Understanding why a market might be crashing is a critical question for investors, economists, and anyone concerned about financial stability. Market crashes can be sudden, dramatic, and have far-reaching consequences. To truly grasp the complexities of market downturns and answer the question “Why Is The Market Crashing?”, it’s invaluable to look at historical examples. One of the most significant and impactful market crashes in modern history is Black Monday, which occurred in 1987. By examining the events of Black Monday, we can gain crucial insights into the dynamics of market crashes and the factors that contribute to them.
Understanding Market Crashes: A Historical Perspective
A market crash is characterized by a sharp and sudden decline in stock prices, often resulting in a significant loss of market value within a short period. These events are typically driven by a combination of economic, psychological, and structural factors. When considering “why is the market crashing,” it’s important to recognize that these crashes are not isolated incidents but rather the culmination of various pressures building up in the financial system.
Black Monday, October 19, 1987, stands as a stark reminder of the speed and severity with which market confidence can evaporate. On this infamous day, global stock markets experienced a dramatic collapse. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) in the United States plummeted by a staggering 22.6% in a single trading session. This remains the largest single-day percentage drop in stock market history and underscored the interconnectedness of global finance in the late 20th century. The scale of the losses was unprecedented since the Great Depression and raised profound questions about market stability and regulation.
The Precursors to Black Monday: What Led to the 1987 Crash?
To understand “why is the market crashing” in 1987, we need to examine the economic and market conditions leading up to Black Monday. The period preceding the crash was marked by a strong bull market. In the first seven months of 1987, the DJIA had surged by 44%, fueling concerns about an asset bubble. This rapid appreciation in stock prices led many analysts to believe that the market was overvalued and ripe for a correction.
However, the catalyst for the crash wasn’t simply overvaluation. In mid-October 1987, a series of negative news reports began to erode investor confidence. The U.S. government announced a larger-than-expected trade deficit, which weakened the dollar. A declining dollar can trigger concerns among investors, particularly international ones, as it can reduce the value of their dollar-denominated assets. This news acted as a pinprick to the already inflated market, increasing volatility and setting the stage for a more significant downturn.
The week leading up to Black Monday saw increasing market instability. Starting on October 14th, several markets began to experience substantial daily losses. On Friday, October 16th, the situation worsened, coinciding with “triple witching.” Triple witching is a phenomenon where the expiration dates of stock index futures, stock index options, and stock options all occur on the same day, typically leading to increased trading volume and volatility. On this particular Friday, the DJIA fell by 4.6%. This substantial drop just before the weekend amplified anxieties and set the stage for the chaos to come.
Adding fuel to the fire, on Saturday, October 17th, then-Treasury Secretary James Baker publicly threatened to devalue the U.S. dollar further in an attempt to reduce the growing trade deficit. This public statement, intended to address economic imbalances, inadvertently spooked investors. The prospect of a deliberate currency devaluation added another layer of uncertainty and fear to the already fragile market sentiment. This combination of factors—overvaluation, negative economic news, and policy uncertainty—created a perfect storm, making the market highly vulnerable to a significant crash.
Black Monday: The Day the Markets Plunged
The true extent of the market’s vulnerability became devastatingly clear on Monday, October 19, 1987. Even before U.S. markets opened, stock markets across Asia began to collapse. This global contagion effect was one of the defining features of Black Monday and a key aspect when considering “why is the market crashing” on a global scale. As Asian markets plummeted, it triggered panic selling in Europe and foreshadowed the events to unfold in the United States.
When the U.S. markets opened, the DJIA immediately crashed. A massive wave of sell orders overwhelmed the market, and the number of sellers far exceeded buyers at prevailing prices. This created a cascading effect, driving prices down sharply and rapidly. By the end of the trading day, the DJIA had plunged 508 points, a 22.6% loss. This dramatic drop occurred in just hours and sent shockwaves through the global financial system.
Anxious investors and traders monitor the dramatic stock market declines on ticker tapes at the New York Stock Exchange during Black Monday, reflecting the widespread concern and panic as markets crashed.
The speed and scale of the crash were deeply unsettling. Andrew Grove, then CEO of Intel, described the market’s behavior as “like a theater where someone yells ‘Fire!'” This analogy captured the psychological element of the crash, where fear and panic spread rapidly through the interconnected global markets.
Thomas Thrall, a trader at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange at the time, vividly recalled, “It felt really scary. People started to understand the interconnectedness of markets around the globe.” For the first time, investors witnessed a financial crisis unfold in real-time on live television, spreading from market to market like a virus. This highlighted a new era of globalization in finance, where events in one part of the world could instantaneously impact markets thousands of miles away.
Donald Marron, chairman of investment firm Paine Webber, noted, “You learn how interrelated we all are and how small we are. Nowhere is that exemplified more than people staying up all night to watch the Japanese market to get a feeling for what might happen in the next session of the New York market.” This 24/7 global market awareness, while now commonplace, was a relatively new and unnerving phenomenon in 1987, contributing to the sense of panic and the rapid spread of the market crash.
Key Factors Behind the 1987 Market Crash
In the aftermath of Black Monday, regulators and economists meticulously analyzed “why is the market crashing” with such severity. Several key factors were identified as contributing to the crash:
-
Increased International Investment: The 1980s witnessed a significant surge in international investment in U.S. markets. This influx of foreign capital contributed to the rapid rise in stock prices in the years leading up to 1987. However, this also meant that U.S. markets were more susceptible to global investor sentiment shifts. When negative news emerged, international investors, who had played a significant role in inflating the bubble, could also contribute to a rapid sell-off.
-
Portfolio Insurance: A relatively new investment strategy called “portfolio insurance” played a crucial role in exacerbating the crash. This technique was designed to limit investment losses by using options and futures contracts to hedge against market downturns. As the market began to fall, portfolio insurance strategies triggered automatic selling to limit losses. However, because many institutional investors were using similar portfolio insurance strategies, this resulted in a wave of coordinated selling that further drove down prices. This created a negative feedback loop: initial losses triggered more selling, which led to further price declines, and so on.
-
Market Structure Flaws: Structural weaknesses in the market also amplified the Black Monday losses. At the time, stock, options, and futures markets had different clearing and settlement timelines. Stock trades typically took three days to settle, while options and futures settled in one day. This created a mismatch, potentially leading to negative balances in trading accounts and forced liquidations. Additionally, securities exchanges lacked effective mechanisms, like circuit breakers, to halt trading during periods of extreme volatility and large-volume selling. This absence of circuit breakers meant that there were no automatic pauses to allow investors to reassess and for markets to stabilize, contributing to the freefall.
The Federal Reserve’s Response and Its Aftermath
In response to the market turmoil and to address the question “why is the market crashing” and how to stop it, the Federal Reserve took decisive action. On October 20, 1987, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan issued a statement affirming the Federal Reserve’s commitment to providing liquidity to support the financial system. He stated, “The Federal Reserve, consistent with its responsibilities as the Nation’s central bank, affirmed today its readiness to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system.”
Behind the scenes, the Fed actively encouraged banks to continue lending to securities firms on normal terms. This intervention was crucial in preventing a potential credit freeze and a deeper financial crisis. As Ben Bernanke noted, these loans might have been unprofitable for individual banks in the short term, but they were essential for “the preservation of the system as a whole.” The largest New York banks significantly increased their lending to securities firms during the week of the crash, demonstrating the effectiveness of the Fed’s intervention.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan publicly announces the Fed’s commitment to provide liquidity to the financial system in response to the Black Monday market crash, aiming to reassure markets and prevent further economic fallout.
The Fed’s swift and decisive action is widely credited with preventing Black Monday from triggering a broader economic recession or a banking crisis. Unlike many previous market crashes, the 1987 stock market decline was not followed by a significant economic downturn. Some experts argue that this response ushered in a new era of investor confidence in the central bank’s ability to manage severe market crises.
However, there are also arguments that the Fed’s intervention set a precedent that could potentially increase moral hazard. Moral hazard refers to the risk that providing a safety net encourages excessive risk-taking in the future. By intervening to cushion the impact of market crashes, central banks might inadvertently encourage investors to take on more risk, believing that the Fed will always step in to prevent catastrophic losses.
