RSS Feeds Feeds: Articles | Issues
Articles About TAP Subscribe Donate
TAPPED  |  Beat the Press

Remember Me
Forgot your password?

The symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.


 


Momma said wonk you out

JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES ON THE PROBLEM WITH "SKILLED" INVESTORS.

0415_20innova.jpgI should probably make up some tenuous connection to the stress tests so it seems that I have some reason for quoting this bit of Keynes' General Theory, but really I just think it a brilliant point:

[T]here is one feature in particular which deserves our attention. It might have been supposed that competition between expert professionals, possessing judgment and knowledge beyond that of the average private investor, would correct the vagaries of the ignorant individual left to himself. It happens, however, that the energies and skill of the professional investor and speculator are mainly occupied otherwise. For most of these persons are, in fact, largely concerned, not with making superior long-term forecasts of the probable yield of an investment over its whole life, but with foreseeing changes in the conventional basis of valuation a short time ahead of the general public. They are concerned, not with what an investment is really worth to a man who buys it “for keeps”, but with what the market will value it at, under the influence of mass psychology, three months or a year hence. Moreover, this behaviour is not the outcome of a wrong-headed propensity. It is an inevitable result of an investment market organised along the lines described. For it is not sensible to pay 25 for an investment of which you believe the prospective yield to justify a value of 30, if you also believe that the market will value it at 20 three months hence.

Thus the professional investor is forced to concern himself with the anticipation of impending changes, in the news or in the atmosphere, of the kind by which experience shows that the mass psychology of the market is most influenced. This is the inevitable result of investment markets organised with a view to so-called “liquidity”. Of the maxims of orthodox finance none, surely, is more anti-social than the fetish of liquidity, the doctrine that it is a positive virtue on the part of investment institutions to concentrate their resources upon the holding of “liquid” securities. It forgets that there is no such thing as liquidity of investment for the community as a whole. The social object of skilled investment should be to defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance which envelop our future. The actual, private object of the most skilled investment to-day is “to beat the gun”, as the Americans so well express it, to outwit the crowd, and to pass the bad, or depreciating, half-crown to the other fellow.

This battle of wits to anticipate the basis of conventional valuation a few months hence, rather than the prospective yield of an investment over a long term of years, does not even require gulls amongst the public to feed the maws of the professional; — it can be played by professionals amongst themselves. Nor is it necessary that anyone should keep his simple faith in the conventional basis of valuation having any genuine long-term validity. For it is, so to speak, a game of Snap, of Old Maid, of Musical Chairs — a pastime in which he is victor who says Snap neither too soon nor too late, who passes the Old Maid to his neighbour before the game is over, who secures a chair for himself when the music stops. These games can be played with zest and enjoyment, though all the players know that it is the Old Maid which is circulating, or that when the music stops some of the players will find themselves unseated.

Or, to change the metaphor slightly, professional investment may be likened to those newspaper competitions in which the competitors have to pick out the six prettiest faces from a hundred photographs, the prize being awarded to the competitor whose choice most nearly corresponds to the average preferences of the competitors as a whole; so that each competitor has to pick, not those faces which he himself finds prettiest, but those which he thinks likeliest to catch the fancy of the other competitors, all of whom are looking at the problem from the same point of view. It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be. And there are some, I believe, who practise the fourth, fifth and higher degrees.


Keynes concludes that "I expect to see the State, which is in a position to calculate the marginal efficiency of capital-goods on long views and on the basis of the general social advantage, taking an ever greater responsibility for directly organising investment." That didn't really happen. But the rest of it holds up!



COMMENTS

Keynes is of course way behind the times -- now it's a matter of trying to predict what the others who are also trying to predict your behavior think all of you think some security will be worth a few seconds, minutes or hours from now. Days or weeks at the outside. And better yet (ahem) it's now a company's fiduciary duty to see that the expectations of all these people are not disappointed.

Another version of the old adage: "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you."

The market can remain irrational long enough for you to cash in your position for a profit.

More broadly, I think this type of critique identifies an important limitation of invisible hand theory. It was a great insight for Smith to see that individual actions taken in pursuit of individual incentives *could* create a publicly beneficial result, but it's equally true that they *need not invariably* do so, and there are many examples where they don't. Therefore, individual incentives may need to be adjusted to guide them away from overgrazing the commons, investing for the quick buck, brokering and then selling bad mortgages, etc.

That dude was good.

Replace 'months' with 'minutes' and you've described today's situation exactly.

As for Keynes' final statement, in areas like energy, healthcare and education, this is exactly what the state can and likely will do, in one form or another. While determining how many LCD TVs must be produced next year is not necessary for the survival of the species and therefore can be left to investors and even speculators to figure out, it is known approximately how much healthcare and education people need to life long and productive lives and how much carbon we can safely put into the atmosphere each year. If the market, for whatever reason, settles on an allocation of resources not sufficient for these parameters, we are all worse off for it.

Keynes concludes that "I expect to see the State, which is in a position to calculate the marginal efficiency of capital-goods on long views and on the basis of the general social advantage, taking an ever greater responsibility for directly organising investment." That didn't really happen.

Um, actually it did, at least in some areas; and had been happening for decades before Keynes wrote. Think of the transcontinental railroads, the large hydroelectric projects, the TVA, the interstate highway system, and so on. In each case, markets certainly could have provided these capital improvements, and made a profit. Yet somehow none of them happened until the state decided that they needed to be built.

Ken is right, it most certainly did hold up, but there are even better examples than the one's that he brings up. Keep in mind that Keynes was British and when referring to "the state" was probably thinking first and foremost about Britain. Certainly his influence was greatest there.

So with that in mind, consider the vast nationalizations of industry that took place in Britain following the war: coal, rail, steel, electricity and gas, along with several other basic industries were nationalized. One of the key reasons in all of those examples was to rationalize and modernize the industries for the best long term results.

As an aside, one of the funny things about Keynesian policies being called "socialist" is that there was massive dischord in the Labour party in the 1940s and 50s in which the left wing of the Labour party attacked the more centrist Labour party MPs who were adopting Keynesianism for abandoning socialism.

Sure most people are just gambling. People love gambling. The worst gambles that I have ever seen are the state lotteries (less than 50% of the income is distributed to the winners, the old tax on stupidity) but people love them.

There are investors who look for long term value. People like Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers should be able to do quite well if most investors are just gambling and they do. One thing that mitigates against this is that companies that do well in the short run tend to also do well in the long run and the news that drives the stock price in the short run can be stories that indicate good long term prospects.

One thing to not forget is that people love gambling. It seems to have a benefit of its own.

Post a comment



Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Search for:

About Ezra Klein

Ezra Klein is an associate editor at The American Prospect. An archive of his articles for The American Prospect can be found here.

Email | RSS | Twitter

Link Blog:


Renew your print subscription or e-subscription.
Get an e-subscription for $14.95.
Give the gift of political insight. Send The American Prospect to a friend.
Change your email address or street address.
YES! I want to receive The American Prospect
— the essential source for progressive ideas.
Explore The American Prospect's award-winning investigative journalism and provocative essays in a free trial issue. Continue receiving The American Prospect at only $19.95 for a one-year subscription - a savings of 60% off the newsstand price!
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
ZIP     
Email

Should you decide not to continue receiving the magazine after the initial free issue, simply write "cancel" on the invoice and you will not be billed.

© 2010 by The American Prospect, Inc.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Permissions and Reprints