≡ Menu

The UK’s worst stock market crash: 1972-1974

A bowler-hatted city gent being rained on while equities are on sale.

The coronavirus crash was bad and the Global Financial Crisis unfolded like a horror movie.

But the UK’s biggest stock market crash in the last 120 years was the drawdown of 1972 to 1974.

The 1970s slump had it all. A property market bubble, secondary banking crisis, massive oil shock, falling pound, rising inflation and interest rates, industrial unrest and global recession were the toxic feedstock for a rampant bear market that inflicted bigger losses than those sustained during either World War or the Great Depression.

The UK market fell -73% from 1 May 1972 to 13 Dec 1974.1 That is 32 months of historic misery.

This chart of the FT 30 index of UK stocks sums up the sinking feeling:

Graph of the UK stock market crash 1972-74

Source: CEICDATA.COM / Financial Times

Not even the -52% bursting of the dotcom bubble could compare with this meltdown.

What the hell happened?

The trouble starts: May to September 1972

The drama begins in May 1972. The UK gives up defending sterling’s peg to the dollar in the face of a widening trade deficit and draining currency reserves. The pound begins a new life as a free-floating currency and heads down. (A direction we’re all familiar with today.)

Inflation and the Bank of England’s (BOE) Bank Rate creep up. The Office Of National Statistics (ONS) records CPI inflation at 7.2% and the BOE’s main interest rate at 7.6% in 1972.

After a summer rally, the market heads into correction territory in September. It’s down more than 10% since May.2

We’re five months into the decline and it’s curiously gentle in comparison to the -32% elevator drop we took in the first month of the coronavirus crash.

Meanwhile, there’s trouble brewing in the commercial property sector.

The lunatic fringe

According to a BOE paper that raked over the ashes of the crisis, rents were rocketing in the early seventies. The supply of office space had been strangled by planning restrictions since the late sixties.

This set off a chain reaction that led to a massive bailout of UK banks called ‘the Lifeboat’.

First, the planning controls were loosened by Edward Heath’s Conservative Government (1970-1974). Faced with a stagnating economy, they also turned on the credit taps as part of a stimulus known as the dash-for-growth policy. But the UK’s industrial sector was slow to take up the easy finance terms and the vacuum was filled by property developers keen to make a killing in Britain’s hottest sector – commercial real-estate.

This heady, fast-buck cocktail was spiked by the vodka of ‘secondary banks’. An emerging category of loosely-regulated lenders (sniffly referred to as ‘the fringe’ in the BOE report), these secondary banks borrowed short on the money markets and lent long to the developers.

Few questioned the strategy as long as the fringe could keep financing their liabilities. However, the risk was building.

Everything was fine as long as there wasn’t a liquidity crunch…

Going downhill: January to September 1973

The stock market opened in 1973 just 5% down from its peak back in May. But things went south from there.

The BOE described the first six months of 1973 as:

…characterised by an almost continuous international currency crisis.

The UK’s trade deficit expanded in 1973 to -2.2% of GDP. That seems routine to us now but it must have seemed mammoth at the time. Nearly 30% of the economy then was accounted for by manufacturing as opposed to just 10% today.3 We were well on our way to our worst trade deficit in the last half century, as the gap accelerated to -4.4% of GDP in 1974.

Inflation (9.4% CPI) and interest rates (9.2% Bank Rate) continued rising through 1973 as the Bank tried to dampen the overstimulated economy.

The stock market deteriorated along with everything else. Finally we hit bear country in August – down 22% over the 15 months since May ’72.

Oil Crisis and recession: October to December 1973

The market really walked off the cliff from October.

The UK had already tipped into recession when The Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War began and ended in October.

The US and Soviet Union sat like trainers in opposite corners – backing their respective fighters – when the Arabs unleashed their oil weapon on the Americans and their allies.

The OPEC oil cartel cut supply to the US and immediately hiked prices by 17% in mid-October. The oil price was to quadruple by March 1974, deepening the global recession. North Sea oil was still in its infancy and couldn’t cushion the UK economy from the price shock.

