A history of the past 40 years in financial crises
Markets, despite their collective expertise, are apparently destined to repeat history as irrational exuberance is followed by an equally irrational despair.Periodic bouts of chaos are the inevitable result.
To see the digital version of this report, please
click here.
To purchase printed copies or a PDF of this report, please email
gloria.balbastro@thomsonreuters.com.
Financial crises have been an unfortunate part of the industry since its beginnings. Bankers and financiers readily admit that in a business so large, so global and so complex, it is naive to think such events can ever be avoided. A look at a number of financial crises over the last 30 years suggests a high degree of commonality: excessive exuberance, poor regulatory oversight, dodgy accounting, herd mentalities and, in many cases, a sense of infallibility.
William Rhodes has been involved in the industry for more than 50 years and has lived through nearly every modern-day financial crisis, many of which are detailed in his book, “Banker to the World”. As he puts it, there is a common theme of countries and markets wanting to believe that they are different and that they are not as connected to the rest of the world’s economy. In his view, many aspects of the Latin American debt crisis of 1982 have been repeated a number of times and there is much from this crisis that we can apply to what is currently happening in Europe and beyond.
LatAm sovereign debt crisis – 1982
This crisis developed when Latin American countries, which had been gorging on cheap foreign debt for years, suddenly realised they could not repay it. The main culprits, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, borrowed money for development and infrastructure programmes. Their economies were booming, and banks were happy to provide loans to the point where Latin American debt quadrupled in seven years. When the world’s economy went into recession in the late 1970s the problem compounded itself. Interest rates on bond payments rose while Latin American currencies plummeted. The crisis officially kicked off in August 1982 when Mexico’s finance minister Jesus Silva-Herzog said the country could not pay its bills.
It took years to sort out the crisis, with Latin American nations eventually turning to the IMF for a bailout in exchange for pro-market reforms and austerity programmes. It also led in 1989 to the novel creation of Brady bonds, which were designed to reduce debt in these countries by converting distressed sovereign debt into a number of different types of bonds. Furthermore, banks could exchange claims on these debts for tradable assets, which enabled them to get the debt off their balance sheets.
Rhodes recalls it as a tense period, but says that strong political leadership enabled them to get through the crisis. He laments, however, that the lessons of the crisis weren’t heeded.
“Time and again, be it in the Asian crisis or the eurozone crisis, we have seen how governments have failed to draw lessons from the Latin American crisis,” he said. “They have repeatedly taken the view that their countries and regions are different and unique and, therefore events in other parts of the world cannot provide any relevant lessons for them.
“And yet key developments seen in the Latin American crisis – the dangers of contagion, the need for urgent and bold political leadership, the risks of over-leveraged banks – have been characteristics of every sovereign debt crisis since then.”
Savings and loans crisis – 1980s
While the solution to the Latin American crisis was being put together, a domestic one was happening right in front of the US regulators. The so-called savings and loans crisis took place throughout the 1980s and even into the early 1990s, when more than 700 savings and loan associations in the US went bust.
These institutions were lending long term at fixed rates using short-term money. As interest rates rose, many became insolvent. But thanks to a steady stream of deregulation under President Ronald Reagan, many firms were able to use accounting gimmicks to make them appear solvent. In a sense, many of them resembled Ponzi schemes.
The government responded with a set of regulations called the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989. While the act tightened up the rules on S&Ls, it also gave Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae more responsibility for supporting mortgages for lower-income individuals.
Someone who remembers the savings and loan crisis all too well is William Black. During the 1980s he served as litigation director for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. He was instrumental in the investigation into one of the most notorious S&L villains, Charles Keating, who infamously sent a memo saying he wanted Black dead.
In Black’s view, the act didn’t go nearly far enough and in many ways contributed to the continuation and expansion of predatory lending that would ultimately become a huge factor in the 2008 financial crisis.
“The credit crisis is a continuation of the savings and loan crisis,” he said. “It’s not that they did nothing about it, it’s that they undid everything that worked. They could have thought, ‘we’ve seen this before, this is bad, this is disastrous’ and we had regulations that worked and could have reinstalled.”
