Market Crashes and Liquidity
VIX is at 23.81 - more than double it's recent "normal" levels. Emerging markets are discounted by 30, 40, even 50% (Turkey, Russia). Inflation is a real threat, interest rates are an unstoppable freight train, the last outpost of income - real estate - is agreed upon as inevitably "doomed", Oil shortages, etc., etc., etc.
Question: In the backdrop of all these wonderful things, why haven't we crashed?
Answer: With all due respect, I think we have.
The reason it doesn't "look" like we have is liquidity. If we contrast today's sentiment to that of August 2000, when then Nasdaq bubble whooped out of existence, it isn't all that different. The only difference is the degree of maturity of the U.S. markets and ensuing liquidity. In short, no matter how bad the sentiment gets, there is still a continuous flow of bids out there. That's markedly dfferent from the dot com era when things imploded because noone was around to buy them.
Contrast this yet again to the newer "hot" markets like India and Russia and you get the familiar implosion effect: remove liquidity and the bids dissappear. This simple mechanism has everything to do with the amplitude of the resulting moves.
Bottom line: I don't think we'll witness a real "crash" in the U.S. indices. There are too many players on both sides of the fence and unless the whole world goes to war, they are likely to remain. That's why I still feel that treating emerging markets as an exaggeration of today's sentiment is proper; U.S. is really the same - we are just "saner" because we have more hands in play.
So, I think a point can be made that we did in fact "crash": the world did a real 1987 and the U.S. did a "mature" version of it.
Granted, in the longer term this will probably get worse before it gets better. But I think at this point you can bet on the "worse" part not being all that terrible.
Cheers,
/Dmitry




