David Merkel is an investment professional, and like every investment professional, he makes mistakes. David encourages you to do your own independent "due diligence" on any idea that he talks about, because he could be wrong. Nothing written here, at RealMoney, Wall Street All-Stars, or anywhere else David may write is an invitation to buy or sell any particular security; at most, David is handing out educated guesses as to what the markets may do. David is fond of saying, "The markets always find a new way to make a fool out of you," and so he encourages caution in investing. Risk control wins the game in the long run, not bold moves. Even the best strategies of the past fail, sometimes spectacularly, when you least expect it. David is not immune to that, so please understand that any past success of his will be probably be followed by failures. Also, though David runs Aleph Investments, LLC, this blog is not a part of that business. This blog exists to educate investors, and give something back. It is not intended as advertisement for Aleph Investments; David is not soliciting business through it. When David, or a client of David's has an interest in a security mentioned, full disclosure will be given, as has been past practice for all that David does on the web. Disclosure is the breakfast of champions. Additionally, David may occasionally write about accounting, actuarial, insurance, and tax topics, but nothing written here, at RealMoney, or anywhere else is meant to be formal "advice" in those areas. Consult a reputable professional in those areas to get personal, tailored advice that meets the specialized needs that David can have no knowledge of.
When produce is in season, both the quality and quantity is high due to favorable growing conditions.
When financial products are “in season,” the quantity is high because of good liquidity but the quality is low because good liquidity doesn’t improve the availability of good investments, so marginal and even fraudulent opportunities get funded.
In the first case, both quality and quantity depend on the producer, and the consumer has more or less constant demand. In the second, the producer (borrower) has a more or less constant array of products (investment opportunities) available but the amount of money available for investment is highly variable.
Because high issuance and shifts in the demand curve go hand-in-hand, whether you want to call it central bank incompetence, animal spirits, reflexivity, or whatever. Now will you please leave me alone so I can eat my apple?
Because one is a real product in a real market and the other is a fraudulent product in a fabricated market.
George Cooper discusses this at length in his fantastic book: The Origin of Financial Crises.
Specifically he notes that:
“Frequently in asset markets demand does not stimulate supply, rather a lack of supply stimulates demand. Equally price rises can signal a lack of supply thereby generating additional demand, or, conversely, price falls can signal a glut of supply triggering reduced demand.”
More to the point, perhaps:
“The critical difference between markets for goods and those for assets is how the markets respond to shifting prices, or equivalently shifting demand. In the goods market higher (lower) prices trigger lower (higher) demand; in the asset market higher (lower) prices trigger higher (lower) demand. One market is a stable equilibrium-seeking system and the other habitually prone to boom-bust cycles, with no equilibrium state.”
Marking assets to market creates additional collateral that can be used to back credit expansion. This credit is often used to buy still more assets, driving up prices and creating even more collateral. We have an inflationary spiral for asset prices…a bubble. In reverse you have debt deflation.
This has devastating implications for efficient market theory and, consequently, for central banking policy that rejects the notion that asset bubbles exist….
is there a thing called an ‘orange bubble’?
This is a good question–related to the issue of why people want to sell stocks when prices are lower and buy them when prices are higher. I think it relates to the fact that financial instruments are not bought to be consumed, and they are not viewed as being perishable. No one would say, “I’m buying these carrots today because the price will be higher tomorrow and I will sell them back to the grocery store.”
When we force asset prices into the paradigm of goods prices all sorts of anomalies will pop up. How we deal with them will determine our outlook.
Maybe to piece together what others have been saying, one is an organic process, whereas the other is not. When an asset is in demand, and the price is well in excess of the cost of creating it (be it high multiples paid to book, or whatever), capital floods to the area to earn quick returns… but with less than rigorous quality control.
What does this say about Central American countries? All my winter produce seems to be from Mexico or Guatamala…
Financial assets may be of low quality but they do not “spoil” in the sense that the passge of time leads to physical deterioration.
The costs of storing financial assets are virtually zero.
That means that value-oriented investors will buy up under-priced financial assets with the intention of selling them for more in the future.
Fruits and vegetables cannot be stored for long and even what storage is possible is also costly.
So, we don’t often see people buying them in the hope of selling them for more 6 or 12 months hence.
Industrial commodities (e.g. crude oil) and some grains are in an intermediate category.
Fruits and vegetables are not storable so their prices