Friday, March 20, 2009

Meet the man whose big idea felled Wall Street

Meet the man whose big idea felled Wall Street

University of Waterloo statistician David Li is shown in this handout photo, along with his statistical formula for modeling the behaviour of several correlated risks at once.

HOW THE FORMULA WORKS

A description of the Gaussian copula function from an article in Wired magazine by Felix Salmon:

Consider something simple, like a kid in an elementary school: Let's call her Alice. The probability that her parents will get divorced this year is about 5 per cent, the risk of her getting head lice is about 5 per cent, the chance of her seeing a teacher slip on a banana peel is about 5 per cent, and the likelihood of her winning the class spelling bee is about 5 per cent. If investors were trading securities based on the chances of those things happening only to Alice, they would all trade at more or less the same price.

But something important happens when we (also look at) the girl she sits next to, Britney. If Britney's parents get divorced, what are the chances that Alice's parents will get divorced, too? Still about 5 per cent: The correlation there is close to zero. But if Britney gets head lice, the chance that Alice will get head lice is ... about 50 per cent – which means the correlation is probably up in the 0.5 range. If Britney sees a teacher slip on a banana peel, what is the chance that Alice will see it, too? ... It could be as much as 95 per cent, which means the correlation is close to 1. And if Britney wins the spelling bee, the chance of Alice winning it is zero, which means the correlation is negative: -1.

If investors were trading securities based on the chances of these things happening to both Alice and Britney, the prices would be all over the place, because the correlations vary so much.

Math whiz proposed applying this statistical formula to credit risk, and financial meltdown ensued
Mar 18, 2009 04:30 AM


STAFF REPORTER

Note: This article has been edited to correct a previously published version.

Former University of Waterloo statistician David X. Li didn't burn down the American economy. He just supplied the matches.

As economists and market watchers cast about for people to blame for the U.S. market meltdown, Li has surfaced as a scapegoat. Recently, Wired magazine ran an article on Li's work subtitled, "The Formula That Killed Wall Street."

The formula in question is the so-called Gaussian copula function. On the most basic level, the formula allows statisticians to model the behaviour of several correlated risks at once.

In a scholarly paper published in 2000, Li proposed the theorem be applied to credit risks, encompassing everything from bonds to mortgages. This particular copula was not new, but the financial application Li proposed for it was.

Disastrously, it was just simple enough for untrained financial analysts to use, but too complex for them to properly understand. It appeared to allow them to definitively determine risk, effectively eliminating it. The result was an orgy of misspending that sent the U.S. banking system over a cliff.

"To say David brought down the market is like blaming Einstein for Hiroshima," says Prof. Harry Panjer, Li's mentor at the University of Waterloo. "He wasn't in charge of the financial world. He just wrote an article."

When David X. Li first arrived from China in 1987, he was known as Xiang Lin Li. He already held a masters in economics from Tianjin's Nankai University. He was one of a group of the faculty there who won a scholarship to study business in Canada through CIDA. In order to claim his prize at Quebec City's Laval University, Li was given four months to master French.

"We were all highly motivated," says Jie Dai, who was in the program with Li. "He was from a small town in the south of China. A small family, very ordinary, not poor or rich. There wasn't anything distinguished about his personality."

Li graduated with an MBA in 1991. Most of his Chinese classmates were bound for academia. Li saw a more worldly future. Says Dai: "I clearly remember him mention that if you are an actuarial guy, you can earn a lot more money."

Li had recently married a colleague from Nankai when he decided to study at Waterloo's department of statistics and actuarial sciences. He was drawn by the work of Panjer, a world leader in the study of loss modelling, especially as it applies to the world of insurance.

"He had the ability to take ideas from different fields and synthesize them," Panjer says.

In Waterloo, Li lived the hand-to-mouth life of a grad student. He anglicized his name. He and Panjer became close, and still correspond. Over six years, he earned his third masters and a PhD.

After graduation in 1997, Li taught briefly. He worked for CIBC World Markets. But his ambition quickly drove him to New York. He tore up the corporate ladder. By 2000, he was a partner in J.P. Morgan's RiskMetrics unit, trying to find ways to leverage a new generation of risk-based financial assets.

His breakthrough was an article published that year entitled, "On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach."

Many of the ideas contained within it were drawn from statistics research Li had observed firsthand at Waterloo. His insight was to transfer the work to financial models.

Li's model sidestepped the problem of trying to correlate all the variables that determine risk. Instead, it based its assumptions on the historical dips and swells of the market itself. In essence, Li used the past to map the future.

"It was a very simple mathematical answer almost anyone could use," Panjer says "And when you've got a hammer, everything suddenly looks like a nail. They jumped on it."

Through the lens of Li's theorem, even the shakiest investments suddenly looked viable. The Gaussian cupola created the sort of financial alchemy that made high-risk mortgages and credit card debt look like triple-A rated gold.

Money poured into CDSs (credit default swaps), a financial device that acts as an insurance policy against defaults. By the end of 2007, the total investment in credit default swaps had swelled to $62 trillion (U.S.), a 6,700 per cent increase in only six years.

Li didn't make money directly off the idea, but it made him famous.

Maybe he sensed the danger inherent in the system he'd help establish. By 2005, Li was among those warning about the limitations of his model. "The most dangerous part is when people believe everything coming out of (the model)," he told The Wall Street Journal.

What Li's theorem could not do was predict what might happen in extreme economic environments, what experts call "tail dependency." And one was arriving.

The 2008 collapse of the U.S. housing bubble rendered Li's model useless. Defaults that the model had not predicted piled up, rippling through U.S. banks and wiping out trillions of dollars in investment.