The double-headed beast of a falling pound and swelling inflation forced another interest rate rise in November. The stock market took a 16% hit in that month alone and passed 30% in losses since the peak.

Then, somewhere in Threadneedle Street, someone must have muttered, “It can’t get any worse,” because at that moment it did…

…the liquidity crunch chicken came home to roost.

Commercial rents had been frozen by the Government in December 1972. That squeezed real-estate profits, while rising inflation and interest rates made the business of lending to secondary banks with risky exposures to the property market look dubious at best.

The pressure came to a head in November ’73 when London and County Securities could no longer raise fresh loans on the money markets.

The BOE’s report, The secondary banking crisis and the Bank of England’s support operations, records:

It very soon became apparent that some more sophisticated depositors in the money markets were taking fright at their potential exposure to any such institution.

The Bank thus found themselves confronted with the imminent collapse of several deposit-taking institutions, and with the clear danger of a rapidly escalating crisis of confidence.

This threatened other deposit-taking institutions and, if left unchecked, would have quickly passed into parts of the banking system proper.

Behind closed doors, on 28 December, the Bank quietly launched ‘the Lifeboat’. This rescue operation would eventually prop up 30 secondary banks, and be recalled by veterans witnessing the run on Northern Rock nearly 34 years later.

Back on Main Street, OPEC doubled the oil price on 23 December. In a Christmas to remember, Edward Heath declared The Three-Day Week. This restricted the use of electricity by businesses, with predictable consequences.

It would blackout Britain from midnight 31 December.

Contagion: early 1974

From November ’73 to the end of January ’74, London shares shed another 26% and were down 40% since the market top.

The oil shock, fear of contagion in the banking system, grinding recession, crumbling property values, and industrial poison of The Three-Day Week were backdropped by a ballooning inflation genie that refused to be bottled by tightening interest rates.

The miners upped the ante in February by voting to go on strike. Their battle against the Government pay cap and wages that lagged inflation had led to Edward Heath’s Three-Day Week, as the Prime Minister sought to conserve the coal supply that fuelled Britain’s power stations.

Heath sensed an opportunity to checkmate his political enemies and called a general election in February. Drawing the battle lines in stark terms, Heath asked the country: ‘Who governs Britain?’

The voters responded: “Not you, mate!” 

The Conservatives lost their majority. Britain returned its first hung parliament since 1929 – and the last until 2010. It seems the mischievous British electorate does love a bit of political paralysis in a crisis.

Harold Wilson entered Number 10 at the head of a minority Labour Government in early March. Chancellor Denis Healey – whose topiary-free eyebrows delighted a generation of school children – then administered some stiff medicine in his March Budget:

  • The basic rate of income tax was upped to 33%
  • A new 38% band introduced
  • The top rate increased from 75% to 83%
  • Corporation tax up 12% to 52%
  • VAT slapped on petrol4

The stock market delivered its verdict – a 21% drop in March. The largest monthly fall of the entire drawdown.

We were 22 months in and the market had lost 50%, surpassing slumps in both World Wars, The Great Depression, and the 2008-09 Financial Crisis that lay in wait.

The worst is yet to come: May to December 1974

After a brief respite in April, and after two years of decline, the market went on its worst run yet: a five-month losing streak from May to September. This knocked another 37% off equities.

1972-74 losses mounted to -65% – a slump not even the the future dotcom bust could top.

Meanwhile, the UK’s banking crisis took on an international dimension. Massive foreign exchange losses and fraud shook confidence in the financial system across Europe and the US.

As fear mushroomed, the BOE increased its liabilities as:

There was still a significant risk that an isolated default by a UK bank, in the highly charged atmosphere of the time, might have triggered a chain reaction.

Rumours spread in November that one of the four main British banks – the NatWest – was on life support from the BOE. The NatWest issued a denial. In a remarkable sign of the quaint times, that quashed the rumours as opposed to inflaming them, as would surely happen today.

