DOCSLIB.ORG

Black Monday Hit the Markets Exactly Thirty Years Ago And, on That Single Day, the Dow Lost Nearly a Quarter of Its Value

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Black Monday Hit the Markets Exactly Thirty Years Ago And, on That Single Day, the Dow Lost Nearly a Quarter of Its Value Black Monday hit the markets exactly thirty years ago and, on that single day, the Dow lost nearly a quarter of its value. Just how different are the markets now? The crash of October 19, 1987 is one of history’s This is extraordinary. Why did the worst one-day market great outliers. crash in history have no follow through? Americans woke up to this headline the next morning One reasonable theory credits the lack of government & in the New York Times: central bank intervention. Without Quantitative Easing, excessive interest rate cuts, or bailouts to cushion the fall, STOCKS PLUNGE 506 POINTS, A DROP OF 22.6% stocks rapidly found their new clearing prices. Investors 604 MILLION VOLUME NEARLY DOUBLES RECORD adjusted and we avoided a drawn-out bear market. And importantly, the recession that that many economists were “Stunned” doesn’t begin to describe the feeling on Wall calling for never came. Street. Stupefied is more accurate. By 1989, the market had fully recovered to new highs. Thirty years later, Black Monday still stands as the most It did so with minimal help from the Federal Reserve. volatile day in U.S. stock market history. Not even the Chairman Alan Greenspan cut interest rates just once, 2008 financial crisis came close to challenging its record. from 7.25% to 6.88%. The market’s biggest one-day loss during that period occurred on October 10, 2008. Markets panicked on news Amazingly, 1987 was a winning year for the stock market; that the bonds of bankrupt Lehman Brothers had sold for the Dow posted a 5.2% overall gain. Everyone knows just 8.6 cents on the dollar. Even so, the Dow lost “just” Black Monday was a historic crash. But many folks forget 7.9% that day. it was preceded by an equally historic rally. Dig deeper into the price action during October 1987 and The Dow had skyrocketed 40%+ to start the year. you’ll find even worse losses. In the nine days leading up So, unlike the 2001 and 2008 stock market crashes, to Black Monday, the market lost 11%. In total, the Dow 1987 didn’t wipe out years of gains. It merely completed dropped a nauseating 34% in just ten trading days. a yearlong roundtrip: But as painful as they were, these ten days were the Dow index on January 1st 1987: 1,927.31 entirety of the crash. Investors didn’t know it yet, but Dow index at its 1987 peak in August: 2,709.50 when the closing bell rang on the afternoon of Black Dow index on New Year’s Eve 1987: 1,938.83 Monday, the bear market was already over. The Dow never flirted with its Black Monday lows again. 1987 was an endlessly fascinating year. While 1987 was one of the most volatile years ever, 2017 is setting records in the opposite direction So far, this has been the quietest, most tranquil year ever for the stock market. The VIX, a popular measure of market volatility, sunk to all-time lows earlier this summer. Historically, October has been the stock market’s most volatile month. But October 2017 is on pace is to be the least volatile ever. Not the least volatile October ever… the least volatile month ever. Looking solely at price action, you might conclude that 1987 and 2017 have absolutely nothing in common. But, look beneath the surface and there are similarities worth exploring. The widespread use of “portfolio insurance” was a main reason the 1987 crash spiraled out of control. This practice involved selling futures and options as markets declined, to offset losses in stocks. Like many financial innovations, it was a great idea… until everyone started doing it. By 1987, most large institutions had computer programs instructed to “dynamically hedge” their portfolios. This means they sold more and more as the stock market declined. Their relentless selling largely caused the record-setting losses. Here’s how this ties back to today. Many Real Vision contributors have expressed concern over the unstoppable growth of passive ETFs. As we’ve discussed in prior issues, millions of investors are putting their money in passive ETFs, which have low fees and have generated good returns over the last several years. The truth is, passive investing is the right move for many people. But there’s a persuasive argument that its out-of-control growth is “hollowing out” the markets. As passive ETFs grow, the number of human stock analysts – whose job function helps keep stock prices honest – is dwindling. Many laugh at the idea that passive ETFs could be destabilizing. What could be safer than buying an S&P 500 ETF to spread your money around the largest 500 U.S. companies? Of course that is a compelling argument. The excellent results that passive investing has produced in the past few years must be acknowledged. But keep in mind these results have come in a bull market. Much like portfolio insurance prior to Black Monday, widespread passive ETF investing has not seen a challenging market. The real test will come in the next bear market. Financial history is littered with strategies that worked wonderfully in bull markets, but turned disastrous when a bear market began. Computerized trading also took a lot of the blame for the 1987 crisis. The computers did what they were programmed to do: hedge when prices declined. This automation led to questionable behavior that a human with