When asked why the government’s solution to the S&L crisis was to some degree to regulate the industry even less, and why people such as Keating maintain that excessive regulation was the cause of the S&L crisis, he says: “One is ideology. They hate government involvement of any kind. Second, imagine yourself answering the … question of why did none of you get this right? You’re 55 years-old, are you going to say, ‘sorry, everything I’ve ever said and written and worked on is false? And everything I’ve said created a criminogenic environment? And by the way, I have no useful skills’? Maybe one in 1,000 would say that, but it’s not likely.”
Stock market crash – 1987
Despite the shock of the savings and loans crisis, two more crises took place before the 1989 Act. The most memorable was the 1987 stock market crash. On what became known as Black Monday, global stock markets crashed, including in the US, where the Dow Jones index lost 508 points or 23% of its value. The causes are still debated. Much blame has been placed on the growth of programme trading, where computers were executing a high number of trades in rapid fashion. Many were programmed to sell as prices dropped, creating something of a self-inflicted crash.
Roger Ibbotson, a finance professor at Yale University and chairman of Zebra Capital, has written extensively about the crash. He recalls teaching a class when it was happening, and every few minutes a new student would drop in to his class saying the market had hit another low.
“The whole week was chaos,” he said. “The futures market was a mess, but you could actually make good money if you were up for some risk. A lot of people tried to set up brokerage accounts to take advantage of some of the valuations.”
Yet one of the oddest parts of such a significant crash, he recalls, was how little effect it seemed to have. It was ultimately a short-lived event. The market continued to fall into November, but by December it was up and it ended the year positively. Ibbotson says things basically just went back to normal. A few changes were made, notably the introduction of circuit breakers that could halt trading, but apart from that, many people just shrugged and went back to making money.
Junk bond crash – 1989
Next up was the 1989 junk bond collapse, which resulted in a significant recession in the US. There is some disagreement as to what caused it, but most point to the collapse of the US$6.75bn buyout of UAL as the main trigger. Others point to the Ohio Mattress fiasco, a deal that would become known as “burning bed” and remains widely considered to be among the worst deals in modern finance. The culmination of the crash is considered to be the collapse of Drexel Burnham Lambert, which was forced into bankruptcy in early 1990, largely due to its heavy involvement in junk bonds. At one point it had been the fifth-largest investment bank in the US.
Ted Truman, now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, was then director of the international finance division at the Federal Reserve. He remembers the crisis as having similar undertones to the more recent financial and sovereign debt crises, where banks were underwater and the government had to bail out various institutions to avert further problems.
“You essentially had at the same time the last phase of the S&L crisis,” Truman said. “To some degree this was the mop-up phase. There is a view out there that any time there is a rescue, it encourages people to take risks. That’s the moral hazard issue. But I think that’s a little unfair because most people who get rescued pay a high price in the process. The system is rescued not the perpetrators. Reputations are besmirched.”
Tequila crisis – 1994
In 1994 a sudden devaluation of the Mexican peso triggered what would become known as the Tequila crisis, which would become a massive interest rate crisis and result in a bond rout. Analysts regard the crisis as being triggered by a reversal in economic policy in Mexico, whereby the new president, Ernesto Zedillo, removed the tight currency controls his predecessor had put in place. While the controls had established a degree of market stability, they had also put an enormous strain on Mexico’s finances.
Prior to Zedillo, banks had been lending large amounts of money at very low rates. With a rebellion in the poor southern state of Chiapas adding to Mexico’s risk premium, the peso’s value fell by nearly 50% in one week.
The US government stepped in with a US$50bn bailout in the form of loan guarantees. Yields on Mexican debt shot up to 11%, and capital markets activity ground to a halt not only in Mexico but across the entire region, especially in Argentina – where yields went as high as 20%. It also hit markets across the developed world.
