The Origin of Financial Crises provides a compelling analysis of the forces behind today's economic crisis. In a series of disarmingly simple arguments George Cooper challenges the core principles of today's economic orthodoxy, explaining why financial markets do not obey the efficient market principles described in today's economic textbooks but are instead inherently unstable and habitually crisis prone.
The Origin of Financial Crises (Vintage)
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Are you a finance, investing, economics or accounting professional? Find books, read blog posts, and discover new authors and thought-leaders in Money & Markets, a new home for finance industry professionals on Amazon.com. > Shop now |
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
Review
"A well written book ... Cooper's most novel doctrine is that investors do not have to be irrational to generate bubbles." -- Financial Times "Financial Times"
About the Author
Dr. George Cooper is a principal of Alignment Investors, a division of BlueCrest Capital Management Ltd. He was born in Sunderland and studied at Durham University. George has worked as a fund manager at Goldman Sachs and as strategist for Deutsche Bank and J. P. Morgan. He lives in London with his wife and two children.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
115 of 122 people found the following review helpful
By A. J. Sutter
Format:Paperback
There's a lot to like in this book. George Cooper (GC) provides one of the most lucid and concise descriptions of the role of central banking you're ever likely to encounter. He carefully distinguishes among the philosophies of different central bankers, such as between the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank. His critique of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (or "fallacy", as he prefers to call it) is trenchant and clear, as is his analysis of why the "fundamentals" of a stock aren't fundamental. He highlights the heterodox theories of Mandelbrot and Minsky, which are closer to the truth than the orthodox ones Ben Bernanke used to teach at Princeton. And he writes with a wry sense of humor, including a nice one-liner about boom-bust cycles that I'm surprised other reviewers haven't mentioned: "The invisible hand is playing racquetball" (@105).
That said, this book won't give you the whole story in understanding the current financial crisis. For one thing, GC never mentions credit default swaps or other derivatives, which in the aggregate dwarf the "real" economy. Even when GC describes why balance sheets are misleading, he doesn't mention any off-balance sheet instruments, of which derivatives are one category.
For another, GC tends to be overly accepting of microeconomics, and even of the diligence of lenders. For example, he says, in a kind of defense of bond ratings analysts, "When ratings analysts are assessing the quality of a loan, ... or the mortgage broker is assessing the safety of a mortgage, they evaluate each loan against the prevailing market prices for the loan's corresponding assets. In this procedure the tacit assumption is that the asset in question can be sold to repay the loan. At the micro level this is always a reasonable assumption" (@115). GC's point is that there is a "fallacy of composition" in reasoning from the micro scale to the macro -- the macro-level reality is not simply the sum all the micro transactions. OK. But why is the assumption he mentions *always* reasonable at the micro level? And why doesn't GC mention that in the current financial crisis, ratings agencies, mortgage brokers et al. did NOT follow the careful procedures he describes? (to say nothing of explaining *why* they didn't). The recent books by George Soros, Charles Morris and especially the fantastic "Structured Finance and Collateralized Debt Obligations" (2nd. ed. 2008) by Janet Tavakoli will tell you much more about this aspect of the story.
GC rightly points out that many economists' arguments operate on the principle of "proof by assertion" (@6), but he doesn't entirely avoid this trap himself. For example, GC's simplified descriptions of the history of finance are mostly based on "toy model" analogies, such as bakers and farmers selling their wares in a town square (Chapter 3). This picture isn't entirely historically accurate; e.g., when he asserts that central banking was necessary for the development of venture capital "in the truest sense of the word," whatever that means (@55), he overlooks the venture investments of the Medici during the medieval period, as well as many forms of Islamic financial transactions. None of those investment structures relied on central banks. This gave me the feeling that other aspects of his explanation might be a bit too pat, as well, especially when he says that some particular institution or practice led to or enabled another.
As he shifts his argument to a more constructive point of view, GC invokes an ingenious analogy (Chapter 6) to 19th-Century physicist James Clerk Maxwell's mathematical theory of mechanical "governors" (gizmos that kept machines from spinning out of control; Maxwell's original paper is reproduced as an appendix). Ingenious, but problematic. Most of standard neoclassical economic theory is based on ingenious analogies to physics, too (see especially P. Mirowski's 1989 book, "More Heat Than Light"). Some of those analogies, such as to "equilibrium" in supply and demand for consumer goods, sound at first blush as plausible as GC's analogy to Maxwell: ask any mainstream economist. But that plausibility doesn't mean that any of the theories are right -- and indeed, in the neoclassical case, the theory is wrong. GC doesn't use any empirical data stronger than anecdotal evidence to show that his Maxwell analogy is apt to the real world. Nor does he provide evidence that the policy recommendations he deduces from that analogy are feasible.