Despite these debates, the immediate aftermath of Black Monday saw a relatively quick market recovery. In just two trading sessions, the DJIA regained 57% of its Black Monday losses. Within less than two years, U.S. stock markets had surpassed their pre-crash highs, demonstrating the resilience of the market and the effectiveness of the measures taken to stabilize it.
Lessons Learned from Black Monday: Preventing Future Market Crashes
Black Monday provided invaluable lessons for regulators, market participants, and central banks in understanding “why is the market crashing” and how to mitigate the risks of future crashes. In the years following 1987, significant reforms were implemented to strengthen market stability and resilience.
-
Circuit Breakers: One of the most direct responses to Black Monday was the introduction of circuit breakers. These are rules that allow stock exchanges to temporarily halt trading during periods of exceptionally large price declines. Currently, the New York Stock Exchange, for example, will halt trading if the S&P 500 index declines by 7%, 13%, and 20%. Circuit breakers are designed to provide investors with time to reassess information during periods of high volatility and to prevent panic selling from spiraling out of control.
-
Harmonized Clearing and Settlement: Regulators also addressed the structural flaws related to trade clearing and settlement. Protocols were overhauled to bring uniformity to all major market products, reducing the risks associated with settlement mismatches and potential liquidity crunches.
-
Improved Risk Management: Risk management practices were also recalibrated in the wake of Black Monday. Financial institutions improved their models for valuing options and managing market risk, particularly in periods of high volatility. The understanding of option volatility surfaces and the potential for extreme market movements (fat tails) was enhanced, leading to more robust risk management frameworks.
-
The Fed’s Role as a Backstop: The Federal Reserve’s response to Black Monday solidified its role as a lender of last resort and a critical backstop for the financial system during times of crisis. This precedent has shaped the Fed’s approach to subsequent financial crises, emphasizing the importance of liquidity provision and proactive intervention to prevent systemic collapse.
Conclusion
Analyzing Black Monday offers profound insights into “why is the market crashing.” It highlights a complex interplay of factors, including market psychology, global interconnectedness, structural vulnerabilities, and economic conditions. The 1987 crash underscored the importance of market regulation, the need for circuit breakers, and the critical role of central banks in providing liquidity during times of extreme market stress. While each market crash has its unique triggers and characteristics, the lessons from Black Monday remain relevant for understanding and navigating the complexities of financial markets and for addressing the fundamental question of “why is the market crashing” when faced with periods of significant market decline. By learning from history, we can better prepare for and potentially mitigate the impact of future market crashes.
Bibliography
Bernanke, Ben. “Clearing and Settlement during the Crash.” Review of Financial Studies 3, no. 1 (1990): 133-51.
Carlson, Mark, “A Brief History of the 1987 Stock Market Crash with a Discussion of the Federal Reserve Response,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series No. 2007-13, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC, November 2006.
Cecchetti, Stephen G., and Piti Disyatat. “Central Bank Tools and Liquidity Shortages.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 16, no. 1 (August 2010): 36-7.
Congressional Budget Office. “Glossary.” Last updated January 2012, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/glossary.pdf.
Cowen, Alison Leigh. “Bitter Lessons Gleaned From the Fall.” New York Times, October 22, 1987.
Garcia, Gillian, “The Lender of Last Resort in the Wake of the Crash,” American Economic Review 79, no. 2 (May 1989): 151-55.
Glaberson, William. “The Market Plunge; Fall Stuns Corporate Leaders.” New York Times, October 20, 1987.
Kohn, Donald L.,“The Evolving Nature of the Financial System: Financial Crises and the Role of a Central Bank,” Speech given at the Conference on New Directions for Understanding Systemic Risk, Federal Reserve Bank of New York and The National Academy of Science, New York, NY, May 18, 2006.
Murray, Alan. “Fed’s New Chairman Wins a Lot of Praise On Handling the Crash.” Wall Street Journal, November 25, 1987.
NYSE Euronext. “Circuit Breakers.” Accessed November 19, 2013, https://www.nyse.com/markets/nyse/trading-info
Shiller, Robert. “Portfolio Insurance and Other Investor Fashions as Factors in the 1987 Stock Market Crash” NBER Macroeconomics Annual 3 (1988): 287-97.
Thrall, Thomas. Interviewed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
