https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management
LTCM was forced to liquidate a number of its positions at a highly unfavorable moment and suffer further losses. A vivid illustration of the consequences of these forced liquidations is given by Lowenstein (2000).[20] He reports that LTCM established an arbitrage position in the dual-listed company (or "DLC") Royal Dutch Shell in the summer of 1997, when Royal Dutch traded at an 8%-10% premium relative to Shell. In total $2.3 billion was invested, half of which was "long" in Shell and the other half was "short" in Royal Dutch.[21]
LTCM was essentially betting that the share prices of Royal Dutch and Shell would converge because in their belief the present value of the future cashflows of the two securities should be similar. This might have happened in the long run, but due to its losses on other positions, LTCM had to unwind its position in Royal Dutch Shell. Lowenstein reports that the premium of Royal Dutch had increased to about 22%, which implies that LTCM incurred a large loss on this arbitrage strategy. LTCM lost $286 million in equity pairs trading and more than half of this loss is accounted for by the Royal Dutch Shell trade.[22]
The company, which had historically earned annualised compounded returns of almost 40% up to this point, experienced a flight-to-liquidity. In the first three weeks of September, LTCM's equity tumbled from $2.3 billion at the start of the month to just $400 million by September 25. With liabilities still over $100 billion, this translated to an effective leverage ratio of more than 250-to-1.[23]
Jokainen joka on sijoittanut euroakaan itse voi kertoa, että epäonnistumisen todennäköisyys oli erittäin merkittävä (tulisi tapahtumaan ennemmin tai myöhemmin). Vaikka odotusarvo olisikin ollut positiivinen, niin tuollaisella vivutuksella ihan normaaliin satunnaisvaihteluun kuuluva heilahtelu johtaa katasrofiin.
Kaiken lisäksi tuokin "fiksu" teoria ei edes useinkaan toimi.
Meillä on halpa ja kallis firma - kumpi tulee tuottamaan paremmin? Aika usein kallis. Se on kallis siksi, koska osakemarkkinat ennustavat sen tulevan tuottamaan paremmin.
Hyvä. Moni ei kuitenkaan usko tai ymmärrä evoluutiota. Mielestäni talous on helpompaa uskoa ja ymmärtää kuin evoluutio.
Taloustiede on esim. esittänyt teorioita makrotaloudesta ja valuutoista. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/optimum-currency-area-theory.asp
Tuon perusteella taloustieteilijät esittivät jo hyvissä ajoin etukäteen hypoteesinsa millaisiin vaikeuksiin euro-alue tulisi ajautumaan. Niinkuin kävikin.
Maailman parhaat talousviisaat ennustivat sen.
Esim. https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shiller
ja dramaturgi)
