tulips: forever blowing bubbles

M

madisona

Guest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania


In 1623, a single bulb of a famous tulip variety could cost as much as a thousand Dutch florins (the average yearly income at the time was 150 florins). Tulips were also exchanged for land, valuable livestock, and houses. Allegedly, a good trader could earn sixty thousand florins a month.
By 1635, a sale of 40 bulbs for 100,000 florins was recorded. By way of comparison, a ton of butter cost around 100 florins and "eight fat swine" 240 florins. A record was the sale of the most famous bulb, the Semper Augustus, for 6,000 florins in Haarlem.
By 1636, tulips were traded on the stock exchanges of numerous Dutch towns and cities. This encouraged trading in tulips by all members of society, with many people selling or trading their other possessions in order to speculate in the tulip market. Some speculators made large profits as a result.
Some traders sold tulip bulbs that had only just been planted or those they intended to plant (in effect, tulip futures contracts). This phenomenon was dubbed windhandel, or "wind trade", and took place mostly in the taverns of small towns using an arcane slate system to indicate bid prices. A state edict from 1610 (well before the alleged bubble) made that trade illegal by refusing to enforce the contracts, but the legislation failed to curtail the activity.
In February 1637 tulip traders could no longer get inflated prices for their bulbs, and they began to sell. The bubble burst. People began to suspect that the demand for tulips could not last, and as this spread a panic developed. Some were left holding contracts to purchase tulips at prices now ten times greater than those on the open market, while others found themselves in possession of bulbs now worth a fraction of the price they had paid. Allegedly, thousands of Dutch, including businessmen and dignitaries, were financially ruined.
Attempts were made to resolve the situation to the satisfaction of all parties, but these were unsuccessful. Ultimately, individuals were stuck with the bulbs they held at the end of the crash—no court would enforce payment of a contract, since judges regarded the debts as contracted through gambling, and thus not enforceable in law.
Lesser versions of the tulipomania also occurred in other parts of Europe, although matters never reached the state they had in the Netherlands. In England in 1800, it was common to pay fifteen guineas for a single tulip bulb. This sum would have kept a labourer and his family in food, clothes and lodging for six months.
 
Re: tulips

Luckily we have lived through the dot com boom, so we'll all be pretty au-fait with such bubbles:D

And that was great crack while it lasted.

Everyone was an expert on tech shares. Going home at lunchtime to watch a programme about shares "Show me the Money" and then buying those shares that afternoon. Mostly small companies with a small amount of shares available. I'm not surprised that ordinary punters lost money, that's that they are there for. They believed the hype.

What did surprise me was that so many otherwise intelligent people didn't see the crash coming and get out of the market early enough or didn't invest in dot com companies in the first place. Dermot Desmond and Warren Buffet spring to mind.

Companies burning cash at a massive rate. Their potential future sales were never going to justify the high prices that they were selling for.

One of my own mistakes, what sort of a gobsh1t really believed that people would ever want to watch a football match etc on their mobile phones, and was prepared to bet their own, often borrowed money on the lie. Brokers didn't care. They made no matter what happened.


Murt
 
Re: tulips

Saw a good film, "boiler room" on DVD last night. Ben Affleck was in it though not the lead role. Set during dot-com times it was about an outfit that cold-called people to sell them shares in worthless companies that were about to launch an IPO. The companies being floated were actually owned by friends of the owner of the Boiler room outfit, though the employees officially didn't know it.

Of course everything they were doing was illegal, but it didn't seem too far removed from what many of the more reputable firms were up to at the same time.
 
Re: tulips

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
 
Re: tulips

What did surprise me was that so many otherwise intelligent people didn't see the crash coming and get out of the market early enough or didn't invest in dot com companies in the first place. Dermot Desmond and Warren Buffet spring to mind.

Didn't Desmond make a packet in Baltimore Technologies, selling before it went belly-up?
Buffett avoided all technology stocks as he did not understand their products (changed his mind in later years). He looks for strong fundamentals so dotcoms were always going to be a no-no.
 
Sorry I meant Dermot Desmond and Warren Buffet spring to mind as exceptions to the rule.


Murt
 
Interesting to see how things haven't changed much in 300-400 years ; people will jump on the bandwagon after a while if their contemporaries/neighbours appear to be making a fast buck !
I mean despite the fact that there was an organised market etc , this was early pyramid selling. A product with minimal fundamental value reaching phenomenal values due to hype and "potential". Eventually when reality took hold , the valuations plummeted to the value of the product.
 
Interesting to see how things haven't changed much in 300-400 years ; people will jump on the bandwagon after a while if their contemporaries/neighbours appear to be making a fast buck !
I mean despite the fact that there was an organised market etc , this was early pyramid selling. A product with minimal fundamental value reaching phenomenal values due to hype and "potential". Eventually when reality took hold , the valuations plummeted to the value of the product.


Whatever do you mean? Are you implying that such a bubble could occur again?
 
Back
Top