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.'"

9 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Wow! by viyh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Wow! by dov_0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!

      It will never last in the 'real' world...

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    2. Re:Wow! by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm glad you got insightful not funny. You are right. This is one of the case where experimentalism actually breaks down in the real world.

      The problem is that the quant's model is in its self an input to the reality and the processes aren't statistical and stochastic. When I know (or even partly correctly guess) what model you are using for investing, then I can gain several benefits from altering my behavior. I can create false investment opportunities which match well with your model. I can predict when you will need to buy something and push up the price just before hand. I can guess when you will become over exposed to some asset and force you to sell too cheap.

      The models are useful, but in the end lots of business stuff just has to come down to gut feelings and judgement. You also just have to do analysis which goes beyond the empirical (nobody has ever tricked us before) into risk control (what can we do to make sure nobody can do that in the future; how would we tell if they were trying to).

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    3. Re:Wow! by BlackSabbath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > I reject your reality and substitute my own!
      > /mythbuster
      > or /Wallstreet broker

      Disdain for the "reality based community" is nothing new.

      > In all seriousness, this does not sound like a field that needs saving from itself.
      > ...
      > Something doesn't get to be common practice unless a good portion of the field believes that it is good to do so, or at the very least, not harmful.

      I agree with your last statement in application to almost any discipline other than economics and (more specifically) finance. I must disagree with your first though. The ability of greed to short-circuit the mind's ability for critical thought is unparalleled as is the obstinate willingness of great swathes of people to swallow snake oil by the gallon on the merest suggestion of the slightest whiff of profit. My memory may be hazy, but I can recall at least two occurrences of a "new economy" in the last three decades. And of course each "new economy" marks a break with "outdated" beliefs/dogma/tradition (you know - like that outdated belief that you can't make something out of nothing, or that other one about a "turd by any other name would smell as sweet").

      I don't doubt that given another fifteen years or so, we'll have forgotten the "hard lessons", the sincere abjuration of pernicious practices and every other skerrick of common sense. The new "new economy" will have arrived. Only a fool would fore-go the chance to make real money. May I suggest however, that you watch this infotaining interview before you invest in the new "new economy".

  2. How about... by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... getting back to the real economy? Many financial products don't add anything to the real economy at all.

  3. The elephant in the room by owlnation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. The problem with economics is by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. The One True Law of Finance by dplentini · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Theocracy of Quants by Baldrson · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Wilmott suffers from the same thing that plagues all social scientists: They can't run controlled experiments to extract causation, yet they influence public policy as though they could.

    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.