Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 3 Next »

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

On Markets and Complexity

Economist Robert C. Merton talks about the current crisis, risk, and financial engineering.

By Nate Nickerson

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Understanding complexity: Robert C. Merton is a professor at Harvard Business School. His seminal work in derivative instruments changed the face of modern finance.
Credit: Stuart Cahill

Robert C. Merton, currently the John and Natty McArthur University Professor at Harvard Business School, shares the 1997 Nobel Prize in economics for his work on the Black-Scholes model for determining the value of a stock option--work that led to the creation of options and futures markets in the early 1970s, and thus to a revolution in financial markets around the world. Merton has also seen firsthand what a modern market crisis looks like: he was a founder of Long Term Capital Management, a hedge fund that saw enormous success followed by enormous losses in the mid-1990s, and which became a symbol of the limits of financial engineering.

Today's financial crisis is often blamed on a system so complex as to be beyond the comprehension of even its practitioners. (See "The Blow-Up.") We asked Merton what he thinks of complexity--and whether he thinks markets have too much of it.

Technology Review: Is it fair to say that the current financial system is too risky?

Robert Merton: Let me give you this analogy. If you're driving in inclement weather, you'd say that a four-wheel-drive car is safer than a two-wheel-drive car. Now suppose that we observed that over the last 15 years, the number of passenger accidents per passenger mile driven hadn't changed at all. And someone says, Now wait a minute: Has four-wheel drive made us safer? And the answer would be, Technically, no, because we're having just the same number of accidents we used to have. So, was this all a waste, or were we wrong? I think you know the answer, as I do. What really happened is that people get something that will unambiguously make you safer if you behave the same way you did before. That's the key element to understand first. The amount of risk we take personally, individually, or collectively is not a physical given constant. We choose it. What happens is, we look at some new, safer instrument and we say, Yes, we could be safer doing the same thing. Or, we could take the same amount of risk and do things that were too risky to do before. So with a four-wheel-drive car, you look out the window and see six inches of snow, and you say, That's okay: I'm going to go over and visit my family. So the question to ask is not, Are we safer? The question to ask is, Are we better off?

TR: So do we have a better financial system than we did 10 years ago?

RM: Unambiguously. For example, I believe the people at almost every central bank are far more knowledgeable about the various financial markets than they were 10 years ago. Also, in general, we know how to measure and manage risk better than we did 10 years ago. And I think there's more transparency than there was 10 years ago, in the following sense: One of the big areas with the current crisis is in credit. Bank loans are the prototypical, classic credit of the past. Bank loans were not repriced, like a mutual fund, due to market conditions. So when a crisis came, they were very opaque. There were loans sitting in these banks that had been sitting there for years, and nobody really knew what they were, and when a crisis came, all they know was that they were worth less. That's not transparency--that's opaqueness. Today, we have a credit-default swap market. On a daily basis, that market prices what sophisticated institutions were really willing to pay to guarantee the credit of probably 500 to 700 companies and virtually every sovereign country in the world. You can see that price every day. That's a very big increase in transparency. Also, we have much more global diversification of risk. And look at mortgages. If you go back to the 1980s, virtually all mortgages were originated through thrift institutions. Today, you have a national mortgage market. Even in these tough times, mortgage money is available. It's not that there aren't problems, but as a technological matter and as an operating matter, those are all the pluses.

[1] 2 3 Next »

Resources

Events

Comments

  • market complexity?
    devassocx on 04/02/2008 at 1:30 AM
    Posts:
    29
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    So this guy sliced and diced and tried to make
    sense out of a random system...and then it blew up.

    And now he is now teaching new generations of people how to do the same thing?

    I would say unbelievable.

    The current credit crisis is largely due to an investment community that leveraged dubious and overly complex investment vehicles using theories that are just wrong.

    The damage that has been done to economies around the world is obvious and devastating.

    Investment vehicles are not silicon chips.

    Its way past time to return to real values and not some grossly leveraged and imaginary FrankenEonomics techniques.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: market complexity?
      z0rr0 on 04/02/2008 at 10:55 AM
      Posts:
      35
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      Transactional Capitalism - increase the volume of transactions, regardless of value, and attach a fee to each. The complexity assures that only a few will benefit... and they have, in great gobs.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • [no subject]
    inboulder on 04/02/2008 at 7:09 PM
    Posts:
    10
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    "It wasn't about capability, it was about need. You can have all the technology in the world, you can have all the great models in the world, and if there isn't a perceived need, it doesn't get adapted."

    Um, shouldn't that be adopted?

    Also, I agree with the above, hedge fund managers lose to the s&p 500 80% of the time, the other 20% managed to get ahold of 'hot tips', but they all make themselves great wads of cash off the rake.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • On Markets and Complexity
    jmaximus9 on 04/02/2008 at 9:52 PM
    Posts:
    47
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    The system is rigged in favor of the ringmasters, PT Barnum should have said there is a investor born every minute. The market needs a complete transformation. 
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • The Key Roles of Regulation and Sociopaths
    aheiber on 04/02/2008 at 11:30 PM
    Posts:
    2
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    This article points out the many ways, including innovation, that a deficiency in regulation can open up vulnerabilities to disaster. Capitalism runs on the rails of regulation. This is a Judeo-Christian culture and, thus, has an overburden of sociopaths, who are ever alert to opportunities to profit by doing harm to others.

    It is usual for economic models, expecially those promoted by conservative economists, to fail to include the potent role of sociopaths. Whenever there is an attempt at deregulation, such as savings and loans or energy, the sociopaths see and seize the opportunity with a result of costly harms. It doesn't matter whether the regulatory deficiency was purposely created by misguided believers in the regulation effects of competitive markets or by the lags of regulatory infrastructure in a changing environment. A sufficient excess of regulation is required to keep the sociopaths at bay.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Macro Economics
    denali1996 on 04/03/2008 at 4:44 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    This guy is talking about detailed intricacies of economic theory.  This is complex and interesting and way over 99.9% of the country.  The simple version is that unheralded economic prosperity drove many people to invest poorly in high risk ways...like buying houses that they can't afford with ARMs at interest rates at near historic lows (when they are at the bottom, they only go one way). This is not the fault of mortgage companies.  If someone told you that you qualified to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, that doesn't mean you should.  Use some common sense.  Big surprise!...sometimes there is a Bull market and sometimes there is a Bear market.  Economics doesn't work without both.  Don't be mad at government because you made risky decisions.  Those people that realized 10 years of Bull markets was a little unusual are going to use the current "recession" to make a lot of money. Simply put: Investing works on the bigger idiot theory.  You can make a lot of money if you don't end up being the bigger idiot. If you do end up the bigger idiot, be smarter next time.  The Bull will be back.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • model went bust
    stephan.froede on 09/22/2008 at 12:40 PM
    Posts:
    4
    Avg Rating:
    1/5

    I just think their models went bust, the most expensive falsification in human history.

    The next step will be to create models that try to model the interaction of models on the market, multidimensional model interaction model or so...

    More RAM and CPU needed, buy Intel and IBM etc....
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review January/February 2009
Lifeline for Renewable Power
Without a radically expanded and smarter electrical grid, wind and solar will remain niche power sources.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology