Financial markets need regulation—they also need high-risk hedge fundsby Oliver Kamm / December 17, 2005 / Leave a comment
Published in December 2005 issue of Prospect Magazine
The apparent arbitrariness and irrationality of financial markets do not inspire the admiration of liberal-inclined people. But many professionals in the financial markets also accept that there are structural failings in the system. Financial capitalism needs reform if it is to have popular legitimacy, but it needs the right kind of reform. Tighter regulation to constrain footloose capital is mainly a chimera.
Recent events have intensified popular suspicion of financial markets. Since the collapse of the bull market of the late 1990s, the most newsworthy financial stories have concerned corporate scandal and market abuse. The failures of Enron and WorldCom amid huge fraud are notorious. A few weeks ago a large US broker, Refco, filed for bankruptcy as news emerged that its chief executive had been charged with concealing a $430m debt.
The charge sheet against the US/ British model of shareholder capitalism is longer than the issue of malpractice. Commentators such as the Financial Times columnist John Plender, in his book Going Off the Rails, argue that the debacle of the dotcoms merely served to emphasise structural weaknesses in the system.
The most prominent academic critic of excessive faith in stock markets, the Yale economist Robert Shiller, has long been associated with the judgement that stock markets exhibit “excess volatility”—that is, prices are more volatile than would be justified by the variability of corporate dividends over the long term. At the peak of the bull market, he argued prophetically that “there is a whiff of extravagant expectation, if not irrational exuberance, in the air.” His public policy advice has been to modify schemes that encourage people to devote their personal pension schemes to the stock market, and against proposals to privatise social security.