SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Perspective who wrote (36032)8/26/2005 4:42:03 PM
From: Knighty Tin  Respond to of 116555
 
BC, Not all bubbles are created equal. The stock bubble was not built on debt. Heck, the best stocks, most worthless companies, could not even be purchased on margin. Houses, on the other hand, are all purchased on huge margin.

But it's not big deal, as long as the bubble pops and I get rich in dollars which will then be no good. <G>



To: Perspective who wrote (36032)8/26/2005 5:04:18 PM
From: skinowski  Respond to of 116555
 
About bubbles... If you want to buy my house, I'll sell it to you, but I'll demand a very high price. Besides being driven by a normal desire to get paid as much as possible, I - the seller - will also worry about the fact that just about everyone who sold a house during the last few years was wrong - they sold too early. I will also worry that - if the bulls are right - I may never be able to buy another house... that I would get priced out of the market by the runaway boom.

So, I will demand a "premium" on the price.

As RE market keeps "proving" that the seller's concerns are justified, they will demand still higher prices. Eventually, the music will stop.

I may have felt somewhat similarly about selling you my QQQ's back in 1999.

The purpose of this exercise is to show that - apparently - in just about every bubble there must be a stage when prices experience a rapid acceleration, a blow off -- followed by an inevitable decline.

Along the same lines, on Wall Street, market makers and specialists at some point will get tired of selling into a rally - as the prices keep going higher. Eventually they will run out of inventory and will have to short into accelerating strength, which is painful. So, they will have prices go parabolic - and kill the rally.



To: Perspective who wrote (36032)8/26/2005 6:04:32 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
I disagree. Bubbles collapse all on their own. Tighter credit wasn't the primary motive force that burst the 2000 stock bubble; it collapsed under its own weight after consuming all available fuel to drive prices to unsustainable levels.

Housing may have exhausted its fuel: lower interest rates, increasing homeownership, and novel mortgage finance schemes.

BC


I believe that is essentially correct but that oil will be blamed for it.

Mish



To: Perspective who wrote (36032)8/26/2005 7:02:21 PM
From: skinowski  Respond to of 116555
 
Harding on bubbles and tulips....

BEING STREET SMART

by Sy Harding

IT'S TOO BAD HISTORY IS SO ELUSIVE! August 26, 2005.

Sometimes I wonder why we humans have such a difficult time learning from history. After all, there is a large amount of truth in the age-old warning that “Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.”

Yet generation after generation does repeat the mistakes of the past, over and over and over. We do it in our individual lives, not often willing to learn from the previous mistakes of others, preferring to first repeat them ourselves.

It certainly shows up in the history of nations. How many wars have been fought, unsuccessfully, all the way back to biblical times, to try to change the religious or political beliefs of another country through force?

The economic cycle has also repeated with remarkable consistency for hundreds of years, with the list of catalysts that produce the reversals not changing all that much. Yet each time we insist on ignoring history, either because we’re unaware of the history, or because we’re sure that this time will be different. But it never is.

The business cycle is pretty much controlled by changes in the supply/demand equation. Get too many buyers chasing a limited supply of Barbie dolls, baseball cards, beluga caviar, gold bullion, crude oil, stocks, or real estate, and their prices will soar. When something happens to either decrease the demand, or increase the supply, the prices decline.

Most often the change takes place in the form of a drop in demand rather than an increase in supply. Prices just get so high that buyers back off, or even begin to sell to take their profits (not only lessening the demand but adding to the supply).

Yet each time we insist that this time will be different.

A brief segment on a TV show last week may have provided a partial explanation, by indicating how quickly the facts of history disappear, fading into the hazy realm of dinosaurs.

High school seniors were quizzed regarding significant events that affected the lives of their parents and grandparents. Asked what the word Watergate recalled for them, not one answer was even close. Some thought it was the name of a 1980’s rock band. Others thought it was the name of a movie in the 1990s. Greenspan, Shock and Awe, and Kissinger, were placed in similar categories. Understandably, even recent history was ‘back then’. After all, they were just 10 years old five or six years ago.

Is it any wonder then that economic cycles, even market bubbles, seem like unique events each time they take place, that similarities to previous such events have become so lost in time that it’s easy to think this is different?

This is an appropriate time to be discussing bubbles. On Friday, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan issued his strongest warning yet that the current housing boom could end badly, saying, “Such increases in asset values are too often viewed by market participants as permanent. . . . . . but history has not dealt kindly with the aftermath of such protracted periods [of rising prices].”

It’s interesting that markets have been lofted into unsustainable bubbles much more often in the last 20 years than in previous eras. I don’t know what that says about the enthusiasm of the current generation. But we had the real estate bubble in the U.S. in 1989, the Japanese stock market bubble in 1990, the real estate and stock market bubbles in Asia in 1997, and the U.S. stock market bubble in 2000.

While they are underway, rationales are devised to make it reasonable that an Amazon.com, or Sun Microsystems, could be worth 200 times their annual earnings, or a house could be worth 30 times its annual rental value (versus the normal 10 times). But after the bubbles burst, the foolishness of the previous extreme of enthusiasm is readily recognized.

On that score, one of the most interesting bubbles in history was the Tulip Mania. The story began in 1559, when a handful of tulip bulbs were brought from Constantinople to Holland and Germany. People who saw the resulting flowers were fascinated. Tulips soon became a status symbol for the wealthy, not only because of their beauty, but because they were hard to get.

As demand rose, the prices of tulip bulbs soared. Speculators then got involved, not for the beauty of the flowers but for the money, and soon active trading of tulip bulbs and tulip futures began on the commodity exchanges. At the top of the bubble, a single tulip bulb was trading for the same price as two tons of butter, or in today’s dollars, roughly $35,000. People were selling everything they owned, even their homes, to come up with more money for a few more tulip bulbs.

At the time, it seemed to make sense. Supply would remain scarce, while demand would grow internationally. Of course in the financial collapse that followed, the truth regarding the true value of tulip bulbs became obvious.

Which brings up the question of whether anything has changed that makes a house worth double, or in some cases triple, its value of a few years ago, in spite of very low overall inflation. Could it be that as with most bubbles, the demand/supply equation got out of whack once speculators (who accounted for 23% of homes sold in 2004) got involved, aided by very creative financing by lenders (which incidentally may have put some home-buyers in harm’s way)?

Sy Harding is president of Asset Management Research Corp., DeLand, FL, publisher of The Street Smart Report Online at www.StreetSmartReport.com and author of 1999’s Riding The Bear – How To Prosper In the Coming Bear Market!

FOR MORE STREET SMART commentaries, charts, etc. click below on Home.

These reports reflect our opinions and are based on our best judgment, but no warranty is given or implied as to their accuracy. Past performance does not guarantee future performance.

Back to the Top Home