by John Coates
The 1990s were a decade ripe for such research. They gave us the folly of the dot.com bubble as well as the phrase that best described it – ‘irrational exuberance’. This term, first used by Alan Greenspan in a speech delivered in Washington in 1996 and subsequently given wide currency by the Yale economist Robert Shiller, means much the same thing as an older one, ‘animal spirits’, coined in the 1930s by Keynes when he gestured towards some ill-defined and non-rational force animating entrepreneurial and investor risk-taking. But what are animal spirits? What is exuberance?
In the nineties, one or two people did suggest that irrational exuberance might be driven by a chemical. In 1999 Randolph Nesse, a psychiatrist at the University of Michigan, bravely speculated that the dot.com bubble differed from previous ones because the brains of many traders and investors had changed – they were under the influence of now widely prescribed antidepressant drugs, such as Prozac. ‘Human nature has always given rise to booms and bubbles followed by crashes and depressions,’ he argued. ‘But if investor caution is being inhibited by psychotropic drugs, bubbles could grow larger than usual before they pop, with potentially catastrophic economic and political consequences.’ Other observers of Wall Street, following a similar line of thought, pointed the finger at another culprit: the increasing use of cocaine among bankers.
These rumours of cocaine abuse, at least among traders and asset managers, were mostly exaggerated. (Members of the sales force, especially the salesmen responsible for taking clients out to lap-dancing bars till the wee hours of the morning, may have been another matter.) As for Nesse, his comments received some humorous coverage in the media, and when he spoke at a conference organised by the New York Academy of Sciences a year later he seemed to regret making them. But I thought he was on the right track; and to me his suggestion pointed to another possibility – that traders’ bodies were producing a chemical, apparently narcotic, that was causing their manic behaviour. What was this bull-market molecule?
I came across a likely suspect purely by chance. During the later years of the dot.com era I was fortunate enough to observe some fascinating research being conducted in a neuroscience lab at Rockefeller University, a research institution hidden on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, where a friend, Linda Wilbrecht, was doing a Ph.D. I was not at Rockefeller in any formal capacity, but when the markets were slow I would jump in a taxi and run up to the lab to observe the experiments taking place, or to listen to afternoon lectures in Caspary Auditorium, a geodesic dome set in the middle of that vine-clad campus. Scientists in Linda’s lab were working on what is called ‘neurogenesis’, the growth of new neurons. Understanding neurogenesis is in some ways the Holy Grail of the brain sciences, for if neurologists could figure out how to regenerate neurons they could perhaps cure or reverse the damage of neuro-degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Many of the breakthroughs in the study of neurogenesis have taken place at Rockefeller.
There was another area of the neurosciences where Rockefeller had made a historic contribution, and that was in research on hormones, and specifically their effects on the brain. Many of the breakthroughs in this field had been made by scientists addressing very specific issues in neuroscience, but today their results may help us understand irrational exuberance, for the bull-market molecule may in fact be a hormone. And if that is the case, then by a delightful coincidence, at the very moment in the late 1990s when Wall Street was asking the question ‘What is irrational exuberance?’, uptown at Rockefeller scientists were working on the answer.
So what exactly are hormones? Hormones are chemical messengers carried by the blood from one tissue in the body to another. We have dozens of them. We have hormones that stimulate hunger and ones that tell us when we are sated; hormones that stimulate thirst and ones that tell us when it is slaked. Hormones play a central role in what is called our body’s homeostasis, the maintenance of vital signs, like blood pressure, body temperature, glucose levels, etc., within the narrow bands needed for our continued comfort and health. Most of the physiological systems that maintain our internal chemical balance operate pre-consciously, in other words without our being aware of them. For instance, we are all blissfully unaware of the Swiss-watch-like workings of the system controlling the potassium levels in our blood.
But sometimes we cannot maintain our internal balance through these silent, purely chemical reactions. Sometimes we need behaviour; sometimes we have to engage in some sort of physical activity in order to re-establish homeostasis. When glucose levels in our blood fall, for example, our bodies silently liberate glucose deposits from the liver. Soon, however, the glucose reserves burn off, and the low blood sugar communicates itself to our consciousness by means of hunger, a hormonal signal that spurs us to search for food and then to eat. Hunger, thirst, pain, oxygen debt, sodium hunger and the sensations of heat and cold, for example, have accordingly been called ‘homeostatic emotions’. They are called emotions because they are signals from the body that convey more than mere information – they also carry a motivation to do something.
It is enlightening to see our behaviour as an elaborate mechanism designed to maintain homeostasis. However, before we go too far down the path of biological reductionism, I have to point out that hormones do not cause our behaviour. They act more like lobby groups, recommending and pressuring us into certain types of activity. Take the example of ghrelin, one of the hormones regulating hunger and feeding. Produced by cells in the lining of your stomach, ghrelin molecules carry a message to your brain saying in effect, ‘On behalf of your stomach we urge you to eat.’ But your brain does not have to comply. If you are on a diet, or a religious fast, or a hunger strike, you can choose to ignore the message. You can, in other words, choose your actions, and ultimately you take responsibility for them. Nonetheless, with the passing of time the message, at first whispered, becomes more like a foghorned bellow, and can be very hard to resist. So when we look at the effects of hormones on behaviour and on risk-taking – especially financial risk-taking – we will not be contemplating anything like biological determinism. We will be engaged rather in a frank discussion of the pressures, sometimes very powerful, these chemicals bring to bear on us during extreme moments in our lives.
One group of hormones has particularly potent effects on our behaviour – steroid hormones. This group includes testosterone, oestrogen and cortisol, the main hormone of the stress response. Steroids exert particularly widespread effects because they have receptors in almost every cell in our body and brain. Yet it was not until the 1990s that scientists began to understand just how these hormones influence our thinking and behaviour. Much of the work that led to this understanding was conducted in the lab of Bruce McEwen, a renowned professor at Rockefeller. He and his colleagues, including Donald Pfaff and Jay Weiss, were among the first scientists not only to map steroid receptors in the brain but also to study how steroids affect the structure of the brain and the way it works.
Before McEwen began his research, scientists widely believed that hormones and the brain worked in the following way: the hypothalamus, the region of the brain controlling hormones, sends a signal through the blood to the glands producing steroid hormones, be they testes, ovaries or adrenal glands, telling them to increase hormone production. The hormones are then injected into the blood, fan out across the body, and exert their intended effects on tissues such as heart, kidneys, lungs, muscles, etc. They also make their way back to the hypothalamus itself, which senses the higher hormone levels and in response tells the glands to stop producing the hormone. The feedback between hypothalamus and hormone-producing gland works much like a thermostat in a house, which senses cold and turns on the heating, and then senses the warmth and turns it off.
McEwen and his lab found something far more intriguing. Feedback between glands and the hypothalamus does indeed exist, is one of our most important homeostatic mechanisms, but McEwen discovered that there are steroid receptors in brain regions other than
the hypothalamus. McEwen’s model of hormones and the brain works in the following way: the hypothalamus sends a message to a gland instructing it to produce a hormone; the hormone fans out across the body, having its physical effects, but it also returns to the brain, changing the very way we think and behave. Now, that is one potent chemical. Indeed, subsequent research by McEwen and others showed that a steroid hormone, because of its widespread receptors, can alter almost every function of our body (its growth, shape, metabolism, immune function) and of our brain (its mood and memory) and of our behaviour.
McEwen’s research was a landmark achievement because it showed how a signal from our body can change the very thoughts we think. And it raised a series of questions that today lie at the heart of our understanding of body and brain. Why does the brain send a signal to the body telling it to produce a chemical which in turn changes the way the brain works? What a strange thing to do. If the brain wants to change the way it thinks, why not keep all the signalling within the brain? Why take such a roundabout route through the body?
And why would a single molecule, like a steroid, be entrusted with such a broad mandate, simultaneously changing both body and brain? I think the answer to these questions goes something like this: steroid hormones evolved to coordinate body, brain and behaviour during archetypal situations, such as fighting, fleeing, feeding, hunting, mating and struggling for status. At important moments like these you need all your tissues cooperating on the task at hand; you do not want to be multi-tasking. It would make little sense to have, say, a cardiovascular system geared up for a fight, a digestive system primed for ingesting a turkey dinner, and a brain in the mood for wandering through fields of daffodils. Steroids, like a drill sergeant, ensure that body and brain fall into line as a single functioning unit.
The ancient Greeks believed that at archetypal moments in our lives we are visited by the gods, that we can feel their presence because these moments – of battle, of love, of childbearing – are especially vivid, are remembered as defining moments in our lives, and during them we seem to enjoy special powers. But alas, it is not one of the Olympian gods, poor creatures of abandoned belief that they are, who touches us at these moments: it is one of our hormones.
During moments of risk-taking, competition and triumph, of exuberance, there is one steroid in particular that makes its presence felt and guides our actions – testosterone. At Rockefeller University I came across a model of testosterone-fuelled behaviour that offered a tantalising explanation of trader behaviour during market bubbles, a model taken from animal behaviour called ‘the winner effect’.
In this model, two males enter a fight for turf or a contest for a mate and, in anticipation of the competition, experience a surge in testosterone, a chemical bracer that increases their blood’s capacity to carry oxygen and, in time, their lean-muscle mass. Testosterone also affects the brain, where it increases the animal’s confidence and appetite for risk. After the battle has been decided the winner emerges with even higher levels of testosterone, the loser with lower levels. The winner, if he proceeds to a next round of competition, does so with already elevated testosterone, and this androgenic priming gives him an edge, helping him win yet again. Scientists have replicated these experiments with athletes, and believe the testosterone feedback loop may explain winning and losing streaks in sports. However, at some point in this winning streak the elevated steroids begin to have the opposite effect on success and survival. Animals experiencing this upward spiral of testosterone and victory have been found after a while to start more fights and to spend more time out in the open, and as a result they suffer an increased mortality. As testosterone levels rise, confidence and risk-taking segue into overconfidence and reckless behaviour.
Could this upward surge of testosterone, cockiness and risky behaviour also occur in the financial markets? This model seemed to describe perfectly how traders behaved as the bull market of the nineties morphed into the tech bubble. When traders, most of whom are young males, make money, their testosterone levels rise, increasing their confidence and appetite for risk, until the extended winning streak of a bull market causes them to become every bit as delusional, overconfident and risk-seeking as those animals venturing into the open, oblivious to all danger. The winner effect seemed to me a plausible explanation for the chemical hit traders receive, one that exaggerates a bull market and turns it into a bubble. The role of testosterone could also explain why women seemed relatively unaffected by the bubble, for they have about 10 to 20 per cent of the testosterone levels of men.
During the dot.com bubble, when considering this possibility, I was particularly swayed by descriptions of the mood-enhancing effects of testosterone voiced by people who had been prescribed it. Patients with cancer, for example, are often given testosterone because, as an anabolic steroid – one that builds up energy stores such as muscle – it helps them put on weight. One brilliant and particularly influential description of its effects was written by Andrew Sullivan and published in the New York Times Magazine in April 2000. He vividly described injecting a golden, oily substance about three inches into his hip, every two weeks: ‘I can actually feel its power on almost a daily basis,’ he reported. ‘Within hours, and at most a day, I feel a deep surge of energy. It is less edgy than a double espresso, but just as powerful. My attention span shortens. In the two or three days after my shot, I find it harder to concentrate on writing and feel the need to exercise more. My wit is quicker, my mind faster, but my judgment is more impulsive. It is not unlike the kind of rush I get before talking in front of a large audience, or going on a first date, or getting on an airplane, but it suffuses me in a less abrupt and more consistent way. In a word, I feel braced. For what? It scarcely seems to matter.’ Sullivan could just as easily have been describing what it feels like to be a trader on a roll.
IRRATIONAL PESSIMISM
If testosterone seemed a likely candidate for the molecule of irrational exuberance, another steroid seemed a likely one for the molecule of irrational pessimism – cortisol.
Cortisol is the main hormone of the stress response, a bodywide response to injury or threat. Cortisol works in tandem with adrenalin, but while adrenalin is a fast-acting hormone, taking effect in seconds and having a half-life in the blood of only two to three minutes, cortisol kicks in to support us during a long siege. If you are hiking in the woods and hear a rustle in the bushes, you may suspect the presence of a grizzly bear, so the shot of adrenalin you receive is designed to carry you clear of danger. If the noise turns out to be nothing but wind in the leaves you settle down, and the adrenalin quickly dissipates. But if you are in fact being stalked by a predator and the chase lasts several hours, then cortisol takes over the management of your body. It orders all long-term and metabolically expensive functions of the body, such as digestion, reproduction, growth, storage of energy, and after a while even immune function, to stop. At the same time, it begins to break down energy stores and flush the liberated glucose into your blood. In short, cortisol has one main and far-reaching command: glucose now! At this crucial moment in your life, cortisol has in effect ordered a complete retooling of your body’s factories, away from leisure and consumption goods to war matériel.
In the brain, cortisol, like testosterone, initially has the beneficial effects of increasing arousal and sharpening attention, even promoting a slight thrill from the challenge, but as levels of the hormone rise and stay elevated, it comes to have opposite effects – the difference between short-term and long-term exposure to a hormone is an important distinction we will look at in this book – promoting feelings of anxiety, a selective recall of disturbing memories, and a tendency to find danger where none exists. Chronic stress and highly elevated stress hormones among traders and asset managers may thus foster a thorough and perhaps irrational risk-aversion.
The research I encountered on steroid hormones thus suggested to me the following hypothesis: testosterone, as predicted by the winner effect, is likely to rise
in a bull market, increase risk-taking, and exaggerate the rally, morphing it into a bubble. Cortisol, on the other hand, is likely to rise in a bear market, make traders dramatically and perhaps irrationally risk-averse, and exaggerate the sell-off, morphing it into a crash. Steroid hormones building up in the bodies of traders and investors may thus shift risk preferences systematically across the business cycle, destabilising it.
If this hypothesis of steroid feedback loops is correct, then to understand how financial markets function we need to draw on more than economics and psychology; we need to draw as well on medical research. We need to take seriously the possibility that during bubbles and crashes the financial community, suffering from chronically elevated steroid levels, may develop into a clinical population. And that possibility profoundly changes the way we see the markets, and the way we think about curing their pathologies.
In time, and with the encouragement of several colleagues, I concluded that this hypothesis should be tested. So I retired from Wall Street and returned to the University of Cambridge, where I had previously completed a Ph.D in economics. I spent the next four years retraining in neuroscience and endocrinology, and began designing an experimental protocol to test the hypothesis that the winner effect exists in the financial markets. I then set up a series of studies on a trading floor in the City of London. The results from these experiments provided solid preliminary data supporting the hypothesis that hormones, and signals from the body more generally, influence the risk-taking of traders. We will look at these results later in the book.