GC's failure to enagage with the derivatives issue is pertinent in this context too. One of GC's main constructive ideas is that central bankers should "prick" asset price bubbles as soon as they can identify that they've begun. (BTW, GC uses the word "asset" not as you might have learned if you took an accounting class, but in the finance pro's narrow sense of referring to stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.) If this sends the economy into small cycles of good times and tougher times, so be it -- in GC's view, that's better than the long ride up and crashing ride down we've experienced so often under Greenspan and his successor. However, GC says *the* key macroeconomic variable for identifying bubbles is the rate of credit creation (@125). Many derivatives contracts, like the ones that made trouble for A.I.G. in autumn 2008, are a form of credit creation -- just like bets placed with a bookie, any form of gambling creates debts. But derivatives are notoriously non-transparent: it's hard to know how many of these contracts are out there at any time. In that case, the visible data (mainly loans, bonds, etc.) might understate the amount of credit in the economy and also understate the rate of credit creation. So how's a central banker supposed to know the right time to prick? Since GC doesn't show how this approach has worked in the past, it's a matter of faith as to whether it might in the future.
This is a clear, witty book from which you can learn a lot. And some of GC's recommendations aren't so controversial, such as his suggestion for using a different form of statistical analysis (e.g., à la Mandelbrot) for looking at financial markets. But ultimately, the book is stronger when criticizing current practice than when proposing new policy.
That said, this book won't give you the whole story in understanding the current financial crisis. For one thing, GC never mentions credit default swaps or other derivatives, which in the aggregate dwarf the "real" economy. Even when GC describes why balance sheets are misleading, he doesn't mention any off-balance sheet instruments, of which derivatives are one category.
For another, GC tends to be overly accepting of microeconomics, and even of the diligence of lenders. For example, he says, in a kind of defense of bond ratings analysts, "When ratings analysts are assessing the quality of a loan, ... or the mortgage broker is assessing the safety of a mortgage, they evaluate each loan against the prevailing market prices for the loan's corresponding assets. In this procedure the tacit assumption is that the asset in question can be sold to repay the loan. At the micro level this is always a reasonable assumption" (@115). GC's point is that there is a "fallacy of composition" in reasoning from the micro scale to the macro -- the macro-level reality is not simply the sum all the micro transactions. OK. But why is the assumption he mentions *always* reasonable at the micro level? And why doesn't GC mention that in the current financial crisis, ratings agencies, mortgage brokers et al. did NOT follow the careful procedures he describes? (to say nothing of explaining *why* they didn't). The recent books by George Soros, Charles Morris and especially the fantastic "Structured Finance and Collateralized Debt Obligations" (2nd. ed. 2008) by Janet Tavakoli will tell you much more about this aspect of the story.
GC rightly points out that many economists' arguments operate on the principle of "proof by assertion" (@6), but he doesn't entirely avoid this trap himself. For example, GC's simplified descriptions of the history of finance are mostly based on "toy model" analogies, such as bakers and farmers selling their wares in a town square (Chapter 3). This picture isn't entirely historically accurate; e.g., when he asserts that central banking was necessary for the development of venture capital "in the truest sense of the word," whatever that means (@55), he overlooks the venture investments of the Medici during the medieval period, as well as many forms of Islamic financial transactions. None of those investment structures relied on central banks. This gave me the feeling that other aspects of his explanation might be a bit too pat, as well, especially when he says that some particular institution or practice led to or enabled another.
As he shifts his argument to a more constructive point of view, GC invokes an ingenious analogy (Chapter 6) to 19th-Century physicist James Clerk Maxwell's mathematical theory of mechanical "governors" (gizmos that kept machines from spinning out of control; Maxwell's original paper is reproduced as an appendix). Ingenious, but problematic. Most of standard neoclassical economic theory is based on ingenious analogies to physics, too (see especially P. Mirowski's 1989 book, "More Heat Than Light"). Some of those analogies, such as to "equilibrium" in supply and demand for consumer goods, sound at first blush as plausible as GC's analogy to Maxwell: ask any mainstream economist. But that plausibility doesn't mean that any of the theories are right -- and indeed, in the neoclassical case, the theory is wrong. GC doesn't use any empirical data stronger than anecdotal evidence to show that his Maxwell analogy is apt to the real world. Nor does he provide evidence that the policy recommendations he deduces from that analogy are feasible.
GC's failure to enagage with the derivatives issue is pertinent in this context too. One of GC's main constructive ideas is that central bankers should "prick" asset price bubbles as soon as they can identify that they've begun. (BTW, GC uses the word "asset" not as you might have learned if you took an accounting class, but in the finance pro's narrow sense of referring to stocks, bonds and other financial instruments.) If this sends the economy into small cycles of good times and tougher times, so be it -- in GC's view, that's better than the long ride up and crashing ride down we've experienced so often under Greenspan and his successor. However, GC says *the* key macroeconomic variable for identifying bubbles is the rate of credit creation (@125). Many derivatives contracts, like the ones that made trouble for A.I.G. in autumn 2008, are a form of credit creation -- just like bets placed with a bookie, any form of gambling creates debts. But derivatives are notoriously non-transparent: it's hard to know how many of these contracts are out there at any time. In that case, the visible data (mainly loans, bonds, etc.) might understate the amount of credit in the economy and also understate the rate of credit creation. So how's a central banker supposed to know the right time to prick? Since GC doesn't show how this approach has worked in the past, it's a matter of faith as to whether it might in the future.