Eventually, the Mexican peso stabilised and the country’s economy returned to growth. Three years later it was able to repay all of its US Treasury loans.
Martin Egan, global head of primary markets and origination at BNP Paribas, as well as the firm’s UK head of fixed income, says that of the moments of crises he has experienced, this one sticks out particularly strongly.
“1994 is still quite vivid. Numerous rate increases including a 0.75 basis point upward movement on November 16 as the Fed attempted to control inflationary pressures resulted in a dramatic collapse of market activity,” Egan said.
“If you look at what happens now, sensitivity to rate changes is always around and markets like to have visibility. Back then we knew rates needed to go up, but the speed and swiftness of the move derailed the market for a long time and we saw a dramatic collapse in volumes, and serious strains in the financial system.
“Confidence started to rebuild eventually, but it was brutal because it dragged the markets into an awfully defensive mode. It was one of the most problematic years ever in fixed income. It was a reminder to all participants that this is the real world and the real economy at stake.”
Asia crisis – 1997 to 1998
More than 15 years after the Latin American debt crisis of 1982, history would indeed repeat itself in Asia. In July 1997 Thailand’s currency, the baht, collapsed when the government was forced into floating it on the open market. The country owed a huge amount of debt to foreign entities that it couldn’t pay even before the currency plummeted. Similarly to what was experienced in Latin America in the 1980s and present-day Europe, the crisis spread across the region, with South Korea, Indonesia, Laos, Hong Kong and Malaysia also affected. Rhodes says he spent considerable time warning Asian governments about the risks they faced, but that his concerns were largely ignored.
“I was told by the Asians: ‘We’re different from Latin America because we have Asian values and because we work harder and have a savings culture’,” Rhodes said. “But they were involved in the same practices of overlending to the consumer area and in real estate. There is a similar phenomenon in all of these crises, which is that people like to think they are different and that experiences elsewhere do not apply to them.”
The crisis certainly took many by surprise. Most Asian governments believed they had the right economic and spending policies in place, but nonetheless the crisis necessitated a US$40bn bailout by the IMF. Only one year later, in 1998, a nearly carbon-copy crisis happened in Russia.
Dotcom bubble – 1999 to 2000
Markets would yet again forget the lessons of the past in the dotcom bubble and subsequent crash in 2000. As in most crises, it was preceded by a bull rush into one sector. In this case it was technology and internet-related stocks. Individuals became millionaires overnight through companies such as eBay and Amazon. The hysteria reached such a pitch that the inconvenient fact that few of these companies made any money scarcely mattered. By 2000, however, the game was up. The economy had slowed and interest rate hikes had diluted the easy money that was propping up these companies. Many dotcoms went bust and were liquidated.
Kay Steffen, head of syndication and corporate broking at DZ Bank, was involved in bringing more than 80 of these companies to the market. He believes the dotcom crash was simply a case of a feeding frenzy that went out of control, and was a symptom of the market’s underlying irrationality.
“Everyone knew this was something that was not sustainable, but it’s not always easy to take that view and resist all the different groups that want in on the market,” he said. “I feel this is just the natural behaviour of people. We see this happen every few years in various market segments. We see it happening today in some bonds. People are looking for yield and if they see a 7% coupon they neglect what is behind it.”
Global financial crisis – 2007 to 2008
It was only a few years later that an even nastier crisis would hit the entire world’s financial markets. In many ways it has still has not ended, with the billions in losses and slowing global economy manifesting themselves in the current European sovereign debt crisis. It resulted in the collapse of a number of large financial institutions and is considered by many economists to be the worst crisis since the Great Depression. While the causes are numerous, the main trigger is considered to be the crash of the US housing market.
Jean-Pierre Mustier was at the forefront of the crisis as the head of Societe Generale’s corporate and investment bank, and had to manage the aftermath of rogue trader Jerome Kerviel’s €4.9bn trading losses. In his mind, the crisis has changed banking for the better, and he is a supporter of the new regulations as well as simpler business structures.
