Skip to main content

Market Capitulation

Markets capitulate when all policy options run out, and it becomes clear that a definite new policy direction must be undertaken. We are getting quite close to that point in the current market volatility. As various commentators take the economic temperature after their return from some agreeable foreign holiday, it is becoming clear that we are close to a major failure of confidence. The inter-bank market is beginning to freeze again, and the implications are plain: banks are finding it ever more difficult to finance themselves, and governments and central banks are running out of options to support them.

Clearly governments are finding it more and more difficult to get their sums to add up, as the nascent economic recovery stalls. However, perhaps paradoxically, the failure of confidence may end up reducing uncertainty: it will be clear that the crisis continues, and that therefore the policy prescriptions will be clearer too. In other words, I think we are on course for a classic market capitulation.

Equity markets, after the August debacle, are indeed looking relatively attractive, yet there is still the lurking problem of the banks: buying the market at the moment leaves you exposed to what are very likely to be further losses in that sector. So, selective purchases of good quality non financials? That is certainly worth considering- it all depends on the collateral damage from the next fall.

Market capitulation is tricky to manage, even if you expect it to happen.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...