This article goes to the point that the quants were part of the problem, which I don't disagree with, it's just how much they can be accountable for:
Wall Street’s Math Wizards Forgot a Few Variables
During the internet bubble, I read a book by a Yale professor, Schiller - he's had a company for the past few years that tracks the RE market - that was titled Irrational Exuberance. Schiller was credited with saying the markets had bubbled and would implode, and his academic analysis was based on market mania, behavioral economics. It was obviously true at the time, but I remember that a finance professor at Fordham didn't get around to reading it until 2 years later.
The problem with numbers, with quant analysis, I think, is the illusion of certainty that comes from mathematical analysis. It often gives a definite number to things that are somewhat fluid, like probability.
Wall Street’s Math Wizards Forgot a Few Variables
During the internet bubble, I read a book by a Yale professor, Schiller - he's had a company for the past few years that tracks the RE market - that was titled Irrational Exuberance. Schiller was credited with saying the markets had bubbled and would implode, and his academic analysis was based on market mania, behavioral economics. It was obviously true at the time, but I remember that a finance professor at Fordham didn't get around to reading it until 2 years later.
The problem with numbers, with quant analysis, I think, is the illusion of certainty that comes from mathematical analysis. It often gives a definite number to things that are somewhat fluid, like probability.
Comments