Join the Community

22,158
Expert opinions
44,204
Total members
426
New members (last 30 days)
206
New opinions (last 30 days)
28,722
Total comments

It works in practise - BUT - does it work in theory?

This was the famous statement - allegedly by Chrusjtjov viewing a combined harvester demo at a sovhos.

It came to my mind when reading the often so eminent Economist - now the "Modern Economy Theory" July 18th article. Without going into any interesting detail  on this or on the rebutting views by Robert Lucas (Aug 6th) I think that we have ample evidence from past runs that most markets - especially financial ones - from time to time lose their sense.  Run hysterically high - only to fall into total depression - hardly any price is low enough and hardly any partner strong enough. There are many - almost too obvious - levers driving things exponentially in either direction - in the free fall phase destroying value for shareholders and taxpayers on an astronomical scale. Should it not now be clear that:

1. Mark to market is an absolute must for trading. It should not be necessary to say that trading is a very important activitity - but that position sizes should be restricted to capital deployed. The value of widespread liquidity created by trading can hardly be overstated - even if it disappears in crisis situations.

2. No mandatory mark to market for loans - irrespective of instrument used. We have seen examples of how investment-banking-encouraged and regulator-adopted mark to market practises have destroyed banks on a large scale - tax payers lose big time in the fire sales - and smart actors pick up spoils.

3. Disappearance of liquidity phenomenas should be an assumption - and investment portfolio carriers should have a much larger part of their funding assured than has been the case before.

Building theories is fascinating and useful - but we should not blame theorists for not foreseeing also-before-by-practioners-seen consequences of overheated markets. Incentive systems are sometimes leeding to even faster value destruction and begs the question if analysts are up to speed - or who they serve by - too frequently -  not looking beyond the next quarter.

External

This content is provided by an external author without editing by Finextra. It expresses the views and opinions of the author.

Join the Community

22,158
Expert opinions
44,204
Total members
426
New members (last 30 days)
206
New opinions (last 30 days)
28,722
Total comments

Now Hiring