In the work of finance, there exist in every company a group of workers who are commonly referred to as "quants". Formally, they're known as quantitative analysts and there job is essentially to crunch numbers; using the tools of mathematics, they analyze statistics and numbers and create and evaluate financial models.
The value of math cannot be overstated; from physics to science to engineering to politics to business and finance, the tools of math often form the bedrock of these disciplines. However, its adamant use by financial analysts on Wall Street has always been scrutinized and that has especially been the case since the financial collapse that struck much of the Western World 5 years ago.
Warren Buffet, the famous billionaire and investor, even crudely asked people to "Beware of geeks…bearing formulas". This wasn't just the ramblings of a disgruntled old man; there was a general sentiment that quants had gone too far with their models. The main contention was that they had reduced complex financial markets to overly simplified models that, while elegant, efficient and an impressive piece of mathematical work, made a mockery of reality. The quants had essentially exited the "real world" and companies (and countries at large) paid the price for these theoretical games.
Along with quants, academics, employed by universities, also cam under intense scrutiny. But can they really be blamed? There job is to conduct research, ranging from the practical to the theoretical, and present to other academics and the public. If the financial industry decides to put the research into place, can the academics be faulted for merely doing their job? The same principle would hypothetically apply to the quants on Wall Street that have often been blamed for the crisis; they are being employed to fulfill a specific task and they are merely doing that.
Of course, I think the real criticism is not directed towards the quants; I think most people direct their animosity towards the mathematical models themselves. That is, they resent the very existence of the math and are opposed to its overuse in the industry. On the surface, this is certainly a valid critique; all of the models used in finance are only that - models. They reflect reality but they do not mirror reality - a reality that is often marred with the subjectivity of human behaviour, random variance, general chaos, and unpredictable events. While the math shouldn't be blindly relied on, I think it's imperative to acknowledge the fact that they still have utility if used appropriately. When implemented as guidelines and suggestions, I don't think financial models are destructive at all.
In fact, Buffet's comments of "beaks" perhaps points to a real reason behind this backlash against quants and mathematicians: it could just be the financial gurus of the old days (and those who admire those old days) resenting the new science that is finance. Coupled with this resistance to change would be the typical "anti-nerd/geek" mentality; in other words, the notion that finance should be dominated by strong men in tailored suits, not math-whizes in the back room with calculators.
Whatever it is, I'd say that it was not mathematical models that led to the 2009 financial crisis. Though the models have produced inaccurate and costly predictions, these can ultimately be attributed to the humans behind the calculator and of course, the hot shots making the big bucks behind the mahogany desks.
Comments
Post a Comment