a brain may have avoided, such as continuing to sell when prices were already down 20%. If computers’ influence on the stock market was a problem then, it’s a much bigger one now. Many estimates suggest that 80%+ of the trades in today’s market are executed by high-frequency computer algorithms. These robots are thousands of times more advanced than their 1987 predecessors. But are they smart enough to avoid causing a meltdown when stock prices turn? We can’t know until that time comes. We do know, however, that these robots can liquidate an entire portfolio faster than a human can login to an Etrade account. There’s one area where 2017 and 1987 truly have nothing in common: valuation. Shiller’s CAPE ratio, which smooths earnings over 10 years, peaked at about 18 in 1987. It currently sits at 31.2, having recently surpassed its 1929 peak of 30. This is notable because the market only briefly touched this level in 1929, just before the historic stock market crash that kicked off the Great Depression. In fact, measured by CAPE, today’s market is now the second priciest in history. It trails only the dot-com bubble’s mind-boggling 44.2 reading. Finally, we come to perhaps the biggest difference between markets in 1987 and today. As we mentioned, the U.S. government and central bank generally did not interfere with markets during the 1987 crash. Today, things are decidedly different. Governments stand ready with short-selling bans, bailouts, Quantitative Easing, bottomless interest rate cuts, stock market “circuit breakers,” and threats of nationalization (remember those from 2008?). They employ this arsenal to combat any market moves they don’t like. In fact, one of the government’s most controversial tools has its roots in Black Monday. In response to the 1987 crash, President Reagan created the “Working Group on Financial Markets.” Or as its better known, the “Plunge Protection Team.” The PPT has been rumored – but not confirmed – to buy stocks to support prices on certain occasions. Including during the 2008 crisis. Overall, these many “safeguards” mean that a crash as swift and severe as Black Monday is unlikely to happen today. Is this a good or bad thing? Your answer will vary depending on your role in the financial markets. But “unlikely” does not mean “impossible.” Above all else, the lesson we take from Black Monday is this: Anything can happen in the markets. See you next week. The Nikkei looks to be in a stealth rally – potentially breaking out of a 21-year resistance – and helping the BOJ, who owns over 60% of the ETF market. Thirty years ago today, the impossible happened. The Dow crashed 22.6% in a single day, which in statistical terms is mind-bogglingly unlikely. Stock market returns do not follow the normal bell-curve distribution that much of statistical theory is based on. But if they did, a 22% one-day crash should occur roughly once every vigintillion years. That’s a 1 followed by 63 zeroes. Three decades later, Black Monday remains by far the biggest one-day decline in U.S. stock market history. Looking back at that time, the list of Dow components in 1987 reads like a history textbook. Bethlehem Steel, Woolworth’s, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing, and Sears were 4 of the 30 stocks tracked by the Dow Jones Average. Similarly, the U.S. economy still largely produced “stuff” rather than services. Five of the ten largest U.S. companies were oil producers. Two others were car makers. The other three were General Electric, AT&T, and the gargantuan IBM. IBM was the Apple of its day. It was by far the biggest company in the world in 1987 and dominated the computer market. Prior to the crash, it had a market cap of $63 billion and it earned $4.8 billion in profits in 1987. Black Monday was painful for all investors, but it was exceptionally awful for IBM shareholders. As the largest component of the Dow, its stock was hammered by relentless selling. At the end of that day, IBM stock had dropped 30%, erasing $18.8 billion from its market cap.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Of Crashes, Corrections, and the Culture of Financial Information- What They Tell Us About the Need for Federal Securities Regulation
    Missouri Law Review Volume 54 Issue 3 Summer 1989 Article 2 Summer 1989 Of Crashes, Corrections, and the Culture of Financial Information- What They Tell Us about the Need for Federal Securities Regulation C. Edward Fletcher III Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation C. Edward Fletcher III, Of Crashes, Corrections, and the Culture of Financial Information-What They Tell Us about the Need for Federal Securities Regulation, 54 MO. L. REV. (1989) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol54/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fletcher: Fletcher: Of Crashes, Corrections, and the Culture of Financial Information OF CRASHES, CORRECTIONS, AND THE CULTURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION-WHAT THEY TELL US ABOUT THE NEED FOR FEDERAL SECURITIES REGULATION C. Edward Fletcher, III* In this article, the author examines financial data from the 1929 crash and ensuing depression and compares it with financial data from the market decline of 1987 in an attempt to determine why the 1929 crash was followed by a depression but the 1987 decline was not. The author argues that the difference between the two events can be understood best as a difference between the existence of a "culture of financial information" in 1987 and the absence of such a culture in 1929.
