New Money

Defining a Depression: Myths and Facts

By Katy Marquardt

Posted: March 11, 2009

How on-spot are all these comparisons between the Great Depression and the current recession?

Let's start with how you define a depression. Interestingly, there's no formal definition, Calculated Risk points out today, but many experts agree that it's a prolonged slump with a 10 percent or more decline in real GDP. However, there's disagreement over the definition of a "prolonged slump." CR concludes that while this recession is exceptionally nasty, it's only about one-third of the way to a depression (see charts that back his analysis.)

More analysis of what makes a depression comes from Mark Hulbert via Barron's. He dispels three myths:

1. "It took 25 years for the stock market to recover its losses from the high reached just before the stock market crashed in October 1929." Hulbert (referencing Jeremy Siegel): When you take inflation and dividends into account, it took less than eight years. Another big factor that explains the gap: IBM was removed from the Dow.

2. "If we're playing out a 1930s script, now would be a bad time for long-term investors to get into the market." Hulbert (again citing Siegel data): "if the stock market were to exactly adhere to a 1930s-like script, equities would provide a handsome return over the next five years."

3. "The stock market's recent extraordinary volatility provides a clue to the wild ride that lies ahead if we're playing out a 1930s-like script." Hulbert: Recent volatility doesn't hold a candle to Great Depression-era volatility (here's why.)

Want to hear more? Here's why Morgan Stanley's economics team firmly believes the Great Depression comparisons are misplaced.

It's all in how you slice it.

This is the same Jeremy Siegel who in 2006 wrote a WSJ article about how stocks were not overvalued ten years earlier, in 1996, (when Alan Greenspan gave his 'Irrational Exuberance' speech) because they posted good ten year returns after that time.

The stock market today is fairly valued based on a ten year trailing p/e ratios. Maybe Jeremy Siegel wants to rethink his 2006 conclusion and come back to us with another article?

In a way, you have to love Siegel's optimism about how the market should perhaps now carry a higher than historical p/e's because of lower transaction costs and better transparency/info. He has fallen into the 'this time it is different' quicksand.

Peter of NY @ Mar 13, 2009 07:52:30 AM

Wealth Alchemy

"When you take inflation and dividends into account, it took less than eight years" (for the stock market to recover its 1929 losses)

Ok, and then what happened after that? What happened is that the stock market fell by 50% in 1937-1938. So if you cashed out eight years after the 1929 crash, you did well. But if timed it wrong and wanted your money 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9, or 10 years after the crash, you did terribly. Little consolation.

The stock market bubble of 2000 was, by any measure, much bigger than the bubble of 1929. And yet after the brutal bear market of the last recession, the S&P 500

managed to recover 90% of its losses (when you take dividends and inflation into account) five years later, in 2007. Wow! Or, eh... , how come I am not impressed?

"if the stock market were to exactly adhere to a 1930s-like script, equities would provide a handsome return over the next five years." Yes, five years. Exactly five years. If you tried to cash out in year 1,2,3,4,6, or 7 you would be disappointed. And besides, everybody in the stock market just lost 1/2 of their money. They don't have any money to put into the market.

Peter of NY @ Mar 13, 2009 07:00:56 AM

Differences---maybe not so good

Restoring the uptick rule for shorting should bring back about a fourth of the recent losses. We're oversold due to unfettered and over-exuberant shorts.

There are more people in the market now, BUT, bear in mind the baby-boomers will be selling the market, not buying it, in order to have retirement income for the next two decades.

Corporate income tax should likely increase.

The old argument for decreasing these taxes to keep up with Ireland and Eastern Europe has tanked. Those low, low tax nations have tanked worse than us.

Muser of NM @ Mar 11, 2009 17:14:11 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

New Money

Katy Marquardt, a senior editor at U.S.News & World Report, takes a contemporary look at happenings in the financial world and aims to help young investors get going with their portfolios--or just sound cool at cocktail parties. Have a question? E-mail Katy at newmoney@usnews.com

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!