Imagine an aeronautics engineer designing a state-of-the-art jumbo jet. In order for it to fly, the engineer has to rely on the same aerodynamics equation devised by physicists 150 years ago, which is based on Newton's second law of motion: force equals mass times acceleration. Problem is, the engineer can't reconcile his elegant design with the equation. The plane has too much mass and not enough force. But rather than tweak the design to fit the equation, imagine if the engineer does the opposite, and tweaks the equation to fit the design. The plane still looks awesome, and on paper, it flies. The engineer gets paid, the plane gets built, and soon thousands just like it are packed full of people and sent out onto runways. They fly for a while, but eventually, because of that fatal tweak, they all end up crashing.Read the whole thing here. It's long, but well worth it.In a way, this is what's happened in quantitative finance. The planes are the complex derivatives—like collateralized debt obligations—that now lie smoldering on the balance sheets of banks. The engineers are the "quants": those math and science Ph.D.s who flocked to Wall Street over the past decade and used mathematical models to build these new investment products. These are the people Warren Buffett was talking about when he said, "Beware of geeks bearing formulas" in his letter to shareholders this year. The quants aren't entirely to blame for the financial meltdown; there's plenty of guilt to be shared by regulators, top executives and the investors who bought the instruments the quants created. Yet while aeronautical engineers who willfully designed a faulty plane might be on trial for criminal negligence, Wall Street's math gurus are, for the most part, still employed. Strangely, the banks need quants more than ever right now. If anyone's going to figure out how to price these toxic assets, it's them. Quantitative finance isn't going away, but it is in desperate need of reform. And one man—a math geek himself—thinks he knows where to start.
Paul Wilmott is a 49-year-old Oxford-trained mathematician and arguably the most influential quant today, the brightest star in their insular, nerdy universe. The Financial Times calls him a "cult derivatives lecturer."
- Stiglitz the Keynesian... Web review of economics: Stigliz has an article, "Capitalist Fools", in the January issue of Vanity Fair. He argues that the new depression is the result of:Firing...
- It's Never Enough Until Your He... Web review of economics: Aaron Swartz quotes a paper by Louis Pascal posing a thought experiment. I wonder if many find this argument emotionally unsatisfying. It...
- Michele Boldrin Confused About Marx... Web review of economics: Michele Boldrin has written a paper in which supposedly Marxian themes are treated in a Dynamic Stochastic Equilibrium Model (DSGE). He...
- Negative Price Wicksell Effect, Pos... Web review of economics: 1.0 IntroductionI have previously suggested a taxonomy of Wicksell effects. This post presents an example with:The cost-minimizing...
- Designing A Keynesian Stimulus Plan... Web review of economics: Some version of this New York Times article contains the following passage:"A blueprint for such spending can be found in a study financed...
- Robert Paul Wolff Blogging On Books... Web review of economics: Here Wolff provides an overview of Marx, agrees with Morishima that Marx was a great economist, and mentions books by the analytical...
- Simple and Expanded Reproduction... Web review of economics: 1.0 IntroductionThis post presents a model in which a capitalist economy smoothly reproduces itself. The purpose of such a model is not to...
- How Individuals Can Choose, Even Th... Web review of economics: 1.0 IntroductionI think of this post as posing a research question. S. Abu Turab Rizvi re-interprets the primitives of social choice theory...
0 comments:
Post a Comment