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Market Performance Over Last 30 Years
    SECURITY BENEFIT Stock Market Performance Over Last 30 Years 4000 Dec. 31, 2020 S&P closed at 3733.27 Dec. 31, 2019 S&P closed at 3215.18 3000 Dec. 31, 2014 S&P closed above 2,000 for the first time Mar. 1, 2020 Value ® A 20% decline in the Jan. 14, 2000 Oct. 9, 2007 peak S&P due to the 2000 Dot-com bubble End of 2000 Bull Covid-19 Pandemic peaks at 1465.15 market 1565.15 S&P 500 S&P Mar. & Aug. 2015 Two flash crashes of 2015 - attributed to the rise of algorithmic trading 1995–1997 1000 Beginning of the dot-com bubble August 8, 2011 Black Monday 2011 Market decline following Oct. 9, 2002 March 9, 2009 US debt downgrade from A 47% decline in the A 57% decline in the AAA to AA+ S&P from the peak of peak S&P from the peak the dot-com bubble of the housing bubble 0 Dec. 1990 Dec. 1995 Dec. 2000 Dec. 2005 Dec. 2010 Dec. 2015 Dec. 2020 Your path To and Through Retirement® begins here. Talk to your financial professional to learn more or contact us at 800.888.2461. Neither Security Benefit Life Insurance Company, First Security Benefit Life Insurance and Annuity companies are not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, Dow Company of New York, Albany, NY, nor Security Distributors is a fiduciary and the information Jones, S&P or their respective affiliates and neither S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, Dow Jones, S&P provided is not intended to be investment advice.
    [Show full text]
  • A Taylor Rule and the Greenspan Era
    Economic Quarterly—Volume 93, Number 3—Summer 2007—Pages 229–250 A Taylor Rule and the Greenspan Era Yash P. Mehra and Brian D. Minton here is considerable interest in determining whether monetary policy actions taken by the Federal Reserve under Chairman Alan Greenspan T can be summarized by a Taylor rule. The original Taylor rule relates the federal funds rate target to two economic variables: lagged inflation and the output gap, with the actual federal funds rate completely adjusting to the target in each period (Taylor 1993).1 The later assumption of complete adjustment has often been interpreted as indicating the policy rule is “non-inertial,” or the Federal Reserve does not smooth interest rates. Inflation in the original Taylor rule is measured by the behavior of the GDP deflator and the output gap is the deviation of the log of real output from a linear trend. Taylor (1993) shows that from 1987 to 1992 policy actions did not differ significantly from prescriptions of this simple rule. Hence, according to the original Taylor rule, the Federal Reserve, at least during the early part of the Greenspan era, was backward looking, focused on headline inflation, and followed a non-inertial policy rule. Recent research, however, suggests a different picture of the Federal Re- serve under Chairman Greenspan. English, Nelson, and Sack (2002) present evidence that indicates policy actions during the Greenspan period are better explained by an “inertial” Taylor rule reflecting the presence of interest rate smoothing.2 Blinder and Reis (2005) state that the Greenspan Fed focused on We would like to thank Andreas Hornstein, Robert Hetzel, Roy Webb, and Nashat Moin for their comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Japan 'Back'?
