“ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME CIRCUMSTANCES.” I continue my debate with myself on how much to blame the bankers. Sir Howard Davies in an article in the Financial Times for October 1, writes that: “These are highly unusual, once-in-a-lifetime circumstances, and it is not reasonable to expect that all financial institutions could have positioned themselves to survive market conditions of this severity.” His recognition of how unusual the situation is appears to support the view that I should not blame the bankers. But his phrasing calls attention to the fact that there are financial institutions all over the world that did not take the risks that the banks we are reading about took. Because they didn’t, we haven’t heard as much about them.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). (2)
- Dick Weisfelder: My prior comment was just in the context of sports. Whether or not from Pinker, I have seen the...
- erik: It seems doubtful that human nature has changed. The most likely explanation would be that modern culture gives...
- HOW BANKS PREPARED FOR A U.S. DEFAULT. (2)
- GREECE’S ADVANTAGE IN THE CHICKEN GAME. (2)
- Nick: That makes sense. It reminds me of the stories Pater Familias would tell me about how in Boston the person with...
- Dick Weisfelder: Greece seems to me to be playing a game that Karl Deutsch called “underdog.” While one...
- FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS? (3)
- Nick: It was my understanding that boxing gloves were to protect the puncher’s hands and not the...
- Dick Weisfelder: Remember the Roman arenas? Bare knuckled boxing? Such injuries were taken as natural and accepted in...
- Mary Jane Schaefer: This isn’t about football. Or even sportsmanship. Well, it is about sportsmanship. But what...
- A 25 % CHANCE OF A EURO DEFAULT? (1)
- Nick: The fact that this has gone on for so long is pretty perplexing. The Economist is referring back to articles it...
- DECIDING WHAT KIND OF PATIENT YOU ARE. (1)
- Dick Weisfelder: One can be very open to new technology, but also risk averse. The recent debates about how to...
- THE EUROZONE—A CHICKEN GAME WHERE EVERY MEMBER CAN BLOW IT UP? (1)
- Mary Jane Schaefer: This is not a matter of chicken. These are all turkeys.
- ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). (2)
Meta
Crashes are not unprecedented — not at all. The S and L crash occurred only 20 years ago. If we included the dot com crash and the batch of Enron-type accounting frauds, we would have four crashes in those twenty years; hardly once-in-a-lifetime. Should those crashes be included? I don’t remember much fraud in the dot-com bubble, and the Enron scandals don’t seem as widespread as the 1988 and 2008 scandals. Perhaps one could start to classify crashes. Some, such as the OPEC-generated problems, don’t seem to be due to moral hazard. Some accounting frauds, such as the kinds Abraham Briloff used to point out, are not as easily replicated as the 1988 and 2008 frauds and so not as widespread. Another feature of big crashes is excessive leverage for many enterprises. A subcategory is the placing of the same large bet by many firms. This feature — failure to recognize a lack of diversification — might be unusually significant here, but basically the people placing these bets did a lousy job of risk management. I’m also impressed by this remark: “If you’re too big to fail, you’re too big.” Elmer
Pingback: TOO INVOLVED TO FAIL? | Pater Familias
Pingback: WE WERE HERE TEN YEARS AGO (COMMENT). | Pater Familias
Pingback: ANSWERING YESTERDAY’S QUESTION. | Pater Familias