Monthly Archives: August 2009

Markets Stopped The Madness

Eric Falkenstein:

Robert Shiller … in 2005, … wrote that in some cities “the price increases may start to slow down, and then to fall. At the same time, it is likely the boom will continue for quite a while in other cities.”  Now, compare this modest warning by a lone economist to the forces promoting home lending from all directions. It was not just a Wall Street phenomenon, but one pushed by our government, legislators, regulators, and even academics (for evidence, see Stan Liebowitzs “Anatomy of a Train Wreck“ … the Federal Housing Administration was, and is, offering loans with only three percent down, and during the boom, the Department of Housing and Urban Development promoted a program where even this minor investment could be paid for by the homebuilder. …

In light of this governmental housing exuberance, I doubt that a more powerful government would have mitigated the boom — rather, it would have made this crisis worse. Indeed, it was only the collapse of the subprime market at the beginning of 2007 as reflected by the ABX-HE subprime housing index that alerted people to the severity of this problem, and shut off financing by mid-2007, six months later. Market prices, not legislators, instigated the end of the insanity. How quickly are failed governmental initiatives usually stopped, once identified?

Human estimates are error prone; we make mistakes.  Since we listen to each other, we share our errors; we make the same mistakes together.   Our society contains many different social institutions, so those institutions tend to reflect the same estimate errors.   Thus to give credit or blame to particular institutions for a shared error, we have to look closely at who was more pushing the error to be larger or smaller, and when.

The increase in our shared housing error was slow, making it hard to say which of our institutions was pushing more for larger errors.  But the decrease in our shared housing error was fast, making it easier to assign credit there.  And according to Eric, speculative markets were the first of our institutions to clearly say we had overestimated housing values.  If we want more such error-correction in the future, we should empower such institutions more, not less.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Actors See Status

Impro, a classic book on theatre improvisation, convincingly shows that people are better actors when they notice how status moves infuse most human interactions.  Apparently we are designed to be very good at status moves, but to be unconscious of them.  So to be more self-aware of how you really treat those around you, learn to see your status moves. Some quotes:

When I began teaching at the Royal Court Theatre Studio (1963), I noticed that the actors couldn’t reproduce `ordinary’ conversation.  They said `Talky scenes are dull’, but the conversations they acted out were nothing like those I overheard in life. …

I was preoccupied with this problem when I saw the Moscow Art’s production of The Cherry Orchard.  Everyone on stage seemed to have chosen the strongest possible motives for each action. … The effect was ‘theatrical’ but not like life as I knew it.  I asked myself for the first time what were the weakest possible motives, the motives that the characters I was watching might really have had.  When I returned to the studio I set the first of my status exercises. Continue reading "Actors See Status" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

A Theory Of Identity

A person’s “identity” is something less than all his or her details but more than a few simple stats.  What is it exactly, why do people need to discover it, want to stay true to it, why could only their “heart” tell them what it is, and why would a 35 year old still be searching for it, even after they’ve taken every personality test ever devised?  Why do ads mostly tell us what identities we could project via their product, and how could a new job or lover help us find our identity?  I’ve been working out a theory; here goes.

Humans are enormously complex, but even so we need to predict how each other will act, and are wary of “unstable” folks whose actions we cannot predict well.  So we are built to find a simple story we can project about who we are that will let others predict us well.  This story includes what we like, what we are good at, how we decide who we are loyal to, and so on.  Such stories are naturally more than a few stats but less than all our details.  Our conscious minds are the public relations department of our larger minds, presenting and managing a story of ourselves to others. Continue reading "A Theory Of Identity" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as:

What Purpose Self Insight?

I’ve been enjoying the first season of HBO’s In Treatment.  While the patients and problems are skewed for dramatic effect, the detailed dialogue and dynamics seem quite realistic.  (My wife, who was a psychotherapist for many years, says so.)

It is jarring that sessions often end mid-conversation, but this is surely realistic.  Also striking is how much of what people say serves hidden agendas, of which speakers are unaware.  Much of therapy is showing people these hidden agendas.  I am convinced that therapists typically have a lot of insight about patients, insights that patients can also gain if they so choose.   I hear the ring of truth in their words.