    IS JAPAN ‘BACK’? Japan Society of Northern California/Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, May 9th 2013 SOME PRELMINARY OBSERVATIONS SOME PRELMINARY “It is the one sphere of life and activity where victory, security and success is always to the minority and never to the majority. When you find any one agreeing with you, change your mind.” Keynes, speaking of Investment, 1937 5/8/2013 2 SUMMARY o Causes of Japan’s “Lost Decades” o First – Strategic irrelevance post-1989 o Second – early ‘90s headwinds strong in proportion to the size of the bubble o Third - 1997-2012- persistent macro-economic policy mistakes. o No insuperable “structural problems o Last headwinds dropped to nothing in 2009 o Senkaku spat marks Japan’s recovery of a strategic role o “Abe-nomics” represents reversal of the mistakes of 1997-2012 o Anyway, monetary policy has actually been loose since 3/11 o Deflation may already be over o PM Abe may just be “in the right place at the right time” o Both the initial, long period of error and its reversal echo the ‘30s. 5/8/2013 3 WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? Is Real Life lived in Real or Nominal Numbers? Year Nominal GDP Population Nominal GDP/head Real GDP Real GDP/head (Y mil) (Thou) (Y mil) (Y mil) (Y mil) 1995 501,707 125,570 4.00 455,460 3.63 2000 509,860 126,926 4.02 474,847 3.74 2005 503,903 127,768 3.94 503,921 3.94 2010 482,384 128,057 3.77 512,364 4.00 2011 470,623 127,799 3.68 509,450 3.99 Period Nominal GDP per Capita Real GDP per Capita Change 1995-2011 -7.8% 9.9% 2000-2011 -8.3% 6.6% Note: GDP for Fiscal Years, Seasonally
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    The Financial System and Global Socioeconomic Cbanges Yuichiro Nagatomi Occasional Paper No.4 Yuichiro Nagatomi is President of the Institute of Fiscal and Monetary Policy, Ministry of Finance, Japan This paper originated as a lecture given at the "Regulating International Financial Markets: Issues and Policies" conference, held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in May, 1990. The conference was sponsored by the Center on Japanese Economy and Business and the Center for the Study of Futures Markets at Columbia University, the Institute of Fiscal and Monetary Policy of the Ministry of Finance, Japan, and the Foundation for Advanced Information and Research (FAIR), Japan. Occasional Paper Series Center on Japanese Economy and Business Graduate School of Business Columbia University June 1990 I have a few comments on some recent changes in financial structure and also changes in the effects of monetary policy which perhaps need more discussion. 1. Socio-Economic Structure Changes: "Softnomization" The industrialized countries - the United States, Japan, and Europe - attained modernization and industrialization after the Industrial Revolution. In recent years, their socio-economic structures have been changing in a way we call "softnomization". In pre-modern times, people lived with nature's cycle - the "path of nature" or the "soft path". The "path of mechanization and automation" or the "hard path", pursued in the process of modernization and industrialization has blessed mankind with material affluence. It also has brought about "global environmental problems and maladies to advanced nations, such as drug use and other urban crimes, and it has deteriorated the vitality and quality of the society. "Softnomization" means a softening of the hard path, by seeking harmony between the "hard path" of modern times and the "soft path" of pre-modern times.
    [Show full text]
  • Speech: Would More Regulation Prevent Another Black Monday?, July 20, 1988
    u.S.Securities and Exchange Commission [N]@\Wl~ Washington,D. C. 20549 (202) 272-2650 ~@~@@~@ WOULD MORE REGULATION PREVENT ANOTHER BLACK MONDAY? Remarks to the CATO Institute Policy Forum Washington, D.C. July 20, 19.88 Joseph A. Grundfest Commissioner The views expressed herein are those of Commissioner Grundfest and do not necessarily represent those of the Commission, other Commissioners, or Commission staff. WOULD MORE REGULATION PREVENT ANOTHER BLACK MONDAY? Remarks to the CATO Institute Policy Forum July 21, 1988 Joseph A. Grundfest It's a pleasure to be here this afternoon to deliver an address on such a noncontroversial topic. Government regulators in Washington, D.C. have a well deserved reputation for dancing around difficult issues and not giving straight answers to simple questions. Well, I'd like to prove that I'm not your typical Washington, D.C. regulator and give you a straight answer to the question, "Would more regulation prevent another Black Monday?" The answer is an unequivocable yes, no, and maybe. The answer also depends on what you mean by more regulation and why you believe the market declined on Black Monday. With that issue cleared up, I'd like to thank all of you for attending and invite you to join the reception being held immediately after this speech. Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure. Actually, the question of whether more regulation could prevent another Black Monday is not as difficult as it seems, if you keep three factors in mind. First, it is important to distinguish between fundamental factors that initiated or contributed to the decline, and regulatory or structural factors that may have unnecessarily exacerbated the decline.
