Slashdot Mirror
Paul Wilmott Wants To Retrain and Reform Wall Street's Quants
theodp writes "What if an aeronautics engineer couldn't reconcile his elegant design for a state-of-the-art jumbo jet with Newton's second law of motion and decided to tweak the equation to fit his design? In a way, Newsweek reports, this is what's happened in quantitative finance, which is in desperate need of reform. And 49-year-old Oxford-trained mathematician Paul Wilmott — arguably the most influential quant today — thinks he knows where to start. With his CQF program, Wilmott is out to save the quants from themselves and the rest of us from their future destruction. 'We need to get back to testing models rather than revering them,' says Wilmott. 'That's hard work, but this idea that there are these great principles governing finance and that correlations can just be plucked out of the air is totally false.'"
What a concept! Basing conclusions on experimental evidence from testing via trial and error rather than warping reality to fit your business model. That's incredible!
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain
... getting back to the real economy? Many financial products don't add anything to the real economy at all.
Not entirely true, but certainly an interesting point.
Why not true, well, the noted hedge fund that was founded by a former Nobel-prize winner, then went spectacularly bust even before the current mess, springs to mind. Can't remember the details, but the guy was certainly a (dismal) scientist before he became just another pig at the financial trough.
All power corrupts, etc.?
You know, this is just tinkering. It's a way of passing the buck. It's a way of devolving blame. It MUST be the equations, or the software, or some geek or some technological prblem that caused the economics failures.
It wasn't. It isn't.
The reason why we have economic problems is the same old one from the beginning of time -- good old fashioned human greed.
Equations, and new software isn't going to change that. What you need to do is ensure that the people operating systems and processes are ethical and honest. It's really that simple, and also, unfortunately, that difficult.
The problem with economics is that is probably more a sociological study than a idealized science.
Economics talks of supply and demand and perfect markets.
Yet we all know the advertising and social herd behavior affect purchases much more than any real needs or demands.
Nice idea, but Wilmot seems to have forgotten the most basic law of finance---nothing matters so long as you're making lots of money. Does he really think that the Quants on Wall Street and in London care about robust models and statistical significance? No! We're talking about used car salespersons in $5,000.00 suits. The financial industry is completely amoral. The only law is the law of the jungle. You can't confuse greed with a lack of quality control.
It's your money they are paying themselves with, not their own. Until YOU sit up and take notice, then actually DO something you're going to continue to get robbed. But hey, I'm making money off you as well, so don't worry about it "nothing to see here, move along".
Deleted
In another time, this would have been called what it is: theocracy, rule by theory.
Oh sure, they can try to be inductive, but there is always that old "correlation doesn't imply causation" gotcha isn't there?
The real solution to this problem with the social sciences was almost addressed by the Protestant culture that founded the US -- the Laboratory of the States -- but the incorporation of the slave states in the 1700s, with the resulting Amendment from Hell, the 14th, in the 1800s killed off that option entirely when "social science" sunk its fangs into the body politc in the 1900s.
"The Union" means everyone is a slave to the theocrats posing as theoreticians.
So now we're running uncontrolled experiments on nonconsenting human subjects in the guise of "public policy" of "liberal democracy" -- tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights.
Seastead this.
Hardest part is controling the emotions of greed and fear. When things are working, it is temping to make bigger bets. If the bets are too large, they will wipe out the account, or even fund when the natural and normal losses hit.
Risk Managment often goes out the window during good times.
Why is everyone blaming the mathematics for the financial problems? Its quite clear that its the industry as a whole is at fault. Greed and corruption are in all facets of the industry. I have a feeling that alot of so-called quants and finance professionals are completely under-qualified for what they do. It has been my experience that most people in finance and business are diletants that just took business in college so they could have it easier than the engineers and science majors. I am sure that a REAL mathematician that specializes in finance could handle the uncertainty in the models accordingly. -I am a mathematician, but my specialty has nothing to do with finance.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Right, quants are not financially impacted to any real extent and can retire in comfort. You should tell that to all those thousands of quants who were laid off along with everyone else in the financial sector and who are still struggling and looking for work. I'm sure they would be delighted to know that they haven't been affected and could just retire. They just didn't realize it until an internet blogger told them.
Seriously, what's with all the antipathy on slashdot towards quants? They're just normal people doing their job. And they don't get paid millions either. The problem is not the quants building fragile models, but non-quants using them without understanding. It usually goes something like this:
Quant: I've managed to create a model here, but I have to warn you that it's not infallible, you have to realize all the risks and think of -
Trader: I don't care! Where's the nice, shiny number?
Quant: Uh, here, but really...
Trader: Okay good. Now get back to work!
Trader (to boss): Look at this! We'll make a lot of money from this!
Quant: Sigh...
So people, please stop blaming the quants for everything. And yes, IAAQ.
it's if having a model is right. There's no reason to assume that prior market data contains information that can accurately predict the market in the future.
It's only a "black swan" if you ignore debt levels. Anyone who's been watching the growth of debt in western economies could see this crisis coming.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.