Will stocks crash like it's 1987? Not this year.

The potential for a summer stock market crash (like the one that happened in 1987) is low, because the market environment now is very different from the market then.

Richard Drew/AP
Specialist Peter Giacchi, right, works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange Tuesday, May 15, 2012. Some are worried that the stock market might be headed for a 1987-esque summer crash, but experts think the chances are pretty slim.

The new meme that has begun making the rounds involves the potential of a 1987-like crash occurring in US stocks.  Marc Faber, who is incredible at getting headlines, floated this possibility as a trial balloon on Bloomberg the other day and that's all you really need these days.

Michael Gayed, a former protege of Faber's, explains that a 1987-style crash is not likely this year because of some pretty key differences in the market environment between then and now...

From MarketWatch:

The key reason the '87 Crash occurred was because of a massive disconnect between the performance of the bond market at the time, which was pushing yields of 10%, and a rising stock market, which was advancing precipitously for the bulk of the year. The significant outperformance of stocks relative to bonds was so stark that it caused the bond/stock ratio to completely collapse (bonds underperformed stocks sharply). The 1987 Crash in stocks completely undid that ratio breakdown and sent the ratio back to its longer-term trend line in a single day.

We simply don't have this set up now at all. The conditions are no where similar to 1987 internally within the markets. If anything, it is almost the exact opposite. Bond yields aren't pushing double digits like they did in 1987—they are at historic lows. Stocks have not gone vertical either. The market now is behaving more like it does in a traditional corrective environment within the context of what I believe is a reflationary and bullish year for stocks.

Michael's work concerns the analysis of relationships between markets, head over  for his whole article.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.