A quarter of a century later we find England’s foremost thinker sounding the same clear note. John Stuart Mill was by no means a hermit philosopher feeding on theories. Traveler, sportsman, business man, statesman, and author, he saw things broadly and wrote for practical men. “Speculators,” he said—and he was speaking of the “greedy” ones who buy and sell for gain—“have a highly useful office in the economy of society. Among persons who have not much considered the subject there is a notion that the gains of speculators are often made by causing an artificial scarcity; that they create a high price by their own purchases and then profit by it. This may easily be shown to be fallacious.” He then shows, what I have outlined elsewhere, that the market is larger than any speculator or group of speculators, and, if this was true in 1848, I think it will not be disputed that it is quite true to-day.
Continuing, Mill says: “The operations of speculative dealers are useful to the public whenever profitable to themselves. The interest of the speculators as a body coincide with the interests of the public; and as they can only fail to serve the public interest in proportion as they miss their own, the best way to promote the one is to leave them to pursue the other in perfect freedom. Neither law nor opinion should prevent an operation, beneficial to the public, from being attended with as much private advantage as is compatible with full and free competition.” Mill makes no distinction here between investors and speculators; they are one and the same. In any case it is conceded that speculation is what makes the markets to-day, since 90 per cent. of the transactions that take place daily on the world’s Stock Exchanges are speculations pure and simple. And this is a good thing. Before we go on with our subject, let Professor Emery explain why, and bring the teachings of McCulloch and Mill down to our own day:
“Speculation has become an increasingly important factor in the economic world without receiving a corresponding place in economic science. In the field in which it acts, in the trade in grain and cotton and securities and the like, speculation is the predominant influence in determining price, and, as such, is one of the chief directive forces in trade and industry. But treatises in the English language on general economic theory and conditions have given very little space to this influence, which is fundamental in the world of economic fact. …
“It is true that forty years ago speculation was far less important than it is now, and there was, therefore, more justification for disregarding it. Professor Hadley has given due consideration to the new conditions which prevail in modern business. At the same time it should be remembered that McCulloch, already in his day, had grasped the true idea of the function of speculation, a fact shown by the incorporation of his treatment of the subject into his chapters on Value. Wide as is the influence of speculation, its force is felt primarily in the field of prices. By making prices it directs industry and trade, for men produce and exchange according to comparative prices. Speculation then is vitally connected with the theory of value.
“From the point of view of theory, therefore, it is incorrect to attach so little importance to the function of speculation; in practice it is impossible to deal intelligently with the evils of the speculative system without first recognizing its real relation to business. Both the writer and the reformer must reckon more than they have yet done with the fact that speculation in the last half century has developed as a natural economic institution in response to the new conditions of industry and commerce. It is the result of steam transportation and the telegraph on the one hand, and of vast industrial undertakings on the other. The attitude of those who would try to crush it out by legislation, without disturbing any other economic conditions, is entirely unreasonable.”21
Now we come to the evils of the business. That there are evils, really serious ones, no one will deny. To be sure many of the phases of speculation that are called evils are not evils at all; the statements made concerning them have what Oscar Wilde termed “all the vitality of error, and all the tediousness of an old friend,” and yet, although the prevalent criticism is often stupid and superficial, there are undeniably offensive forms of speculation that one would like to see suppressed. Speculation is a comparatively new phenomenon, and it has brought with it dangers and pitfalls. So also have automobiles, electricity, and steam engines. But while the Stock Exchange has created the arena for the display of these abuses, it has not originated them “except,” as a recent writer puts it, “in the sense in which one may say that private property has originated robbery.”
The great evil of speculation consists in the buying of securities or real estate or anything else with borrowed money, by uninformed people who cannot afford to lose. Its commonest form in speculation in securities is what is known as “margin” trading, this name being derived from the fact that the buyer, instead of paying cash in full for his purchase, deposits only a fractional amount of its cost, which is intended to serve as a margin to protect the broker from loss, while the broker pays the remaining sum necessary to complete the actual purchase. Thus the speculator may deposit $1000 on securities costing $10,000, while the broker furnishes the additional $9000. It is a system in use everywhere; on the London Stock Exchange it is called “Cover,” on the Paris Bourse, “La Couverture.”
There is no fixed amount of margin called for by brokers, as circumstances differ widely with the character of the securities dealt in, the standing of the buyer, and the condition of the market; but in a broad way it may be said that members of the New York Stock Exchange exact a margin equivalent to ten points on middle-grade speculative issues, twenty points on high-priced and erratic securities, and five points on very low-priced shares that move slowly. There are, of course, certain securities on which no payment short of actual outright purchase in full would be accepted by reputable brokers, while on the other hand, in the case of securities that fluctuate but slightly, such as our government, state, or municipal bonds, a 5 per cent. margin would be ample. This is also the practice in London and Paris, generally speaking. In Paris the Agents de Change always insist upon a greater margin than the Coulissiers, or outside brokers, and here members of the New York Stock Exchange invariably pursue the same policy.
This affords an opportunity to say that the local evil of stock speculation arising from insufficient margins is one that may be laid at the door of outside Exchanges rather than the “Big” Exchange, as it is called, because, in the minor Exchanges, margins are notoriously small, and the smaller the margin the greater the number of “victims.” Indeed, if it were not for this practice it would be difficult for members of smaller Exchanges to exist at all. In so far as speculation in securities may merit criticism, this tendency to attract poor people by the bait of slim margins is undeniably a very real evil, and one which can only be corrected by the brokers themselves. The Hughes Committee, after devoting much time and labor to this matter, put its conclusions in these words:
“We urge upon all brokers to discourage speculation upon small margins, and upon the Exchange to use its influence, and if necessary its power, to prevent members from soliciting and generally accepting business on a less margin than 20 per cent.”22
Every one connected with the New York Stock Exchange knows that this suggestion, like all the others made by the Commission, was received with approval by all hands, and, if a hard and fast rule could have been devised to meet not merely the spirit but the letter of the recommendation, the Governors of the Exchange would have put it into instant operation. But there are difficulties in the way, and one of the duties of the Governors is to consider very carefully all sides of each perplexing question that comes before them, not merely in the interests of the Stock Exchange, but with due regard to the common law and the interests of the public. Margin trading is a matter of contract, and “the right of one private person to extend credit to another,” as the Chairman of the Hughes Commission himself points out, “is simply the right to make