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

Franklin, Benjamin: A Letter To A Friend in London

Tell our good friend, Dr. Prince, not to be in any pains for us, (because I remember he had his doubts) we are all firm and united. As I know he is a great calculator I will give him some data to work upon: ministry [England's colonial ministry] have made a campaign here, which has cost two millions, they have gained a mile of ground; they have lost half of it back again, they have lost fifteen hundred men, and killed one hundred and fifty Yankees. In the meantime we have had between sixty and seventy thousand children born. Ask him how long it will take for England to conquer America? - Benjamin Franklin, 1774    

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...

Mises, Ludwig Von: On Inaction

 “The vigorous man industriously striving for the improvement of his condition acts neither more nor less than the lethargic man who sluggishly takes things as they come.  For to do nothing and to be idle are also action, they too determine the course of events.  Wherever the conditions for human interference are present, man acts no matter whether he interferes or refrains from interfering.  He who endures what he could change acts no less than he who interferes in order to attain another result.  A man who abstains from influencing the operation of physiological and instinctive factors which he could influence also acts.  Action is not only doing but no less omitting to do what possibly could be done. We may say that action is the manifestation of a man’s will.  But this would not add to our knowledge.  For the term will means nothing else than man’s faculty to choose between different states of affairs, to prefer one, to set aside the other, an...