Talk:South Sea Company/Archives/2013

First Comments

• Various sources disagree on whether the Bubble Act was passed in 1720 or 1721. This will inevitably bring about the end of civilization as we know it. Not much of a loss, really. -Itai 16:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• I've just finished reading "A Very English Deceit: The Secret History of the South Sea Bubble and the First Great Financial Scandal" by Malcolm Balen, which highlights substantial omissions from this wikipedia article (for example: no mention of John Blunt, one of the main -- if not the main -- protagonist in the Bubble).
  • So add what you see fit. We want all the facts. - Jerryseinfeld 20:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to move this article to "South Sea Bubble"? --Frank Schulenburg 10:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That redirects here now, which seems appropriate. Fawcett5 11:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion a redirect is not appropriate because the article deals mainly with the South Sea Bubble. As already mentioned in the last paragraph the South Sea Company stayed in business until the 1850s. The british contraband trade between Europe, Africa and the spanish colonies (based on the asiento de negros, granted to the South Sea Company) led to the War of Jenkins' Ear in 1739. Against this background the article should be either enlarged or renamed. (cf. de:War of Jenkins' Ear, de:Asiento) --Frank Schulenburg 18:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well then, go for it. Fawcett5 18:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's a hogarthian image?

Does it mean paintings on the style employed by William Hogarth? I don't know about the paintings so anyone can throw some light on this sicne the painting mentions hogarthian painting in the article. tx --Idleguy 08:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Short or Long?

The price finally reached £1,000 in early August and the level of selling was such that the price started to fall, triggering bankruptcies amongst those who had bought on credit and increased selling (i.e. short sellers).

I thought that was going long, not short. --Townmouse 23:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it's going long; the missing piece is that it's going long on margin - that is, with borrowed money - which, just like short selling, exposes the person who does it to increased risk. 67.158.72.8 13:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculative valuation

The valuation section seems to be entirely speculative, that is original research. Who did this valuation? If it is from another source then maybe it should be kept, with attribution.

Actually, I don't really understand what is meant by saying the SSC "took on" XX of the national debt. Does this mean they paid the government XX pounds? And then they exchanged it with investors for SSC stock? I'd like to see the mechanics of it all made clear. I'd also like to see some good sources cited (certainly not Mackay). (unattributed)

The debt taken on was short-term debt owed by departments such as the Ordnance Board and Navy Board. I doubt that cash actually changed hands; I think that the holders of debt were issued with the company's securities in exchange for the bills and debentures which they held, evidencing the debt owed them. Peterkingiron 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all of it was short-term, but that explanation is basically correct. The Company's deal with the Government was essentially the same deal that debt consolidators make with people who owe too much on credit cards: the Company would take over all the payments on the Government's debts, and in exchange the Government would owe the company money under a single large loan with more favourable terms. However, on the other side the Company was offering a deal to the Government's creditors - which they would eventually be compelled to accept - of giving them stock in the Company in exchange for erasing the debts. So the supposed eventual state would be that the Government owed its money to the Company instead of to its creditors, and the former creditors owned much of the Company instead of being owed money directly. The clever bit was that because of manipulating the share price, it was possible to get the creditors to accept, in exchange for their claims, shares corresponding to much less of the debt than the amount originally owed to them. The excess became profit for the authors of the scheme. 67.158.72.8 05:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:81.179.243.112 and deleted quotes

While wikiquote is an archive and reference source for quotes I think a small amount of obviously relevent quotes is usefull to the wikipedia project. Any comments? Wigren 11:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A single quote given without context or qualification has no encyclopaedic value. If what Newton apparently said (is there a source? In particular, what justification is there for the shouty NOT?) has a significant bearing on the subject of the article it would be possible to include it in the main text, but putting it in a section called 'quotes' strips it of any encyclopaedic relevance it might have had, and leaves the reader questioning why that one particular quote might have been chosen to be given such prominence. Quoting is seldom encyclopaedic even if you include the quote in normal prose - it gives the impression that the encyclopaedia endorses one person's viewpoint. Far better to write neutrally in the voice of the encyclopaedia. 81.179.243.112 23:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Newton quote stands to show how far reaching the bubble was. I think your right that it would be better incorporated into the article. Any suggestions where? And how can we get better consensus on this? Wigren 14:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

John Mackay or Charles Mackay?

"Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" seems to be by Charles Mackay:

Library of Congress: [1]
Wikipedia: [2]

Is this simply a mistake or is there actually book of the same name by John Mackay? (can't find any authoritative reference to it with a brief search).

South Sea Company's coa

http://dailyspeculations.com/index.361.jpg 68.110.8.21 18:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Debt for equity

user:Fifelfoo has altered "Government Debt Holder: upside potential in a promising enterprise" to "Government Debt Holder: speculative investment". I have not reverted this, but I fear this this misses the point. The debt paid off tended to be annuities (which would end with the death of a named person). The investmetn substituted was close to an interst bearing security. Trade was a very minor portion of the Company's activities. Could we have other thoughts as to what should appear here (preferably with referneces). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring

The article had become rather muddled. It probably started as an article on the South Sea Bubble, but gained a series of additions. Some of these were by authors who regarded the Company mainly as a trading company, rather than the reality of a management vehicle for part of the national debt. I have sought to collect together the trading sections and separate them from the financial ones. This identifies the post-Bubble history as requiring more information: I have seen archives on this, but not published sources. This relates both to trading, which was gradually closed down in the 1730s, and debt management, with a large part of the stock being converted to annuities in 1723 and c.1732. When trade to South America was opened in the 1800s, the company asserted that it was entitled to a monopoly and was given a government guarantee in respect of the dividends on its trading stock. I am sure there must be a book or books dealing with this, but I have yet to find them. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Handel discrepancy

This article says Handel was ruined, while the Handel article says that he profited by selling high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.83.19 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• My guess is that some one has assumed that all South Sea investors were ruined, which is clearly not the case. I would guess that the Handel article is based on better sources, so that the allusion to him here would be better being deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Some one added the source PBS.org, where there is an interview in which one party talks in general about the Bubble, which the other says that it did not include Handel, because he got his money out. This is what the article on Handel also says. Accoridngly the source cited does NOT support the statement, rather the reverse. In any event the US Public Broadcasting Service is at best a tertiary source, of not worse. I have therefore deleted the refernece in this article to Handel as mistaken; it is not necessary to replace it with a correction, becuase Handel's involvemetn is not significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Harvard Library Source

Harvard Library Useful info.--KenWalker | Talk 01:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)