Quantos: Understanding Guaranteed Exchange Rate Contracts
The first (1990) paper on valuing quanto options
The first (1990) paper on valuing quanto options
Ahmed Wahidi is an Afghani goatherd with three wives, Aafifa, Latifa and Fatima. They live high in the Hindu Kush.
David Burton is a computer programmer who works for HP on the West Coast of the USA. He recently married Linda, a coworker with a joint degree in economics and computer science.
Which family is likely to multiply faster?
1. The Wahidis
2. The Burtons
The author tries to justify a career spent in financial modeling
Ihr iPad funktioniert, weil irgendjemand die Maxwellschen Gleichungen und die Grundlagen der Quanten-Physik verstanden hat - und dieser irgendjemand kann etwas bauen, das tut, was Sie wollen, wenn sie einen Knopf drücken. Quants benutzen die gleiche Art von Mathematik um Optionen und Märkte zu beschreiben. Es sieht genauso aus, aber es basiert auf einer ganz vagen Analogie, die behauptet Aktienkurse verhielten sich wie die Diffusion von Dampf. Es ist keine Beschreibung der Wirklichkeit.“
…
Models Behaving Badly: The English Original
The good days are here once again for models of the physical world: after a drought of almost fifty years, physicists at CERN have discovered what seems to be the long-awaited Higgs boson. But we are living through a period of bad days for models of the social world, where I am using the word ‘model’ in the sense of Gilbert and Sullivan’s Major-General Stanley in The Pirates of Penzance, who sang: “I am the very model of a modern Major-General.”
…
The full English version will be on www.faz.net too.
I am visiting the Santa Fe Institute, where everyone who’s anyone is interested in applying the quantitative methods of physics to complex phenomena that aren’t easily reduced to simple theories, and especially to social phenomena — cities, organizations, bureaucracies, wars, etc.
One of the things that people regularly mention here is the notion that there are regularities in biological and social evolution and phenomena; that you can make predictions over periods of time during which things evolve in a regular way, but that these regularities are punctuated by ‘accidents’ which occur by chance and thereby defy prediction.
But, I keep wondering: WTF is an accident? WTF is chance?
Prior to quantum mechanics, in the late 1800s, when physicists had a Lagrangian view of the world, they were obliged to believe that, given initial positions and velocities of all the universe’s particles, the future was IN PRINCIPLE determined. There were really no accidents, even if you couldn’t actually compute the future of everything accurately because of the chaotic behavior of dynamical systems.
So, unless you believed in free will for at least some living things, then, if someone squeezed you you would have had to agree that everything unfolded deterministically.
Nowadays you can appeal to free will or quantum mechanics, though in the latter case there is still the problem of what causes the wave function to collapse.
So, what is an accident? Is it something we don’t understand causally and is therefore technically unpredictable but in fact causal, or is it something truly random? I can understand a random distribution, but is there such a thing as a random event?
I think what people mean by an accident in this context is a situation where a system causally ends up in an intermediate state that looks a lot like all the other states the system might have ended up in, but that particular intermediate state in fact has very different future causal consequences from all the apparently more or less similar states it resembles. Hence, for example, the anthropic principle.
I don’t know if I believe in these kinds of accidents. It takes a lot of faith.
All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Derman is not enamoured with the growing field of behavioural finance, which he fears has become a plaything for policy-makers, because it is not comprehensive enough to exist as a stand-alone theory to explain financial markets. As long as markets have existed, models to explain them have failed.
“Part of me wanted to believe that human beings are part of nature and eventually people can understand people. But as soon as someone gets a model of human behaviour, people will change their behaviour as a consequence.”
Derman says: “Your iPad works because someone understands Maxwell’s equations and quantum electrodynamics, and they can build something that does what you want when you hit a button. They use the same kind of math to describe options and markets.
“It looks the same but it’s based on a vague analogy which says stock prices behave like smoke diffusions, it’s not a description of reality. Whereas for Newton’s laws or Maxwell’s equations, that’s the way the world is.”
Writing books on finance is one thing; reading them is another.
So I discovered when I invited Satyajit Das and Emanuel Derman to discuss their reading in the wake of the crisis that killed off Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEHMQ)
What do quantum theory, Schopenhauer, Goethe, and Spinoza have to teach us about the economic disaster of 2007-8?
With “Models Behaving Badly” he offers a readable, even eloquent combination of personal history, philosophical musing and honest confession concerning the dangers of relying on numerical models not only on Wall Street but also in life.
… it is undeniable that “Models Behaving Badly” itself performs splendidly. Bringing ethics into his analysis, Mr. Derman has no patience for coddling the folly of individuals and institutions who over-rely on faulty models and then seek to escape the consequences.
Some smart people at BNN asking good questions.
The Globe and Mail: Mr. Derman was in Toronto discussing his new book, Models. Behaving. Badly: Why Confusing Illusion With Reality Can Lead to Disaster, on Wall Street and in Life.
David Magee interviews Emanuel Derman on IBTimes.tv
The Daily Ticker: It’s a question of confidence in funding, not just confidence in models