Rule #1 of quant finance seems to be ‘Make this as difficult as we can’

I got a great response to my maths sweet spot blog. Great in the sense of numbers of people writing to me and great in the sense that every single one of them agreed with me!

But it’s still going to be years before the tendency for people to make quantitative finance as difficult as they possibly can is eradicated. And that’ll be years while money is lost because of lack of transparency and lack of robustness in pricing and risk-management models. (But on the other hand, there’ll be lots of research papers. So not all bad news then!)

There’ve been a couple of recent forum threads that perfectly illustrate this unnecessary complexity. One thread was a brainteaser and the other on numerical methods.

The brainteaser concerned a random walk and the probability of hitting a boundary. Several methods were proposed for solving this problem involving Girsanov, Doleans-Dade martingales, and optimal stopping. It must have been a really difficult problem to need all that heavyweight machinery, no? Well, no, actually. The problem they were trying to solve was a linear, homogeneous, second-order, constant-coefficient, ordinary differential equation! (Really only first order because there weren’t even any non-derivative terms!) The problem was utterly trivial (although, if you look at the thread, I did still manage to make a sign error, typical!). Talk about sledgehammers and nuts.

The other thread was on using non-recombining trees to price a simple vanilla option. People were really helpful to the person asking for advice on this topic. But no one, except for me, of course, asked the obvious question “Why on Earth are you doing such a silly thing?” I can hardly imagine a more cumbersome, slow, and generally insane way to solve a simple problem.

It disturbs me when people have been educated to such a level of complexity that they can throw about references to obscure theorems while at the same time being unable to think for themselves. To me, mathematics is about creativity in the use of tools not about being able to quote ‘results.’ Even knowledge of the names of mathematicians and what they are famous for is something I find a bit suspect. If you know the names of all the theorems but don’t know when to use them then you are an historian not a mathematician. Perhaps maths is an art, and I’m not impressed with painting by numbers.

P

Related Posts

Where Do You Keep Your Offshore Money? Where do you keep your offshore money? The media is all upset about celebs, politicians, etc. having money in various offshore places, in order to ...
Bloomberg View Columnist Barry Ritholtz Interviews... Listen to Barry Ritholtz interview Paul Wilmott about quantitative finance, mathematical modelling, reputational risk, Tom Cruise, JK Rowling, Billy J...
Boris Johnson, Yanis Varoufakis And Sir Vince Cabl... Boris Johnson, Yanis Varoufakis and Sir Vince Cable all have something in common…. All three have been in the news lately with their interpretation...
Webcast – Paul Wilmott On “The Money F... Paul recently gave a talk in downtown Manhattan about his new book, co-authored with David Orrell, The Money Formula. Other topics get dragged in alon...
Jeremy Corbyn: My Part In His Ascent First, disclosure: I am rather right wing, from the school of "take some of my income in taxes but otherwise leave me alone, please." And as a general...
The Money Formula – New Book By Paul Wilmott... The Money Formula: Dodgy Finance, Pseudo Science, and How Mathematicians Took Over the Markets OUT NOW!!! Buy Paul's Latest book NOW on Amazon! ...
Ed Thorp: A Man For All Markets The book we've been waiting for, the full story of Ed Thorp's career in mathematics, science, gambling, and finance. An inspiration for us mortals. ...
We have adjusted our estimate of Mark Carney’... In August The Bank of England forecast growth in the UK in  2017 to be 0.8%. They have now adjusted that forecast to 2%. That's a factor of 2.5....