“To a certain extent, people became too dependent on models,” says Mustier, who is now head of CIB at UniCredit. “Suddenly, the crisis showed that you should not rely on models only and more on common sense. What you do has to be connected to reality. I think the combination of the Basel III approach and leverage ratio is actually a good thing, but I also think the lesson we learned is, let’s use our common sense and not blindly accept models.”
Lessons learnt?
Is financial history destined to repeat itself? It would appear to be something of a result of the way markets function. A boom creates excessive interest and lofty prices. The ensuing crash results in “never-again” style regulations, only for another crisis to pop up, sometimes as soon as the next year. Most recently, the world has had to cope with the European sovereign debt crisis, a problem that never seems able to go away entirely and seems to get worse with each ensuing multi-billion dollar bailout.
Rhodes argues that many of these incidents are avoidable, but in many ways what is more important is how they are resolved. Above all, he sees strong political leadership as one of the most crucial elements, along with a competent plan that the populace will understand as being good in the long term.
“One of the things that is clear in all of the crises is that strong leadership is crucial,” he says. “To take some international examples, such as Brazil in 1994, South Korea in 1998 and Turkey in 2001, the heads of state and finance ministers sold their programmes to their citizens saying that while these included tough measures, they were well planned and would lead to growth – and they did. This kind of leadership is missing in Europe.”
10. The Oil Crisis of 1973
Gas lines. Really long gas lines. In October 1973, the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OAPEC (consisting of the Arab members of OPEC plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo “in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur war.” Essentially, OAPEC declared it would no longer ship oil to the United States if they supported Israel in the conflict. Independently, the OPEC members agreed to use their leverage over the world price-setting mechanism for oil in order to stabilize their real incomes by raising world oil prices. This action followed several years of steep income declines after the end of the Bretton Woods (which took the U.S dollar off of the gold standard, ending up devaluing the dollar worldwide), as well as the failure of negotiations with the “Seven Sisters” (the seven biggest oil companies) earlier in the month. Without question, the “oil shock” of 1973 showed the potential power of Third World energy suppliers in dealing with the “developed world,” and made the Middle East an area of primary world focus that remains to this day.
9. Panic of 1837
This is the first “Panic” on the list, but certainly not the last. These “Panics” are named after the first year each started; for this one, it began in 1837 when every bank stopped payment in gold and silver coinage (after a run on the banks due to the closure of the Second Bank of the United States). What made this one so frustrating was just two years earlier, the government was able to pay off the national debt (the Treasury’s coffers were stuffed from government sales of land in the West). The Panic of 1837 was followed by a five-year depression, and included a large number of bank failures, the bursting of a real estate bubble (sound familiar?), and record-high unemployment levels.
8. Kennedy Slide (1962)
When President John Kennedy took office in January 1961, the stock market had been on a steady rise that began in the late 1940s. In fact, many spoke of the “soaring Sixties,” believing that the bull market would last. It didn’t. The bear market that began in December 1961 caused a 22.5% drop in the S&P 500 by June 1962. The name “Kennedy Slide” comes from the fact that many blame this bear market on Kennedy’s domestic difficulties in getting legislation through Congress, as well as his foreign policy difficulties (read: Bay of Pigs).
7. 2001-2002 Recession
In 1999, the growing use of high-speed internet by individuals and businesses meant that if you had “dot com” at the end of your business name, you didn’t need no stinkin’ business plan. Get a catchy name and the venture capital would follow, and you’d make a ton of money on the IPO. That was, of course, until potential investors started demanding silly things like actual business models. Beginning in March 2000, the stock market began wising up, and the “dot com bubble” fully burst in 2001. Ultimately, this wiped out a whopping $5 trillion in market value of technology companies from March 2000 to October 2002. What made this recession go deeper were the massive layoffs and “jobless recovery” in the time after the attacks of September 11, 2001. What stopped it? The dropping interest rates and freely available credit that fueled the housing bubble of the 2000s – see number 2 on this list.