Another sign of the times was Denis Healey notching up a hat-trick of Budgets in 1974, with Labour scraping a slim majority in the October ’74 election. The market greeted that development with a further downward leg of -18% from November through December – finally hitting bottom on 13 December – with a real return loss of -73%.5

1974 was the UK stock market’s worst single year since 1900. The following stats (courtesy of the ONS and Sarasins) sketch the economic conditions that crushed business and investor confidence:

  • -2.25% GDP contraction
  • 12.1% interest rates
  • 15.5% rise in CPI inflation
  • -13% corporate profits

The rent freeze was finally lifted in December ’74 and property prices began to rebalance. Unemployment continued to rise in 1975 but the market snapped back that year with the mother of all mean reversions – a 99.6% real return.6 The rebound made 1975 the greatest annual performance in UK stock market history (dating from 1900).

However a 73% loss requires a 270% gain before you return to the black. After 32-months the market had only touched bottom. It would take another nine years to breakeven again in real-terms – a milestone passed in 1983.

Hopefully you and I will never experience anything like the 1972-74 stock market crash. But it’s a cautionary tale of the tape that shows what can happen, and why equities will only reward those who can handle the risks.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. Sarasin Compendium Of Investment 2020. []
  2. Monthly price data for the FT 30 index from Investing.com. []
  3. Changes in the economy since the 1970s, ONS. []
  4. Not to mention sweets, ice cream, soft drinks and crisps. Those school kids weren’t so amused now. []
  5. Sarasins Compendium Of Investment 2020. []
  6. Barclays Gilt Equity Study. []
{ 53 comments }
Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

We’re often told these days that we must take more responsibility for our own financial futures.

And we must! This site partly exists to help.

Taking responsibility is pretty straightforward – simple, but not easy – if you’re spending more than you earn, or you haven’t saved a rainy day fund.

Like a vasectomy, it’s a matter of cutting the outflow and redirecting internally.

But once you’re free of debt and you’ve got 3-6 months in a cash emergency fund, the picture gets more complicated.

Not with the part most people fret over – how to invest. That’s a solved problem.

Invest in a global index tracker fund, offset the risk with an appropriately-sized slug of government bonds, do it in tax shelters (ISAs and pensions), use cheap platforms, and add more monthly – rather than fuss daily – for the next 30 years. Tweak to suit.

Yes we like to dig into the minutia around here – exactly which fund, how much in what bonds – but you won’t go wrong if you get the basics right.

The big picture

Things get tricky not with the tactics…

  • Index funds, platforms, tax shelters

…but with the strategy…

  • How much to save? When can you retire? What can you spend?

We’ve written many series on everything from doing your planning to estimating a sustainable withdrawal rate.

They’ve typically come in multiple installments, because there are no pat answers.

Indeed faced with more complexity, many people are tempted to turn to professional advice.

And when it comes to issues such as taxes or estate planning, seeking advice could be very wise.

However I’m usually wary of suggesting people re-introduce higher costs and murkiness back into their core financial planning by offloading responsibility to a third-party.

Unless you’re very wealthy, such advice will probably just be outsourced to software – albeit someone charming who might spend an hour explaining the system’s output to you, and if you’re fortunate help you with the inputs.

But it won’t be truly individual advice, typically.

This is a problem, because such software models can spit out very different numbers.

Pension planning: from plenty to penury

Consider the results of an investigation into online pension planners by Trustnet’s magazine this month, pointed out to me by reader P.J.:

After almost two solid days on five platform websites, I have to say I was surprised to see there was almost no agreement at all on what my money would provide in retirement.

I am now wondering if the calculators are plain wrong, steeped in regulatory pessimism or a victim of their own complex assumptions.

The range of results is pretty astonishing, in some cases suggesting your income will run out 15 years earlier from what are essentially the same inputs.

