« The (Mis)Behavior of Markets: A Summary Alex Gordon Do markets really follow a random walk as modern financial theory suggests? ...» Document abstract
$2.95
3 word format
Language : english
finance
summaries
date published
03/08/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : General public
requested 9 times
SummaryDo markets really follow a random walk as modern financial theory suggests? Are we likely to experience a market crash as deadly as the likes of the Great Depression? What is the nature of volatility and how should it impact the way we model financial markets? Although definitive answers to these questions have yet to be formulated, Benoit Mandelbrot’s work, The (Mis)Behavior of Markets, sheds light onto them through a non-quantitative approach.
There are currently widespread misconceptions about markets, investors, and their behavior, and we will begin by addressing these false assumptions.
There are currently widespread misconceptions about markets, investors, and their behavior, and we will begin by addressing these false assumptions.
Table of Contents- Do markets really follow a random walk as modern financial theory suggests?
- There are currently widespread misconceptions about markets, investors, and their behavior
- Having discussed the investor, it is necessary to point out certain 'shaky' assumptions relating to market behavior, particularly price movement
- Rule 1: Markets are risky
- The scaling effect is present in every level of business operations
- Today's models falsely assume the financial system is a 'linear, continuous, rational machine.?
- Although we have trillions of pieces of data from P/E ratios, to historical prices, to EBITDA, the 'toolkit' that we use to measure risk is 'surprisingly bare.
« not increase exogenously as in the neoclassical model of growth (eg Solow 1956), but endogenously as the result of (profit) maximizing behavior of economic ...» Document abstract
$9.95
260 word format
Language : english
economics
theses
date published
27/07/2006
review : not yet assessed
level : Expert
requested 33 times
SummaryFor several reasons, knowledge cannot be treated like any other commodity. One of these reasons is the nonrivalrous nature of knowledge, which means that one person’s use of certain knowledge does not diminish another person’s use of the same knowledge (at the same time). This important property of knowledge is used in several early models of R&D-based growth1,
e.g. Romer (1990), Grossman and Helpman (1991), and Aghion and Howitt (1992). In these models this property leads to a scale effect, which boils down to larger economies growing faster than smaller economies (with the measure of size suitably defined (cf. Backus, Kehoe and Kehoe 1992)).
In an influential paper, Jones (1995a) pointed out that growth with scale effects, as predicted
by the early models of R&D-based growth, is inconsistent with empirical facts. Over the last
40 years the OECD countries have experienced a tremendous rise in the number of people involved in R&D activities whereas the growth rates of per-capita income have shown no corresponding increase. This is a puzzling observation and has led to new models of R&D- based growth that did not incorporate scale effects e.g. Jones (1995b), Smulders and van de Klundert (1995), Young (1998), Li (2000), and Peretto and Smulders (2002).
Generally, however, these models suffer from the ‘Solow critique’; Solow (1994) criticizes
(some) growth theorists because they “… often just insert favorable assumptions in an unearned way; and then when they put in their thumb and pull out the vary plum they have inserted, there is a tendency to think that something has been proved.” (p. 53). In the models
of growth without scale effects the prediction of a scale effects in growth of the early models
of R&D-based growth is removed by limiting the extent of the spillovers associated with knowledge’s nonrivalrousness, but often the much-needed (micro-)economic foundation for
the crucial assumption in these models regarding the extent of knowledge spillovers - and the
mechanism limiting their extent - is lacking. Assuming that knowledge is rivalrous (not nonrivalrous) to limit spillovers and dispose of the scale effects prediction of the early models
of R&D-based growth simply does not shed much light on the issue of growth without scale effects however.
provide background information regarding, amongst others, work discussed in the main text, data used in figures, etc.
e.g. Romer (1990), Grossman and Helpman (1991), and Aghion and Howitt (1992). In these models this property leads to a scale effect, which boils down to larger economies growing faster than smaller economies (with the measure of size suitably defined (cf. Backus, Kehoe and Kehoe 1992)).
In an influential paper, Jones (1995a) pointed out that growth with scale effects, as predicted
by the early models of R&D-based growth, is inconsistent with empirical facts. Over the last
40 years the OECD countries have experienced a tremendous rise in the number of people involved in R&D activities whereas the growth rates of per-capita income have shown no corresponding increase. This is a puzzling observation and has led to new models of R&D- based growth that did not incorporate scale effects e.g. Jones (1995b), Smulders and van de Klundert (1995), Young (1998), Li (2000), and Peretto and Smulders (2002).
Generally, however, these models suffer from the ‘Solow critique’; Solow (1994) criticizes
(some) growth theorists because they “… often just insert favorable assumptions in an unearned way; and then when they put in their thumb and pull out the vary plum they have inserted, there is a tendency to think that something has been proved.” (p. 53). In the models
of growth without scale effects the prediction of a scale effects in growth of the early models
of R&D-based growth is removed by limiting the extent of the spillovers associated with knowledge’s nonrivalrousness, but often the much-needed (micro-)economic foundation for
the crucial assumption in these models regarding the extent of knowledge spillovers - and the
mechanism limiting their extent - is lacking. Assuming that knowledge is rivalrous (not nonrivalrous) to limit spillovers and dispose of the scale effects prediction of the early models
of R&D-based growth simply does not shed much light on the issue of growth without scale effects however.
provide background information regarding, amongst others, work discussed in the main text, data used in figures, etc.
Table of Contents- Grouth and scale effects
- Knowledge, R&D and spilovers, at the firm
- Grouth without scale effects and structural
- Measurement issues in the study of R&D-based
- The product life cycle, demand
1
knowledge network
Sort by
Subject :
Type :
Extension :
Language :
Size :