This is a clear, witty book from which you can learn a lot. And some of GC's recommendations aren't so controversial, such as his suggestion for using a different form of statistical analysis (e.g., à la Mandelbrot) for looking at financial markets. But ultimately, the book is stronger when criticizing current practice than when proposing new policy.
41 of 46 people found the following review helpful
By J. Foti
Format:Hardcover
FYI--this book receives a good review in "Credit and blame: a must-read on the origins of the crisis," The Economist 388(8597), 13 September 2008:79.
"The [credit] crunch has lasted long enough to spawn its own publishing mini-boom, as authors have raced to give their diagnoses in print. George Cooper, a strategist at JPMorgan, an investment bank, has produced by far the best so far, skewering both academic orthodoxy and central bank policy in the process...Mr Cooper's book is by far the most cogent and reasoned of the modern-day 'credit excess' school."
"The [credit] crunch has lasted long enough to spawn its own publishing mini-boom, as authors have raced to give their diagnoses in print. George Cooper, a strategist at JPMorgan, an investment bank, has produced by far the best so far, skewering both academic orthodoxy and central bank policy in the process...Mr Cooper's book is by far the most cogent and reasoned of the modern-day 'credit excess' school."
36 of 42 people found the following review helpful
By JCS
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
I completely agree with the positive recommendations of The Economist Magazine and the reviewers. George Cooper has combined a strong technical and practical investment background to produce a modern thoughtful study of how to best manage our complex economy. However, I disagree with Brady on its readability, I feel Cooper opens this subject up to any thoughtful investor {regardless their background) by writing in down-to-earth English. He uses everyday examples, like a baker making and selling bread. His clear understanding of the material and deep sympathy for the reader motivate him to use such everyday examples to completely dispense with mathematical equations. He still maintains the needed precision.
I was persuaded that economic crises are inevitable, and enjoyed his ideas on how we might deal with them. I want to encourage every investor and student who is curous about how we can improve our economy to read Cooper's clear, cogent presentation.
I was persuaded that economic crises are inevitable, and enjoyed his ideas on how we might deal with them. I want to encourage every investor and student who is curous about how we can improve our economy to read Cooper's clear, cogent presentation.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
for once the cliche 'essential reading' really is justified
`Regulatory and supervisory policies, rather than monetary policies, would have been more effective means of addressing the run-up in house prices. Read more
Published 8 months ago by Jasper Tamespeke
4.0 out of 5 stars
Central banks should lean against the wind, but Cooper has no reason...
This vastly entertaining book offers numerous insights into how financial crises arise and how they can be dealt with. Read more
Published 10 months ago by Slavophile
4.0 out of 5 stars
Tossing out the Efficient Market Hypothesis for asset markets
This was an excellent read, but disheartening. It clearly lays out how, while Adam Smith's invisible hand applies to the market for goods, it does not apply to the asset markets,... Read more
Published 13 months ago by Jeffrey D. Kenyon
4.0 out of 5 stars
Elegant writing, but lacks detail
I have never taken a course in economics, so I will leave the finer analysis to those who know more than I do. Read more
Published 20 months ago by Evelyn Uyemura
5.0 out of 5 stars
A concise and historical view of the current and future financial...
The financial crisis of our time has created havoc in our system. However, this book tells you, the reader, that the financial system has flaws and these flaws contributed to the... Read more
Published 24 months ago by Faustino Ramos
5.0 out of 5 stars
excellent easy to read bok
Accurate, easy to read. Short, and easy to understand. More useful than the other 4 books I have read on the financial crisis.
Published on November 29, 2010 by alan
1.0 out of 5 stars
As Astrology is to Astonomy so is George Cooper to an Economist
It appears that George Cooper hasn't read any economic theory since the 1980s and the theory he did read, he misunderstood. Read more
Published on September 12, 2010 by Christopher A. Erickson
5.0 out of 5 stars
Clearly written, masterful description of complicated topic.
The best part of this book is the clear writing. The author describes so clearly, that many others have tried and weren't as successful. Read more
Published on June 8, 2010 by Diverse
3.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting but dangerous
This is annoying. I like the book's analysis and much of the discussion, but Cooper's recommendations are, in my opinion, really wrong. Read more
Published on May 31, 2010 by D. DeMers
2.0 out of 5 stars
A wordy reminder of old ideas
Cooper manages to cram into 170 small pages ideas that a competent author sympathetic to the expenditure of his readers' time might encompass in 15 small pages. Read more
Published on January 18, 2010 by H. M. Gladney
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Listmania!
So You'd Like to...
|
|