Now back in ’07 I posted on Dawes on a review of psychotherapy effectiveness:

Someone chosen at random from the experimental group after therapy had a two-to-one chance of being better off … than someone … from the control group. … Therapists’ credentials – Ph.D., M.D., or no advanced degree – and experience were unrelated to the efficacy of therapy.  … The type of therapy given was unrelated to its effectiveness. … Length of therapy was unrelated to its success. Continue reading "What Purpose Self Insight?" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Blowhard Insight

David Mazzotta gets me:

The trick when surfing these days is not to find curious bits of entertainment news that is ahead of the curve, but to find high quality thoughtful posting; things of intellectual or critical value that you can really sink your teeth into. In that respect, the web is no different than any other source of communication. So let me recommend four “blogs” where I regularly find thoughtful posts. Were I still an old school blogger, I bet 80% my posts would come from these places.  First and foremost is Overcoming Bias.

Yes, thoughtful is what I’m trying for.  One of the other three blogs is 2blowhards, where I find this insightful gem:

Killing time waiting for The Wife at the hair salon, I leafed through some women’s magazines. … I had a good time noting down some of the fantasies … these magazines’ readers enjoy indulging in:

  • Spend a year in a foreign country, and you’ll discover your true self. …
  • Embracing who and what you are — whatever that means — will make you look ten years younger.
  • Jobs aren’t about selling something others are willing to pay for. Jobs are about personal fulfillment. …
  • Emotions — no matter which, no matter when — need to be faced and worked-through. Then you’ll feel great.
  • Following your instincts and your feelings will always work out for the best. …
  • The troubles of movie stars are just like yours.

No doubt marketing to men involves similarly implausible fantasies.  Marketing seems all about identity, something economists know relatively little about. Makes me want to study the subject more.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

No Risk Premium?

Eric Falkenstein has posted here at Overcoming Bias five times; he now has a thoughtful blog and a new book:

Is the equity premium really zero? I think for the average investor, yes it is, and it’s a central issue in my book, Finding Alpha.

This paper gives his main idea, which is that there is no risk premium, i.e., an extra return for taking on more risky investments, because investors mainly care about relative wealth; if anything the highest risk investments get lower returns.  Eric complains he gets no respect:

I haven’t gotten a lot of public feedback on my book, but the private feedback is rather circular.  On one hand, there are those saying my findings are wrong. I’m ‘saying the earth is flat’, in one irate economist’s view. My empirical findings are not rigorous, in that I’m using incorrect statistical tests. … On the other side, I get comments like ‘this is obvious’, it’s ‘too simple’, or ‘everyone knows that’.

My asking around a bit confirms Eric; academic finance folks’ reaction is that everyone is sure there is a positive risk premium even though they admit the data isn’t very clear and everyone also knows relative wealth preferences exist and if strong enough could eliminate the risk premium.  My quick search didn’t find anyone else taking Eric’s strong position, and he says he can’t find anything either.

My best guess is that Eric is basically right.  In fact, I’d guess lower returns for the highest risk investments come from enough investors being risk-loving in relative wealth; they are willing to lose out on average for a chance to gain the very most.  However, even if Eric is eventually proven very clearly right, I’m not optimistic that he will get much credit or gain from it.

The folks more likely to be celebrated for this new discovery are prestigious academics with impressive related models or data analyses, even folks who would now say he is all wrong.  Eric knows his models and data analyses are rather simple, and he correctly notes they are good enough to make his main intellectual points.  But they are probably not difficult enough to make academics eager to affiliate with him, and so unless Eric can somehow get enough attention to shame academics into citing him, they won’t bother.

This sort of situation is exactly why I wanted to design better institutions like idea futures, where folks could be rewarded for backing a widely disbelieved view that is eventually vindicated.  But I admit it is not clear who really cares enough about truth to push for such change; backing the status quo is a better way to affiliate with credentialed as impressive folks.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Shy And Badly Dressed

Gladwell:

The psychologist Ellen Langer once had subjects engage in a betting game against either a self-assured, well-dressed opponent or a shy and badly dressed opponent (in Langer’s delightful phrasing, the “dapper” or the “schnook” condition), and she found that her subjects bet far more aggressively when they played against the schnook. They looked at their awkward opponent and thought, I’m better than he is. Yet the game was pure chance: all the players did was draw cards at random from a deck, and see who had the high hand. This is called the “illusion of control”: confidence spills over from areas where it may be warranted (“I’m savvier than that schnook”) to areas where it isn’t warranted at all (“and that means I’m going to draw higher cards”).

I was once a shy badly dressed person who didn’t understand why people kept underestimating him.  Now I know.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as:

Open Thread

This is our monthly place to discuss appropriate topics that haven’t appeared in recent posts.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: