The solution to the crisis clearly involves large sums of money. The conundrum for governments is the best way to chuck money at the problem – the US situation has shown us that promising to chuck money alone is not sufficient to quell the widespread unease.
The problem, it seems, is that policymakers seem to have about as much of a clue about the way forward as the rest of us.
Even some of the world's top economists disagree about the best way forward. In an FT article published this week, a gaggle of economists argued the toss about the best way to deal with the situation. Monetary or fiscal, monetary and fiscal, fiscal – the absolute total last result, and so on.
But where does this leave companies? They are left in a situation where they have to explain how their firm's performance will be affected by an array of potential policy options whether fiscal or monetary, or a variety of combinations of both.
This problem for companies becomes even worse in a close period as they don't even have the opportunity to talk through how changes in the wider economy could and would affect their business.
As one IRO pointed out at last week's IR Magazine UK Think Tank, close periods in bear markets are even tougher as investors and analysts tend to over-rely on macroeconomic indicators to assess companies in the absence of any data from companies.
By Clare Harrison