3 ms·
From the article: "Still others say their models simply failed to predict how the markets would react to near-catastrophic, once-in-a-lifetime financial events
by quanticle 16y ago
From the article: "Still others say their models simply failed to predict how the markets would react to near-catastrophic, once-in-a-lifetime financial events like the credit crisis and the collapse of Lehman Brothers."
The fact that they still believe those events were "catastrophic," or "once-in-a-lifetime" means they still haven't grasped the fact that markets aren't Gaussian. As first Mandelbrot, then others showed, financial markets exhibit a much larger number of extreme events than a standard Gaussian distribution. Therefore, any trader that doesn't update his or her models to use a non-Gaussian model won't just be wiped out once. They'll be wiped out again and again as they get blindsided by the "once-in-a-lifetime" price swings that happen to happen every decade or so.
- SkyMarshal 16y agoIndeed. For anyone that hasn't read it yet, Taleb's Edge essay on the nature of randomness in 'Fourth Quadrant' domains is a good read: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb08/taleb08_index.html http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb08/taleb08_index.html And a more technical discussion of Mandelbrotian market models from Wilmott magazine: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0501292 http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0501292