The article’s author John Blowers fed the same fairly standard retirement scenario into all five planners. The results that came back do appear to be… a mixed bag:

There are some huge variations in there! Read the full article for more about the assumptions, and a discussion of what might be going on.

I’d suggest you do the hard miles with your own pension calculations. You can then sanity check them with an online planner or two.

If nothing else you’ll be better able to understand how these tools reach their conclusions!

[continue reading…]

{ 73 comments }

The Slow and Steady passive portfolio update: Q2 2020

The portfolio is up 2.67% year to date.

Well, that’s odd! The Slow & Steady passive portfolio is up year-to-date, by 2.7%. It’s up over the past twelve months by 6.4%. I’ll take that.

It feels unreal to be talking about those kinds of returns as a global recession sweeps our economic shoreline like a tsunami. Can our chums in the world’s central banks hold back the waters long enough for most of us to scramble to higher ground?

For now, let’s just double-take at the numbers that few would have predicted three months ago. Quarterly returns brought to you by Miracle-o-vision:

The annualised return of the portfolio is 8.99%.

The Slow and Steady portfolio is Monevator’s model passive investing portfolio. It was set up at the start of 2011 with £3,000. An extra £976 is invested every quarter into a diversified set of index funds, tilted towards equities. You can read the origin story and catch up on all the previous passive portfolio posts.

Too good to be true?

The fate of our portfolio is largely driven by its two biggest holdings: Developed World equities and UK government bonds (or gilts).

Developed World equities are the one risky asset class we own that’s nudged back into positive territory year-to-date.

Our gilts remain substantially up.

Our other equity holdings were all spiraling down 20-30% last quarter but they’ve catapulted back to recover much of their loss, too.

Global Small Cap has bounced (like a dead cat?) up 30% while UK equities are the laggard, ‘only’ putting on 16%.

This is the kind of volatility we can all live with.

I’m not sorry we sold more than £3,000 of our bonds last quarter and ploughed the proceeds back into equities in a timely rebalancing move.

Return of the math

One thing that’s long fascinated me is how large your returns must be in order to recover from a steep fall versus a mere dip.

For example:

  • 10% / 90% x 100 = 11% gain needed to recover from a 10% loss.
  • 50% / 50% x 100 = 100% gain needed to recover from a 50% loss.

The Slow & Steady portfolio lost around 11% last quarter so we only needed just over 12% to tunnel back up to the surface.

The speed of a morale-boosting turnaround like that makes it a lot easier to remain calm if the coronavirus crisis has a few more downward legs in it yet.

The bottom line is that diversification into bonds has proved it’s worth to me in as visceral a way as I could experience.

Another bet that’s paid off so far is backing capital over labour.

After the Global Financial Crisis, it seemed probable to me that my income prospects were permanently impaired. I partially justified diverting a large percentage of my earnings into the capital markets as a way of offsetting a dark future for somebody who’s chance to break into the 1% had likely passed. (Around the moment I was born, I think).

Watching the indiscriminate bazooka-firing from out of the windows of the Federal Reserve et al, it would seem like I picked the right side. For now, anyway.

New transactions

Every quarter we throw £976 to the wolves of Wall Street and hope they eat somebody else. Our fresh meat chunks are split between our seven funds according to our predetermined asset allocation.

We rebalance using Larry Swedroe’s 5/25 rule but that hasn’t been activated this quarter.

