Finance

Here’s why September and October are historically weak for stocks

Published

9 months ago

September 11, 2024

José Luis Gutiérrez | iStock Photo

Why are September and October historically weak for stocks? For answers, I turned to Mark Higgins, senior vice president at Index Fund Advisors and author of the book, Investing in U.S. Financial History: Understanding the Past to Forecast the Future.

The answers have been edited for clarity.

What is it with September and October being weak months for stocks? Has this always been the case?

Yes. The most intense panics on Wall Street have tended to occur during the late summer and early autumn months. This can be traced all the way back to the 1800s. A few notable examples of exceptional panics include Black Friday of 1869, the Panic of 1873 and the Panic of 1907.

But why September and October?

It is a byproduct of an old weakness in the U.S. financial system. Prior to the reintroduction of a central banking system with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the U.S. was limited in its ability to adjust the money supply in response to market conditions.

The inelasticity of the U.S. currency made the late summer and early autumn months an especially precarious time, due to the agricultural financing cycle. In the 1800s, the U.S. economy still relied heavily on agricultural production. For the first eight months of the year, American farmers had a limited need for capital, so excess funds held on deposit in state banks were shipped to New York banks or trust companies to earn a higher rate of return.

When harvest time arrived in August, state banks began withdrawing their capital from New York, as farmers drew on their accounts to fund transactions required to ship crops to market.

The agricultural financing cycle created chronic shortages of cash in New York City during the autumn months. If these shortages happened to coincide with a financial shock, there was little flexibility in the system to prevent a panic.

How did the government respond to these panics?

The limited ability of the government to react was the primary impetus for the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The Act granted the Fed the power to serve as a lender of last resort during financial crises. Prior to the Act, leading financiers (most notably J.P. Morgan) were forced to assemble ad hoc solutions that relied primarily on private capital. After the U.S. barely avoided a catastrophic collapse of the financial system during the Panic of 1907, there was just enough political support for the return of the third and final iteration of a central banking system in the United States.

Did the creation of the Federal Reserve provide more stability to markets?

Yes, and if one compares the frequency, intensity and misery of financial panics during the 1800s, this is plainly evident. In fairness, the Fed made a few mistakes along the way, with the most notable being its failure to stop the contagion of bank failures in the 1930s. But, by and large, the U.S. financial system has been much more stable since the Federal Reserve became operational in late 1914.

Still, the U.S. economy is not primarily agricultural anymore. Why are September and October still weak months?

People tend to fear things that have happened before even if they don’t remember the origin of the fear. It may be that the fall panics have repeated so many times that they have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, people expect them, and because they expect them, they behave in ways (i.e., reducing risk in late summer and early fall) that make them more likely. I know this sounds like a stretch, but it does seem like it may actually be real.

Finance

Stocks making the biggest moves midday: WOOF, TSLA, CRCL, LULU

Published

2 days ago

June 6, 2025

Business Finance News

Finance

Swiss government proposes tough new capital rules in major blow to UBS

Published

2 days ago

June 6, 2025

Business Finance News

A sign in German that reads “part of the UBS group” in Basel on May 5, 2025.

Fabrice Coffrini | AFP | Getty Images

The Swiss government on Friday proposed strict new capital rules that would require banking giant UBS to hold an additional $26 billion in core capital, following its 2023 takeover of stricken rival Credit Suisse.

The measures would also mean that UBS will need to fully capitalize its foreign units and carry out fewer share buybacks.

“The rise in the going-concern requirement needs to be met with up to USD 26 billion of CET1 capital, to allow the AT1 bond holdings to be reduced by around USD 8 billion,” the government said in a Friday statement, referring to UBS’ holding of Additional Tier 1 (AT1) bonds.

The Swiss National Bank said it supported the measures from the government as they will “significantly strengthen” UBS’ resilience.

“As well as reducing the likelihood of a large systemically important bank such as UBS getting into financial distress, this measure also increases a bank’s room for manoeuvre to stabilise itself in a crisis through its own efforts. This makes it less likely that UBS has to be bailed out by the government in the event of a crisis,” SNB said in a Friday statement.

‘Too big to fail’

UBS has been battling the specter of tighter capital rules since acquiring the country’s second-largest bank at a cut-price following years of strategic errors, mismanagement and scandals at Credit Suisse.

The shock demise of the banking giant also brought Swiss financial regulator FINMA under fire for its perceived scarce supervision of the bank and the ultimate timing of its intervention.

Swiss regulators argue that UBS must have stronger capital requirements to safeguard the national economy and financial system, given the bank’s balance topped $1.7 trillion in 2023, roughly double the projected Swiss economic output of last year. UBS insists it is not “too big to fail” and that the additional capital requirements — set to drain its cash liquidity — will impact the bank’s competitiveness.

At the heart of the standoff are pressing concerns over UBS’ ability to buffer any prospective losses at its foreign units, where it has, until now, had the duty to back 60% of capital with capital at the parent bank.

Higher capital requirements can whittle down a bank’s balance sheet and credit supply by bolstering a lender’s funding costs and choking off their willingness to lend — as well as waning their appetite for risk. For shareholders, of note will be the potential impact on discretionary funds available for distribution, including dividends, share buybacks and bonus payments.

“While winding down Credit Suisse’s legacy businesses should free up capital and reduce costs for UBS, much of these gains could be absorbed by stricter regulatory demands,” Johann Scholtz, senior equity analyst at Morningstar, said in a note preceding the FINMA announcement.

“Such measures may place UBS’s capital requirements well above those faced by rivals in the United States, putting pressure on returns and reducing prospects for narrowing its long-term valuation gap. Even its long-standing premium rating relative to the European banking sector has recently evaporated.”