy of jobs, production, and investment. And yet the financial analysts that discuss these trends in the media have failed to assess them realistically.
Take the case of the US dollar, whose value against the Euro is now plummeting. From the mid-1990s until very recently, the dollar strengthened sharply against European currencies. When the Euro was introduced in January 1999, it traded at US$1.17. It then steadily lost value, bottoming out at around US$0.83, before climbing back in recent days to near-parity with the dollar.
For academic economists, the Euro's recent rise is no surprise. Currency exchange rates have a tendency to return to long-run average values following large deviations. Thus, the enormous strength of the dollar in recent years implied an eventual reversal. That reversal is now underway.
Of course, if two economies have persistently different rates of inflation, then the exchange rate between their currencies will not tend to return to its historic level. But US and European inflation rates have been roughly the same. It is also possible that the exchange rate will not return to the long-run average if one economy is hit by a huge structural change. But such changes occur less frequently than is often supposed or alleged. The past, if interpreted with care, therefore remains a good guide to the future.
Listening to the financial pundits, however, it often seems that history no longer matters. When the dollar strengthened against the Euro after 1999, the investment analysts came up with one explanation after another for why the trend would continue. They hailed the strength of the US economy, bemoaned the alleged weaknesses of the European economy, and claimed that the Euro was mismanaged. In short, they over-interpreted short-term market movements, simplistically portraying them as long-term trends.
Unfortunately, financial analysts are usually poorly trained in economics. Their job is to say something clever for the television cameras. They do not trade on fundamental information, but on the latest gossip and fads. Of course, if such fads are common, and if they do not last forever, a smart investor can profit handsomely from them, say, by selling the dollar short in recent months.
Some investors do succeed at this, but it is tougher than it sounds. As the great British economist John Maynard Keynes warned seventy-five years ago, "markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." In other words, even if you know that the dollar will eventually fall, you could go bankrupt before you can prove your case if everyone else continues betting that it will rise.
So it is often safer to run with the crowd, even if you think the crowd is running in the wrong direction. For the same reason, Keynes famously described the stock market as a beauty contest in which each judge chooses not the most beautiful contestant according to his own views, but rather the contestant that he believes will be chosen by the other judges!
Indeed, when US equity prices reached astronomical levels in the late 1990s, the pundits and investment bankers trotted out their silly explanations and theories. We now know that some of those explanations were deliberately fraudulent. Many brokerages sought to boost investment banking fees from companies whose shares they pushed on an unwitting public. But more generally, the pundits simply ran with the crowd. As equity prices soared, they invented theories to justify the rise. Deeper analysis would have told them instead that the rise would be short-lived.
A few analysts got it right. Economist Robert Schiller of Yale explained very clearly and at book length why US equity prices would fall. Leading economic columnist Martin Wolf of the Financial Times distinguished himself again by warning, stubbornly and correctly, that the US stock market would eventually reverse to more normal historical levels.
But the real economic costs imposed by the crowd mentality have been high. The excessive boom of the US stock market led to over-investment in the US and a subsequent US recession when the bubble finally burst. The strength of the dollar has similarly distorted investment decisions, and the same kinds of exaggerated swings in exchange rates in emerging markets have contributed to the boom-bust cycles in Asia and Latin America in the past five years.
So what should be done? Clearly, the leading investment banks should become much more serious about training and licensing their analysts to provide knowledge rather than nonsense in their public pronouncements. The responsible media should scrutinize economic trends critically, rather than pandering to mass opinion. And academic economists should be more steadfast in explaining how financial market prices reflect fundamental economic values, even if this is not necessarily true in the short term. Finally, tightened financial market regulation could perhaps slow some of the hot-money flows that exaggerate the booms and busts. Alas, Keynes stressed these same deficiencies long ago, so we should not expect any miraculous changes in behavior now. Investor, beware!
Jeffrey D. Sachs is Galen L. Stone Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for International Development at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS