<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Truth About Markets</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/04/17/the-truth-about-markets/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/04/17/the-truth-about-markets/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:29:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jussi H</title>
		<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/04/17/the-truth-about-markets/comment-page-1/#comment-1480</link>
		<dc:creator>Jussi H</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:17:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=2655#comment-1480</guid>
		<description>Actually, the problems are even worse than that. Market participant behavior can create feedback processes that are non-linear and completely unpredictable.

For example: in the 00&#039;s, Wall Street began using then-new Credit Default Swaps to assess and predict the risk of bond and loan defaults through the so-called Gaussian Copula Function.Simply put, you expected the prices of CDS protection to reflect the underlying risk; the  higher the price, the bigger the risk.

There were two problems with this:

1)Credit Default Swaps were fairly new, so you couldn&#039;t tell from such a small historical sample whether they were liable to non-standard deviations (see:AIG).

2)If it made sense for the banks to assess risk by looking at CDS prices, it also had to make sense for CDS investors to assess their future returns by looking at bond prices. You could invert the Copula! The result, in theory at least, can be a perfect feedback loop: investors on the long side have confidence because of lack of confidence on the short side; investors on the short side have lack of confidence because the long side is confident etc.

Of course, in the long run, fundamentals have to correct market irrationality. Unfortunately, what the promoters of Portfolio theory, Gaussian Copula, &quot;Wisdom of the crowds&quot; etc. don&#039;t understand is that widespread adaptation of market-following techniques can reinforce existing errors and irrationalities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, the problems are even worse than that. Market participant behavior can create feedback processes that are non-linear and completely unpredictable.</p>
<p>For example: in the 00’s, Wall Street began using then-new Credit Default Swaps to assess and predict the risk of bond and loan defaults through the so-called Gaussian Copula Function.Simply put, you expected the prices of CDS protection to reflect the underlying risk; the  higher the price, the bigger the risk.</p>
<p>There were two problems with this:</p>
<p>1)Credit Default Swaps were fairly new, so you couldn’t tell from such a small historical sample whether they were liable to non-standard deviations (see:AIG).</p>
<p>2)If it made sense for the banks to assess risk by looking at CDS prices, it also had to make sense for CDS investors to assess their future returns by looking at bond prices. You could invert the Copula! The result, in theory at least, can be a perfect feedback loop: investors on the long side have confidence because of lack of confidence on the short side; investors on the short side have lack of confidence because the long side is confident etc.</p>
<p>Of course, in the long run, fundamentals have to correct market irrationality. Unfortunately, what the promoters of Portfolio theory, Gaussian Copula, “Wisdom of the crowds” etc. don’t understand is that widespread adaptation of market-following techniques can reinforce existing errors and irrationalities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil B ♪</title>
		<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/04/17/the-truth-about-markets/comment-page-1/#comment-1476</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil B ♪</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:28:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=2655#comment-1476</guid>
		<description>But the problem with the economic models is deeper than that. The make *false* simplifying assumptions, such as that economic agents are fully informed and fully &quot;rational.&quot;  Furthermore, there is the idea that all are motivated equally by self-interest and that SI is &quot;good&quot; per se - that without it, we wouldn&#039;t have a productive economy. But that is a fallacious misunderstanding of the actual principle behind markets and the IH: that whatever SI there is will be best channeled into net production for the good of all. But making best use of X given as much as there is, is not logically equivalent to whether X all by itself versus X + Y or even Y would be the best to have started with. (Think about alloys in metallurgy.)  IMHO, with less SI the agents waste less effort struggling and cheating and produce more and are happier as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But the problem with the economic models is deeper than that. The make *false* simplifying assumptions, such as that economic agents are fully informed and fully “rational.”  Furthermore, there is the idea that all are motivated equally by self-interest and that SI is “good” per se — that without it, we wouldn’t have a productive economy. But that is a fallacious misunderstanding of the actual principle behind markets and the IH: that whatever SI there is will be best channeled into net production for the good of all. But making best use of X given as much as there is, is not logically equivalent to whether X all by itself versus X + Y or even Y would be the best to have started with. (Think about alloys in metallurgy.)  IMHO, with less SI the agents waste less effort struggling and cheating and produce more and are happier as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheTradingReport &#187; Blog Archive &#187; links for 2009-04-19</title>
		<link>http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/04/17/the-truth-about-markets/comment-page-1/#comment-1473</link>
		<dc:creator>TheTradingReport &#187; Blog Archive &#187; links for 2009-04-19</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:45:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=2655#comment-1473</guid>
		<description>[...] Lloyd Morgan: The Truth About Markets [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[…] Lloyd Morgan: The Truth About Markets […]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