    [Show full text]
  • October 19, 1987 – Black Monday, 20 Years Later BACKGROUND
    October 19, 1987 – Black Monday, 20 Years Later BACKGROUND On Oct. 19, 1987, “Black Monday,” the DJIA fell 507.99 (508) points to 1,738.74, a drop of 22.6% or $500 billion dollars of its value-- the largest single-day percentage drop in history. Volume surges to a then record of 604 million shares. Two days later, the DJIA recovered 289 points or 16.6% of its loss. It took two years for the DJIA to fully recover its losses, setting the stage for the longest bull market in U.S. history. Date Close Change Change % 10/19/87 1,738.70 -508.00 -22.6 10/20/87 1,841.00 102.30 5.9 10/21/87 2,027.90 186.90 10.2 Quick Facts on October 11, 1987 • DJIA fell 507.99 points to 1,738.74, a 22.6% drop (DJIA had opened at 2246.74 that day) o Record decline at that time o Friday, Oct. 16, DJIA fell 108 points, completing a 9.5 percent drop for the week o Aug. 1987, DJIA reached 2722.42, an all-time high; up 48% over prior 10 months o Today, DJIA above 14,000 • John Phelan, NYSE Chairman/CEO -- Credited with effective management of the crisis. A 23-year veteran of the trading floor, he became NYSE president in 1980 and chairman and chief executive officer in 1984, serving until 1990 NYSE Statistics (1987, then vs. now) 1987 Today (and current records) ADV - ytd 1987 (thru 10/19): 181.5 mil ADV – 1.76 billion shares (NYSE only) shares 10/19/1987: 604.3 million shares (reference ADV above) 10/20/1987: 608.1* million shares (reference ADV above) Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • The 100 Most Important American Financial Crises an Encyclopedia
    The 100 Most Important American Financial Crises An Encyclopedia of the Lowest Points in American Economic History Quentin R. Skrabec Jr. Q GREENWOOD AN IMPRINT OF ABC-CLIO, LLC Santa Barbara, California • Denver, Colorado • Oxford, England Contents Preface xiii Acknowledgments xv Introduction xvii 1676—Bacon's Rebellion 1 1703—Tobacco Depression 4 1719—Mississippi Bubble 6 1733—Molasses Act 9 1749—Colonial Hyperinflation and Currency Deflation 12 1750—IronAct 15 1762—Colonial Recession 17 1764-1765—Sugar Act, Currency Act, and Stamp Act Boycotts 19 1772—Credit Crisis 22 1776—War Financing Crisis 24 1781—Currency Deflation and Inflation 28 1790—Debt Assumption, Debt Retirement, and Expanding the Economy 31 1792—Panic 33 1794—Whiskey Tax Rebellion 37 1796-1797—Panic 40 1800—Trade Interference by Barbary Coast Pirates 43 1807—Economic Embargo and Depression 45 1812—War of 1812 48 vii viii | Contents 1816-1819—Economic Warfare and Dumping by Great Britain 51 1819—Panic 53 1820s—Cotton Recession 56 1825—British Panic and Its American Impact 58 1828—Tariff of Abominations 60 1833—Andrew Jackson Closes the Bank of the United States and Lowers Tariffs 63 1837—Panic and Six-Year Depression 66 1847—Panic 69 1848—Gold Rush Boom and Bust 71 1850—Whale Oil Shortage: The First Energy Crisis 73 1854—Panic 76 1854—Deel ine of American Canals 78 1857—Panic 81 1861—Civil War Economics, Shortages, and Inflation 83 1862—Union Blockade and Inflation 85 1869—Grant's Recession 88 1873—Panic and Global Depression 90 1877—Great National Railroad Strike 93 1880s—New
    [Show full text]
  • Greenspan's Conundrum and the Fed's Ability to Affect Long-Term
    Research Division Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Paper Series Greenspan’s Conundrum and the Fed’s Ability to Affect Long- Term Yields Daniel L. Thornton Working Paper 2012-036A http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-036.pdf September 2012 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS Research Division P.O. Box 442 St. Louis, MO 63166 ______________________________________________________________________________________ The views expressed are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Federal Reserve System, or the Board of Governors. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Papers are preliminary materials circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. References in publications to Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Papers (other than an acknowledgment that the writer has had access to unpublished material) should be cleared with the author or authors. Greenspan’s Conundrum and the Fed’s Ability to Affect Long-Term Yields Daniel L. Thornton Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Phone (314) 444-8582 FAX (314) 444-8731 Email Address: [email protected] August 2012 Abstract In February 2005 Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan noticed that the 10-year Treasury yields failed to increase despite a 150-basis-point increase in the federal funds rate as a “conundrum.” This paper shows that the connection between the 10-year yield and the federal funds rate was severed in the late 1980s, well in advance of Greenspan’s observation. The paper hypothesize that the change occurred because the Federal Open Market Committee switched from using the federal funds rate as an operating instrument to using it to implement monetary policy and presents evidence from a variety of sources supporting the hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Recession Outlook ➢ Impact of Recessions on Investments ➢ Conventional-Wisdom Investments for Recessions
