Skip to main content

Paul Johnson on Wild Credit Fuelled Speculation 1928-29

From the beginning of 1928 the element of unreality, of fantasy indeed, began to grow.

As Bagehot put it, 'All people are most credulous when they are most happy.'

The number of shares changing hands, a record of 567,990,875 in 1927, went to 920,550,032.


Two new and sinister elements emerged: a vast increase in margin-trading and a rash of hastily cobbled-together investment trusts.

Traditionally, stocks were valued at about ten times earnings.

With high margin-trading, earnings on shares, only 1 or 2 percent, were far less than the 8-12 percent interest on loans used to buy them.

This meant that any profits were in capital gains alone.

Thus Radio Corporation of America, which had never paid a dividend at all, went form 85 to 420 points in 1928.

By 1929 some stocks were selling at fifty times earnings.

As one expert put it, the market was 'discounting not merely the future but the hereafter'.

A market-boom based on capital gains is merely a form of pyramid-selling.

The new investment trusts, which by the end of 1928 were emerging at the rate of one a day, were archetypal inverted pyramids.

They had what was called 'high leverage' through their own supposedly shrewd investments and secured, and secured phenomenal growth on the basis of a very small plith of real growth.

Thus the United Founders Corporation was built up into a company with nominal resources of $686,165,000 from an original investment (by a bankrupt) of a mere $500.

The 1929 market value of another investment trust was over a billion dollars, but its chief asset was an electric company worth only $6 million in 1921. 

They were supposed to enable the 'little man' to get 'piece of the action'.

In fact they merely provided an additional superstructure of almost pure speculation, and the 'high leverage' worked in reverse once the market broke.


Degringolade, Modern Times,

Paul Johnson

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Lee Kwan Yew: On Maintaining a Strong Economy and Defence

Without a strong economy, there can be no strong defence.  Without a strong defence, there will be no Singapore.  It will become a satellite cowed and intimidated by its neighbours.  To maintain a strong economy and a strong defence all on a narrow base of a small island with over four million people, the government must be led by the ablest, most dedicated and toughest.  The task will become more complex as a more educated and confident electorate believe that Singapore has created a sturdy base and need not be as vulnerable as before.  What will never change is that only the best can lead and secure such a Singapore. We need a sturdy, strong and capable SAF, not only to defend Singapore but return blow for blow when necessary.  If we do not have this strong SAF, we are vulnerable to all kinds of pressure, from both Malaysia and Indonesia.  To have such an SAF, we need a robust economy that is not easily put off-course by external shocks.  The ec...

Word of the Day: Countenance

1a : look, expression … a countenance which expressed both good humor and intelligence …— Sir Walter Scott b : mental composure … startled, and also somewhat out of countenance.— Arnold Bennett c : calm expression He managed to keep his countenance through the ordeal. 2 : face, visage especially : the face as an indication of mood, emotion, or character The photograph showed his somber countenance. 3 : bearing or expression that offers approval or sanction : moral support … her countenance of their unsafe amusements …— Jane Austen

Warren Buffet: On Protecting Reputation, Ethics and Cleaning up Spills Promptly

 The priority is that all of us continue to zealously guard Berkshire's reputation. We can't be perfect but we can try to be. As i've said in these memos for more than 25 years: "We can afford to lose money - even a lot of money. But we can't afford to lose reputation - even a shred of reputation." We must continue to measure every act against not only what is legal but also what we would be happy to have written about on the front page of a national newspaper in an article written by an unfriendly but intelligent reporter. Sometimes your associates will say "Everybody else is doing it." It is totally unacceptable when evaluating a moral decision. Whenever somebody offers that phrase as a rationale, in effect they are saying that they can't come up with a *good* reason. If anyone gives this explanation, tell them to try using it with a reporter or a judge and see how far it gets them.     If you see anything whose propriety or legality causes you...