저자: 미상 · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 영상은 경제적 버블이 '그럴듯한 전제'가 가격 급등(price action)에 의해 과장될 때 생긴다고 설명하며, 특정 자산의 가격 방향 예측이나 투자 권유는 없다. 버블 용어의 유래: 18세기 남해회사(South Sea Company, 1711년 영국 설립) 사건에서 금융계에 쓰이기 시작했다. 과거에는 광기(mania)라고 불렀고, 17세기 네덜란드 튤립 투기가 기록상 가장 오래된 경제 버블로 꼽힌다. 남해회사 사례: 남미 무역 독점권이라는 비현실적 기대로 투자자가 몰렸고, 1720년 주가가 급등 후 급락했다. 과학자 아이작 뉴턴도 큰 손실을 입었다. 2007년 금융위기 관련: 미국 국립기록보관소 공개 문서에 따르면 금융위기조사위원회(FCIC)가 2010년 한 거물 투자자를 인터뷰해 서브프라임 모기지 버블 원인을 물었다. 인용된 발언은 '건전한 전제에 투자하는 문제가 잘못된 전제보다 더 큰 문제가 될 수 있다'는 취지다. 핵심 논리: 1929년 주식, 2000년대 부동산, 인터넷 붐 모두 전제 자체는 타당했지만 가격 상승이 전제의 한계를 잊게 만들었다. 부동산은 달러 가치 하락과 집 소유 욕구를 근거로 했으나, 연 10% 상승이 물가상승률 약 2%를 크게 웃도는 상황에서 가격 움직임이 판단을 지배했다. 레버리지: 대출로 주택을 여러 채 사는 것이 감당 불가능한 조건임에도 '어차피 내년에 더 오른다'는 믿음으로 정당화되었다. 위기 규모: 2007년 모기지 위기에서 부동산 자산은 약 22조 달러 규모였으며, 일반인도 이해하기 쉬워 무제한 대출과 결합해 전례 없는 붐을 만들었다. 리스크: 영상은 시장 과열과 레버리지 확대가 버블 붕괴 위험을 키운다고 경고한다. 출연자 전망: 거물 투자자는 시장 과열 원리를 설명했을 뿐, 현재 특정 자산의 향후 방향은 언급하지 않았다.
다듬은 글
Almost all areas of knowledge resort to jargon to synthesize phenomena and facilitate communication between specialists. Some of these are curious, such as the term " bubbles" in the economy. The term began to be used in the financial world in the 18th century because of the South Sea Company. The company, founded in 1711 in the United Kingdom, had an unrealistic perspective of making a fortune with the exclusive rights the British had acquired to trade with South America.
The company attracted investors from all over the country, one of whom was the scientist Isaac Newton, who lost a lot of money when, in 1720, the price of shares skyrocketed due to strong speculation and plummeted the next moment. Before the South Sea Company, these episodes were called manias. The Polish manias, starring the flowers that are a symbol of the Netherlands in the 17th century, are considered the oldest recorded economic bubble.
Although it is a mild term to identify something capable of causing such serious damage, the metaphor is appropriate; it indicates that prices are inflated and fragile at the same time that there is a valuation based on something. Without substance among the documents relating to the 2007 financial crisis, previously confidential and recently made public by the United States National Archives, an interview that the Financial Crisis Investigation Commission (FCI) conducted with the magnate Order of the Stink in 2010 to question him about what he thought had caused the subprime mortgage bubble that burst in the country years earlier, the explanation given by one of the world's richest investors is crystal clear, emphasizes Ely Noni, a journalist for the newspaper Neighbors, who wrote about the documents and an important read for anyone interested in behavioral economics.
Investing: My old friend Ben Garant made an observation about 50 years ago that stuck in my head, and now I have found concrete evidence that reinforces it. Days of Stink: In the conversation with the members of the commission, he told me, "You can have far more problems investing in a sound premise than a false one." If someone comes across the premise that the moon is filled with cheese, for example, you immediately realize that it doesn't make sense.
But it was the logical reasoning that stocks were performing better than debt securities that created The 1929 buoy continues; people thought that stocks would be something wonderful and forgot the limitations of the original premise. The same thing happened with the real estate market in the 2000s: the premise that real estate would be worth more and more over time because the dollar tends to be worth less is totally sound, and given that 66% to 67% of people want to own a home and can borrow money to fulfill that desire, someone who dreams of buying a property and believes it will increase in value will try to acquire it as soon as possible.
This is a very solid premise. However, it is linked to the circumstances in which properties are sold at so- called replacement prices, which do not significantly exceed inflation. Thus, the logical reasoning that it is a good idea to buy a house this year because it will probably be worth more next year, coupled with the fact that one can finance that property, becomes distorted over time.
If prices start to rise by something like 10% per year compared to an annual inflation of around 2%, at some point the so-called price action—a technical term for the often random movement of these values—takes control, and people stop believing. "They want to buy 35 houses, but to do so they submit to payment conditions they cannot meet, but that makes no difference," Booth points out, "since either way the houses will be worth more next year." The creditors, in turn, even when this movement gains momentum and is reinforced by price action, the original premise takes a back seat, as happened in 1929 with the internet.
The same thing happened, adds the billionaire. "It was going to change our lives, but that didn't mean that all the companies that emerged because of it would be worth 50 million dollars." Illustrating, the investor says, price action becomes so important to people that taking control takes over their thoughts.
In the case of the mortgage crisis, real estate was an even larger asset, something like 22 trillion dollars. This is extremely understandable to the general public, who might not understand tulip bulb stocks but understand what real estate meant and wanted to buy them anyway, and the financing that could be leveraged without limits— all this created a boom like we had never seen before.
Comments 0