These are our trades:

UK equity

Vanguard FTSE UK All-Share Index Trust – OCF 0.06%

Fund identifier: GB00B3X7QG63

New purchase: £48.80

Buy 0.269 units @ £181.39

Target allocation: 5%

Developed world ex-UK equities

Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex-UK Equity Index Fund – OCF 0.14%

Fund identifier: GB00B59G4Q73

New purchase: £361.12

Buy 0.916 units @ £394.32

Target allocation: 37%

Global small cap equities

Vanguard Global Small-Cap Index Fund – OCF 0.29%

Fund identifier: IE00B3X1NT05

New purchase: £58.56

Buy 0.205 units @ £285.12

Target allocation: 6%

Emerging market equities

iShares Emerging Markets Equity Index Fund D – OCF 0.17%

Fund identifier: GB00B84DY642

New purchase: £87.84

Buy 52.884 units @ £1.66

Target allocation: 9%

Global property

iShares Global Property Securities Equity Index Fund D – OCF 0.17%

Fund identifier: GB00B5BFJG71

New purchase: £48.80

Buy 24.987 units @ £1.95

Target allocation: 5%

UK gilts

Vanguard UK Government Bond Index – OCF 0.12%

Fund identifier: IE00B1S75374

New purchase: £302.56

Buy 1.558 units @ £194.24

Target allocation: 31%

Global inflation-linked bonds

Royal London Short Duration Global Index-Linked Fund – OCF 0.27%

Fund identifier: GB00BD050F05

New purchase: £68.32

Buy 63.73 units @ £1.07

Target allocation: 7%

New investment = £976

Trading cost = £0

Platform fee = 0.25% per annum.

This model portfolio is notionally held with Cavendish Online. Take a look at our online broker table for other good platform options. Consider a flat-fee broker if your ISA portfolio is worth substantially more than £25,000.

Average portfolio OCF = 0.15%

If all this seems too much like hard work then you can buy a diversified portfolio using an all-in-one fund such as Vanguard’s LifeStrategy series.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

{ 59 comments }
Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

Seekers after financial freedom like us don’t posture about the car we drive or plonk our new handbag or iPhone down in the middle of the table when we meet our friends.

But you do still see one-upmanship in this community:

  • “Call this a bear market? I don’t even look at my portfolio unless at least one major High Street bank has gone bust.”
  • “Call 15% a savings rate? That’s more like a rounding error compared to what I sock away by living in my tent in the Rhondda valley.”
  • “You call shopping at Oxfam frugal? I get Oxfam to donate its clothes to me!”

Okay, I exaggerate. But it’s with fondness. And only a bit.

To be fair, very few of us throw our net worth around without a few humble disclaimers.

Which is confounding, because I bet most of us would love to know more about how other people are getting on.

Not in a monetary game of phallic wonga-waving, you understand. More to put their words into context. And to get a better sense of our own progress on the journey.

Years ago, I used to spend many hours a day on investing forums. And it would drive me mad when a poster would reveal they’d bought this or that controversial stock, to the admiration – or the condemnation – of the peanut gallery.

You can have an opinion of the odds of a particular investment working out, of course.

Yet most posters were happy to ascribe bravery, stupidity, foolishness, heroism, and the like to the action, too.

Very rarely did we know what the investment represented to the person in question. They could be a multi-millionaire investing beer money, or a student investing their entire loan. Which matters.

Because unless you know somebody’s full financial picture – and the magnitude of the investment – you can’t say much about the dangers or prudence of their actions.

It’s similar in online Financial Independence circles.

Somebody will say, for instance, that they can get by on £18,000 a year.

They’ll be labelled delusional by people who don’t know how old they are, where in the country they live, whether they own their own home, whether they have dependents, and so on.

The flip-side is equally true, too. £50,000 a year doesn’t go half as far in London as in Hull.

ISA-sizer

So I’m sure many readers will be very glad to read through the latest ISA statistics to be published by HMRC.

If you’re anything like me you’ll immediately compare yourself to your cohort and ask yourself some serious questions about your life pat yourself on the back.

Maybe it hasn’t all been for nothing!

Only time will tell. But certainly it’s interesting to see how much others are saving, or how your total pot compares to others your age or earning the same as you.

And hey presto…

Average annual ISA subscription:

Pot size by age:

(Click to enlarge)

Pot size by income cohort:

(Click to enlarge)

Want more? You can download the full report from HMRC’s website as a PDF.

I hope you find what you’re looking for!

[continue reading…]

{ 102 comments }