Profile in Courage: Sergey Aleynikov

If the standard of criminality is what this guy did...., I fear for what justice means


See Michael Lewis Account here.

Support Sergey here.

Corzine - BICs - Impressions - What is acceptable - Rent Seeking

 Everybody seems to be sporting about the latest travails of Mr. Corzine, but many if not most (or virtually all) of those who seem to be moralizing now surf or have surfed the same rent seeking privileges that have little to do with actual competence. Every now and then, the bubble pops, a few unlucky bad ones pay for all the systemic sins, but the system itself perdures, with incremental adjustment here and there.

True change, whether in politics, social values or rules for economic entitlement come only after a forceful clash in which absurd existing rules or laws may be trampled in the process for a fairer order to emerge.
The present crisis continues its slow bleed because that necessary purifying process did not occur. Even after the comparatively milder dot-com bubble popped, the clean up was more extensive and more were held accountable.

Despite all the gospel to the contrary, it can be uncommonly difficult for the uncompromising innovator that the system proclaims to value above all to be heard. This seems truer if such innovations precisely pertain to the core issues that have put the system to its knees.

We persist in looking for solutions where we are least likely to find them even though the historic record is unambiguous that lasting solutions to systemic problems more often than not come from outsiders. Up to now the system has failed to look/consider or even acknowledge solutions proposed by outsiders. One of the problems exarcerbating our socio-economic issues is that the existing power structure is poisoned by a system of "normative meritocracy" blinded by a codified system of merit that tend to undervalues when it does not simply obliterate all other forms of emerging and more relevant competencies.

 Democracy in politics, branded academic credentials, peer review and other idealistically sounding principles collude to create dystopian realities for true innovators whose ideas and works can actually benefit the greater good.


BICs in the many ignored ideas and works it leads and spread throughout this blog can only be seen as an ultimate example of a flawed system of incentives and punishments. See also:  US Patent No. 7,933,824 .


References:
 US Patent No. 7,933,824.
NYT Editorial Nov 2, 2011: Mr. Corzine's Big Bet
NY Times- Nocera: Corzine Crashes like It's 2008
WSJ: Corzine Agonistes 
Others Pay Price for Corzine’s Risky Revenge: William D. Cohan
Douthat: Our reckless meritocracy

Quantitative Easing: Fed to buy $600 billion of U.S. government bonds to drive down long term interest rates

Comment:

Such a waste!
This is a very costly way of dragging down long term rates. As I have noted on many earlier posts, it once more makes me thing how much most cost-efficiently the fed could control long term rates with interest rate BICs that replicate the whole interest rate curve

See earlier posts on the topic:

http://kongtcheu.blogspot.com/2009/03/fed-will-inject-1-trillion-more-into.html
http://kongtcheu.blogspot.com/2009/04/ftcom-comment-opinion-let-central-banks.html

http://kongtcheu.blogspot.com/2009/07/op-ed-contributor-great-preventer.html

News References:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703506904575592471354774194.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/business/economy/04fed.html?_r=1&ref=business

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110305412.html

The Deficit Debate - BICs

This post is meant to refer to a knol Ihave written in response to a recent question posed on the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) community website : “Will public deficit reduction encourage private sector growth, or undermine a needed stimulus to recovery & lead to Japan-style stagnation?” This lead me, in view of my work on BICs, to wonder whether the deficit is really the right metric to focus on and analyze the extent to which it could be misleading.

I argue that the government balance sheet, rather than its cash flow position -from which the deficit is computed - should really be what eyes are focused on. The focus on balance would have and should better focus minds on stimulating high returns investments for sustainable recovery and expansion, some of which I discuss.

BICs enter in the picture because using their methodological prescription would make reliable and practical the complex and almost canutian task of computing the values of the different items on the government balance sheet.

I am gratified that the debate INET moderating team has picked on some of my suggestions and highlighted them in the debate summary(http://ineteconomics.org/blog/inet-community-responds-deficit-debate) as: "As far as new, creative solutions to the debate, a few users, such as kongtcheu, have urged governments to invest in entrepreneurship and clean energy projects, suggesting that these investments will create jobs and growth in the future."" I meant to say more than that.

References

Kongtcheu, Phil. The Deficit Debate - BICs:Is the deficit the right metric to focus on ? And what prescriptions does this leads to? [Internet]. Version 45. Basis Instruments Contracts (BICs). 2010 Aug 25. Available from: http://knol.google.com/k/phil-kongtcheu/the-deficit-debate-bics/24v2kgtuvzk2v/30.


http://ineteconomics.org/blog/inet-community-responds-deficit-debate

IAFE 2010 Annual Conference - Talk: Physics envy may be hazardous to your wealth

Physics envy may be hazardous to your wealth...YES, but how?
http://web.mit.edu/alo/www/Papers/physics8.pdf



This talk was quite interesting, delivered with quiet passion and confidence that was not obnoxious, or as one would say in Chinese 自信但不骄傲.

He proposed a thought provoking taxonomy for classifying various levels of risk and uncertainty

Taxonomy of Risk & Uncertainty:
Level 1: Complete Certainty i.e no randomness, as in physics, all parameters are deterministic;
Level 2: Risk without Uncertainty, i.e randomness but coming fully random variables whose law and parameters are completely identified;
Level 3: Fully Reducible Uncertainty;
With sufficient data, using existing statistical estimation methods, we can get to level 2.
Level 4: Partially Reducible Uncertainty
Parameters of random variables estimated as in Level 3may vary unpredictably
Level 5: Irreducible Uncertainty: Total uncertainty as to the nature and random variables driving observed data that can be improved with even more data.

Technical criticism:
At the very least,Level 2 & 3 should be merged. There is really no real life situation, except in controlled experiments, where the law of the random variable is written on the wall. You always have to estimate it. 4& 5 could be more tightly put together, so that really there are only 3 levels: No randomness, randomness with a precisely defined law and and randomness with a law that is not fully known.
Each of the last two levels creates the need for potentially redundant hedges.

(From memory 8 days later) One example he uses in the talk but that is not in the paper online and that caught my attention is the example of the Drawing of an urn containing let's say 100 balls colored black or white.

In the first example we know there are 50 white balls and 50 black balls.The question much one would pay to take part in a game where if one guesses correctly the color of the ball taken out of the urn, one receives let's say $100.

The conclusion here appears to be that one should pay $50.

In the second case we do not know how many black or red balls there are in the urn. Using iterative reasoning that boils down to what is known in information theory as a maximum entropy inference, it also appears one should pay $50.

He notes there is a psychological bias for red.

This leads me to my practical criticism of the paper

Practical Criticism:

This was an analysis of uncertainty from the viewpoint of a statistician/econometrician rather than from the viewpoint of a Risk Manager that is still prey to the mindset of a physicist in its analysis.

As I explained in my article in the Investment Professional last summer "BICs, the PPIP and the fallacies of expectations based risk management", the correct answer of what one should be willing to pay in the example he gives really is: "it all depends..."

Curiously, he refers admiringly in his online paper to Taleb's Black Swans without really addressing issues of hedging robustness that are the risk management dual correspondent of uncertainty issues.

References:

Smoke and Mirrors - BICS, the PPIP, and the Fallacies of Expectations-Based Risk Management

http://www.iafe.org/html/06182010.php

http://web.mit.edu/alo/www/Papers/physics8.pdf

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currents/2010/06/new-yorker-currents-nassim-taleb-on-risk-and-robustness.html

IAFE 2010 Annual Conference - Keynote Speech: The Possible Misdiagnosis of a Crisis

A few words on some of the talks at the 2010 International Association of Financial Engineers meeting.
Let's start with the Keynote Speech: "The Possible Misdiagnosis of a Crisis" by Richard Roll,Japan Chair of Finance, UCLA & 2009 IAFE/SunGard Financial Engineer of the Year Winner
* The recent global financial crisis has been blamed on several factors
* Elementary principles of finance suggest that none of these explanations are likely
* There is an alternative diagnosis consistent with financial principles
* The current treatment may be exacerbating the symptoms

In his talk he used 3 hypotheses to conclude that the current crisis is due to the government's increased share of national wealth in the US economy at the expense of the private sector:
H1. The some of all assets equals the sum of liabilities on a balance sheet.
H2. Merkets are forward looking
H3. Total wealth in an economy decreases as the share of government ownership increases. As a way of benchmark he put forward the statistic that a 20% increase in total wealth by the government results in a 50% decrease in aggregate wealth.


H1 is axiomatic; H2 is reasonable. H3??? Well...

From these hypotheses he reasoned that the total loss of wealth in the US Economy caused by the real estate bust was due to an increase ownership of the government in the US economy.He stated that this was a fact that had been observed in many other countries including China India, Brazil. The more government retreated from the economy the more aggregate wealth increased.

First of all I have to tip my hat to him for sticking his neck out there and saying something that stirred strong emotions.

However, I was really surprised that such an eminent and seasoned scholar would make such an extraordinary dubious claim as in H3 and back it with such little evidence in a keynote speech.

The most compelling evidence to disprove this argument is a comparison of loss of wealth in the US during the dot com bust and the real estate bust. The dot com bust occurred in an environment where more laiseez faire, welfare reform arguments were the dominant philosophy with the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, the incoming republican administration and all that.The real estate bust in 2007 triggered a more aggressive government interventionist posture in the real economy. For a comparison, I turn to Jeffrey D. Benson of the blog American MacroEconomic Dynamism:

"How much wealth has actually been destroyed in the current housing decline versus the 2001 tech burst? According to the Case Shiller Indices (the most accurate housing guage available) In 2006, the value of U.S. residential real estate totaled US$ 22.4 trillion. Since this recording the national pricing indices (based on 20 metropolitan areas) has decline 19.87%. This is a loss of asset valuation equal to $4.5 Trillion. To put this loss into perspective, according to the International Monetary Fund the U.S. Gross Domestic Product in 2007 was 13.8 Trillion. So is this decline in value a direct hit to the Net Worth of the United States. Absolutely. If the value of liabilities declined proportionally to asset price then the answer would be no, but they clearly do not. The United States has significantly overstated it's wealth. Sound familiar?

In 2001 the Dot.com bubble was another significant overstatement of wealth. The Nasdaq Composite Index is a market capitalization weighted index of more than 5000 stocks. Comprising all Nasdaq-listed common stocks, it is the most commonly used index for tracking the Nasdaq. The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index represents the broadest index for the U.S. equity market, measuring the performance of all U.S. equity securities with readily available price data. No other index comes close to offering its comprehensiveness. For comparison, the NASDAQ listed securities compose 19% of the 5000 Total Market Index. The Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap was $16.7 Trillion as of April 30, 2008. Comparatively, the market cap at the end of Q1 in 2000 was approximately $16 trillion (only slightly smaller). However, between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003 the index lost a stunning 43% of its valuation. In other words, $7.1 Trillion of wealth was lost."

In order to make a statement on China, the proxy by which a comparison would be made is India. Here again In China, we have state capitalism and a government controlled economy. India has a more liberal democratic tradition. So far China has outperformed India year after year for the past 3 decades.

In Russia, the failure of liberalization policies of the early 1990s led to the strong state reassertion and state capitalism under Putin with popular support.

In Africa in the late 80s and 1990s, the IMF liberal orthodoxy led to the crumbling of national welfare in so many economies...

And on and on and on....

How could such a respected scholar and from all appearances a nice and sound minded person make such a claim, I am still scratching my head...


As I have made the case many times before in my BICs book and Knol collection and blogs, the role of government is bound to increase as population density increase, and this is due to what I have called the holistic theorem.



References:
The 2010 IAFE Annual Conference

Housing Bubble vs. Tech Bubble Loss of Wealth in Dollars denominated terms by Jeffrey D. Benson of the blog American MacroEconomic Dynamism

Easy Money, Hard Truths

I liked this piece in the times quite a lot. It is a useful refresher course on macroeconomics and articulate the deficit hawks thoughtful worries about ballooning deficits and debt. It argues fairly persuasively that the lack of apparent inflation in reported numbers might be a smoking mirror or at any rate unhealthy.

It is a fairly challenging counter argument to the "forget-about-the-deficit,-there-is-no- inflation,-expansionary-government-policies" Krugman regularly pushes in his pieces.

The weakness of this analysis in my view is that it is poorly prescriptive. Mindless belt tightening at all costs as one would would asphyxiate the economy making the current predicament even worse. Krugman pushes for expansion but in traditional sectors of the economy.

What I have failed to see in both analyses is the effort to help flow credit to start ups in the services industry who are likely to open up the new industries which are most likely to help the country grow out of its mounting liabilities. When I read about the paltry efforts to get money through the SBA, it is quite puzzling. Thomas Friedman regularly does a god job at drawing the need to focus efforts on high tech startups of the future, but again his prescription for helping flow money in a timely manner to this sector is neither refined nor well calibrated enough.

And this would get me to... BICs


References:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27einhorn.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

High Frequency Traders and Liquidity

See: Speedy New Traders Make Waves Far From Wall St.


I was reading this article in the times and it just illustrated the fallacy of the argument that high frequency traders provide indispensable liquidity in the markets. Like all other normal or continuous trading assumptions about markets we question here this is one more. These assumptions work in normal times, but when they are most needed, they don't. And it makes dynamic or continuous time derivatives hedging potentially disastrous.

And this is where BICs, with there pre-determined contractual agreements provide economically valuable edge.

Derivatives Clearinghouses Are No Magic Bullet. Really ?

See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703871904575216251915383146.html

Derivatives Clearinghouses Are No Magic Bullet. Really? but not for the reason this guy gives...and he is a professor at some big Ivy league School!

I read this article with a certain sense of bemusement at the level of ignorance the author therein demonstrated. He seems to have no understanding of issues of 2-timing, N-timing in bilateral netting agreements. The issues he worries about would be addresses in centralized or interconnected hierarchical clearing system as explained in my knol and powerpoint/ youtube presentation

References:

The Holistic Theorem

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703871904575216251915383146.html

Unity of Purpose

See more presentations by kongtcheu | Upload your own PowerPoint presentations

Comments On "Chances Are..." By Steven Strogatz & BICs

Reading this piece general public piece on conditional probabilities brought me back more than 17 years ago back when in my senior year in college I was being introduced to conditional probabilities. Indeed in the manner it was taught it was seen as impenetrably daunting and really hard to relate to anything practical. But overtime as I have assimilated the theoretical and practical use of conditional probabilities, I must say the formal approach, once assimilated is very mechanical in helping produce accurate estimations. What is often confounding in making estimates based on conditional probabilities, is that the language used corrupts thoughts. That is why examples such as the Monty Python one and the Mammogram results interpretation are so confounding to educated and otherwise intelligent people.

It seems to me educational curriculums should focus on teaching the intuitive and formal approaches simultaneously and move towards pointing out when the intuitive approach finds its limitations and must be overtaken by the more formal one.

I also realize how BICs as extensions and generalizations of the concept of conditional probabilities must be patiently taught to be better understood over time

References:

Chances Are, By Steven Strogatz. Opiniator piece in the NY Times 04/25/2010

BICs

The Wider Scope of BICs