I once had a macro professor offhandedly suggest -in between demonstrating with Hamiltonians and representative agent models how rational bubbles could exist- that one way to identify a bubble would be the the number of complete amateurs lured into an industry. Similarly, my main data point in identifying the housing bubble was Flip That House and other shows like it.
What was happening on those shows defied everything micro theory says about how a market should behave. It wasn’t just that the behaviors couldn’t be explained by neoclassical, perfect information, Chicago School micro theory. There was no amount of information asymmetries, market power, or principal agent problems that could explain what happened on those shows. Complete novices buy a house, spend four weeks doing a shoddy remodel, and sell it for 150% what they paid for it. This was clearly Animal Spirits.
“What is happening here cannot last”, I would tell people. If there are such insanely outsized profits to be had, surely professionals will put these amateurs out of business, owners of houses in need of rehabilitation will ask higher and higher prices, and competition will drive prices down. Yet the shows went on for several seasons, with witless novices making profits that defied gravity.
The longer the show went on the more of a bubble I assumed was building. On the more professional home renovation shows they were leveraging up big time as well. And everyone knows hows it all ended.
I was reminded of all of this today by an excellent post from Mike Konczal pointing out this exact phenomenon across bubbles and industries:
In my personal opinion, in the same way middle-class people turned amateur stock analysts was the sign of a tech bubble, or middle-class people turned amateur realtors was the sign of a housing bubble, middle-class people turned amateur credit risk analysts and credit channel intermediaries was the surest sign of a credit bubble.
The amateur credit risk analysts he is talking about are the person-to-person lending websites that were once very overhyped in terms of their potential. This is an amateur market I had not considered, but it certainly makes sense.
The lesson here is beware the amateurs. Wherever they gather in huge profitable masses a bubble has surely formed, and the longer they are able to walk around blithely picking up $100 bills off the sidewalk, the bigger the bubble is.

10 comments
Comments feed for this article
Thursday ~ October 28th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
jazzbumpa
You’re right.
Cheers!
JzB
Friday ~ October 29th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Wonks Anonymous
I’m reminded of a non-economist’s theory of the “greater fool“.
Friday ~ October 29th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Nick Gogerty
You may be interested in Gresham’s law as it affects, banking, insurance and many arenas where money is a commodity offering with future risk being miscalculated by “amateurs”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_law
Friday ~ October 29th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Lord
This implicitly rejects efficient markets as the noise players are not neutral but biased, and their models are not based on fundamentals but extrapolation with perceived risk based not on deviation from mean but from trend and requires more than one representative agent but is basically correct.
Friday ~ October 29th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
James
This is why I identify gold as the next bubble.
Saturday ~ October 30th, 2010 at 2:27 am
Brad
Seems to be lots of talk about Gold being in a bubble. I don’t recall there being much talk about the housing collapse until it was already on the way down. I guess we’ll only know where the top is after the bubble bursts, but seems to me the more people there are talking about the gold bubble, the less likely it’s about to pop. I guess the trick is to get off just before the last of the shorts are forced to cover at a loss and momentum seems to be strongest.
Saturday ~ October 30th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Yglesias » Is Housing Inherently Bubbly?
[...] Ozimek calls this the Beware of Amateurs rule. It strikes me as a particular problem with real estate. Most of the time the vast majority of [...]
Sunday ~ October 31st, 2010 at 1:38 pm
When to beware of amateurs - Economics -
[...] crash when bellhops started giving him stock tips. Mr Yglesias adds:Adam Ozimek calls this the Beware of Amateurs rule. It strikes me as a particular problem with real estate. Most of the time the vast majority of [...]
Sunday ~ October 31st, 2010 at 6:33 pm
When to beware of amateurs [The Economist] | DreamInn
[...] crash when bellhops started giving him stock tips. Mr Yglesias adds: Adam Ozimek calls this the Beware of Amateurs rule. It strikes me as a particular problem with real estate. Most of the time the vast majority of [...]
Friday ~ January 14th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Fed Channels Ozimek « Modeled Behavior
[...] 2011 in Uncategorized | by Karl Smith Adam once said that the show “Flip that House” was a watershed in his realization that the market was out of control. It seems Fed economist David Stockton came to [...]