6. Panic of 1819
Our second “Panic” of the list, this was the first major financial crisis faced by the United States (although the previously-mentioned Panic of 1837 was the first actual financial depression, technically speaking), and marked the end of the economic expansion that had followed the War of 1812. There are different schools of thought as to what caused this Panic. Some say it was simply the first “boom and bust” cycle experienced by a young country, and was inevitable. Others refuse that explanation, taking the position that it was a combination of inflation and public debt (from the War of 1812 and the Louisiana Purchase). No matter which school is right, one thing was for sure – whatever caused it made a gigantic mess. Banks throughout the United States failed; scores of home mortgages were foreclosed and property values dropped. In addition, the falling commodity prices severely hurt agriculture and manufacturing, which had the effect of triggering widespread unemployment, which rose as high as 75% in some parts of the East Coast (to put this one statistic in perspective, the Great Depression’s peak unemployment rate was about 25%). The country did not recover from this one until 1824.
5. Panic of 1873
Sometimes called the “Crisis of the Gilded Age,” this Panic had much of its start in Europe, where cheap mortgages spurred a residential real estate bubble (what is it with these recurrent real estate bubbles??) that, as with all bubble bursts, did not end well. When the bubble did burst, bankers in London tightened their credit terms, which triggered a financial crisis in the United States. The European credit tightening meant trouble for U.S. banks, which were already overextended because of the many speculative loans that had been made to railroads and railroad-related real estate. As a result, more than 10,000 businesses failed, and the U.S. endured a three-year financial depression.
4. The Bankers’ Panic of 1907
The Bankers’ Panic of 1907 (also known as the “Knickerbocker Trust Panic”) began with the lack of regulation that culminated a severe Wall Street crash. A loss of confidence among bank depositers , combined with the retraction of market liquidity by a number of New York City banks, ended up resulting in a 50 percent drop in the stock market from where it had been in 1906. To put the effect of this one in perspective, just remember that this Panic was the reason that the Federal Reserve and the modern system of financial regulations were created. Some would argue that, 100 years later, we did not learn from the lack of regulation of financial markets and “creative” financing vehicles.
3. Panic of 1893
This Panic was the worst economic crisis in American history to that point (and you’ve seen all the previous Panics listed already, so this is really saying something). Some argue that this was just a continuation of the Panic of 1873 (with the era being known as the “Long Depression”). However you look at it, there is no question that the 1880s had been a period of significant economic expansion, but it was driven heavily by speculative investment in railroads. In a nutshell, an ever-growing credit shortage created panic, which resulted in a depression. The result? 15,000 businesses, 600 banks, and 74 railroads failed. In addition, there were incredibly high levels of unemployment.
2. Mortgage Crisis of 2007
I think we’re all pretty familiar with this one, so let’s not over-discuss it just yet. It would be nice if this current crisis were not so high on the list. Let’s just hope it stays at number 2, eh?
1. Crash of 1929/Great Depression
This is the granddaddy of them all – the one that sent the entire world into financial crisis. The stock market crash of 1929 had several causes: an unbalanced world economy, European nations that were staggering under tremendous burdens of debts and taxes, and a speculation boom in the late 1920s that moved the prices of corporate stocks to levels ridiculously far above the real values. At the height of the Great Depression in 1933, 24.9% of the U.S. workforce (a total of 11,385,000 people), were unemployed. Moreover, even though farmers were not technically “unemployed,” the extreme drops in farm commodity prices resulted in farmers losing their farms and homes to foreclosure. Despite the efforts of the federal government through the New Deal, it wasn’t until World War II that the U.S. finally pulled out of this one. Many are comparing the current crisis to the Great Depression, but others say that we are nowhere near the troublesome Depression levels (such as unemployment). However, it can be noted that the 1929 Crash was preceded by the bursting of real estate bubbles in Florida and Southern California. You can draw your own conclusions.
Crisis in China:
Qing China's Internal Crisis: Land Shortage, Famine, Rural Poverty | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
Huh.US/China never experienced economical crisis,lol