    Chap quoit A Division of Dynamic Portfolios Presentation of Managing the Risk of a Looming U.S. Recession During 2020 May 10, 2020 1 Chap quoit A Division of Dynamic Portfolios Impact of Recessions on Investments Virtually all recessions are accompanied by a large stock market drawdown. 2 Chap quoit A Division of Dynamic Portfolios S&P500 Daily-Close Maximum Drawdowns In Last 10 Recessions: 7 Bear Markets, 3 Corrections Black Monday 1987. Credit Crunch of 66. Computerized selling Long-Term Capital Flash Crash of 62. Liquidity Crisis in dictated by portfolio and Hedge Fund US Steel Price Bond Markets. insurance hedges. Redemptions Surprise. Bear Market Line Correction Line Shading represents US economic recessions as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Chap quoit A Division of Dynamic Portfolios Managing 2020 Recession Risk Topics For Discussion ➢ Definition of a Recession ➢ Primary Factor for Declaring Dates for a Recession ➢ Historical Causes of Recessions ➢ Indicators to Help Estimate Timing of Recessions ➢ Current Recession Outlook ➢ Impact of Recessions on Investments ➢ Conventional-Wisdom Investments for Recessions 4 Chap quoit A Division of Dynamic Portfolios Definition of a Recession The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Defines a Recession as: “A significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.” Rule of thumb: Real GDP declines in two negative quarters. Official Recession Dates are declared by the NBER Business Cycle Dating Committee. -December 1, 2008, announced its most recent U.S. recession started December 2007, a full year after the recession began.
    [Show full text]
  • Fed Chair Power Rating
    Just How Powerful is the Fed Chair Fed Chair Power Rating Name: Date: Directions: Sports fans often assign a “power rating” to teams and players to measure their strength. In today’s activity, we will research some of the most recent chairs of the Federal Reserve and assign them “power ratings” to express how truly influential they have been in the United States economy. In this activity, we will judge each person’s prerequisites, ability to play defense and offense. Chair (circle one): Janet Yellen Ben Bernanke Alan Greenspan Paul Volcker 1. Prerequisites will be measured by academic background, research, and previous career qualifications. 2. Offensive acumen will be evaluated using the chair’s major accomplishments while in office and whether he/she was successful in accomplishing the goals for which he/she was originally selected. 3. Defensive strength will be determined by the chair’s ability to overcome obstacles, both in the economy and political pressures, while holding the chairmanship. 4. The chair in question may receive 1-4 points for each category. The rubric for awarding points is as follows: 1 - extremely weak 2 - relatively weak 3 - relatively strong 4 - extremely strong 5. BONUS! Your group may award up to 2 bonus points for other significant accomplishments not listed in the first three categories. You may also choose to subtract up to 2 points for major blunders or problems that emerged as a result of the chair’s policies. 6. This is a group activity, so remember that you and your team members must come to a consensus! Prerequisites Offensive Acumen Defensive Strength Other Details Power 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Rating Overall Power Rating is __________________________________ 1 Just How Powerful is the Fed Chair Fed Chair Power Rating Strengths Weaknesses Overall Impression Janet Yellen Ben Bernanke Alan Greenspan Paul Volcker 2 .
    [Show full text]
  • Dimensions of Macroeconomic Uncertainty: a Common Factor Analysis
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Henzel, Steffen; Rengel, Malte Working Paper Dimensions of Macroeconomic Uncertainty: A Common Factor Analysis CESifo Working Paper, No. 4991 Provided in Cooperation with: Ifo Institute – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich Suggested Citation: Henzel, Steffen; Rengel, Malte (2014) : Dimensions of Macroeconomic Uncertainty: A Common Factor Analysis, CESifo Working Paper, No. 4991, Center for Economic Studies and ifo Institute (CESifo), Munich This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/103134 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die
    [Show full text]