But Li's colleagues say he's not to blame. "We have a saying in statistics, `All models are wrong, but some are useful,'" says Panjer. "He supplied something, a tool kit, for financial analysts. They took one small part of it and used it in ways he had never intended."

Li since moved to Beijing, where he heads the risk management department for the China International Capital Corp., a major investment bank. He has not commented on the meltdown or his role in it.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24658.1

Will crisis be catalyst for anarchist?

Will the ongoing crisis be the catalyst for anarchist views?

SINGAPORE - Anarchism goes back a long way before the dawn of the common era. Quotes such as “There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind” and “A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State” can be found in the works of Taoist sages Laozi and Zhuangzi. In the big screen, the anarchist theme is explored through the portrayal of the dagger wielding V in V for Vendetta.

What do anarchists believe in? Basically, they do not see the necessity of compulsory governance. In other words, they envision a society that is free from a governing authority. There is a prevalent misconception that anarchism is synonymous with violence. Whilst some forms of anarchism advocate the use of violence, pacifist-anarchism rejects the use of violence. Mahatma Gandhi is the embodiment of such an ideal.

On the economics front, it is not unusual for anarchists (particularly the anarcho-capitalists) to support a free market that typefies a laissex-faire economy. They dismiss the notion of any form of governmental intervention within the economy.

The pertinent question is what conditions in Singapore’s context can serve as the breeding ground for anarchist views? Actually, one need not look any further for answers - our monochromatic political landscape that is dominated by a single entity. Since the 1950s, it has always been the lightning symbol that represents the PAP pervading throughout the entire political landscape.

There hasn’t been much opposition to the PAP. Since the 90s, the opposition contested at most half of the seats that are up for grabs. More often than not, the PAP is returned to power on Nomination Day. Thus, Singaporeans basically have to stomach whatever the PAP has offered on the platter.

Whilst it is the norm for governments of other countries to have an alternative cabinet, which is also known as the shadow cabinet, there hasn’t been any alternative to the PAP government so far. If the PAP is perceived to be failing to perform up to mark and the situation is exacerbated by the absence of alternatives, wouldn’t this provide a fertile setting for the belief in rejection of a state (government)?

When the country is on the backfoot as a result of an international crisis, the PAP government would always point to the fact that we will always be affected by externuating factors beyond our control and it is beyond their powers to prevent such a thing from happening. With just the PAP in charge and just as helpless in the face of the crisis, some individuals might perceive that the country will still be affected even if the PAP government is absent. Wouldn’t this serve as an attractive foreground for such individuals to reject the relevance of governance, especially during such trying periods?

The typical anarchist would find a governing authority undesirable. For a local who has lost his job to his foreign counterpart and is therefore affected by the pro-foreigner policies (such as issuing work permits, awarding permanent residentship) pursued by the PAP government even during such trying times, wouldn’t the former perceive the latter as undesirable and, a liability? The affected local will feel the same as the anarchist, no?

Thus, when individuals start questioning the relevance of the government especially in periods of great crisis, they are in effect a few steps closer to the boundaries of anarchism. The route to anarchism is finally complete when they progress to rejecting the notion of a government. Of course, not all progress to that stage.

Classic mistakes by our government in the past make good ammunition for the anarchist to use against the former. Recall that years ago, a group of entrepreneurial individuals pioneered the “meals on wheels” (mobile food van) concept which allows them to sell food and beverage in certain areas. They approached the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to obtain the latter’s permission to operate the business. And what did URA do? Instead of keeping the business concept between itself and its pioneers, the former implemented the concept on a wide scale, opening it to the general public. They even had a balloting system for the allocation of permits. The best part was that the hours the vendors were allowed to operate were restricted. When intellectual property should be respected, URA did otherwise. What happened in the end? The mobile food van was finally phased out. So much for entrepreneurship.

The anarchist, particularly the anarcho-capitalist, would use this URA saga to show the undesirable effects of government intervention and promote the benefits of a free-wheeling laissez-faire market. And suggestions for our government to privatize the economy in a laissez-faire approach and let entrepreneurs run the show has the word “anarcho-capitalism” written all over them.

It has been well-documented that Singaporeans are politically apathetic. Do they really display political apathy or they have reached the stage where they have become nonchalant about anything and everything with regards to our governance, which effectively makes them closet anarchists?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24651.1

The missing forum threads

CDC Bonus Fiasco Part 2: The missing forum threads

 
I didn't believe it at first when someone commented that SPH's AsiaOne forums had locked and deleted a lively thread discussing the Northwest CDC 8-month bonus issue. I mean, yes I can see the news articles disappearing from ST and CNA, but forum threads too?

This forum post entitled "Northwest CDC 8-month Bonus" was started at 3.36pm on Thursday, 19 March on AsiaOne forums, that's yesterday.

Asiaone2a

This is what the forum post said:

Asiaone1a

As of last night, there were two pages of comments on this thread but if you went back this morning, with this URL, http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=226046, you got nothing.

Asiaone5

Then this morning, there is already a third thread started on the AsiaOne forum, entitled "CDCs giving out 8 month bonuses?", and people are wondering when it will be deleted.

Asiaone4

Oh wait. It's already gone. That was even faster.

So SPH, why ah? Dowan people to discuss the CDC 8-months bonus topic ah? Or read anything about it ah?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24645.2

 

Foreigner's Action Party

Foreigner's Action Party

The Singapore Tourist Board (STB) has volunteered - without having even been asked - to represent and act on behalf of an American tourist in the small claims court, in the matter of an alleged over-pricing incident at Newton Hawker Centre. (Note that the American did not initiate the court case. STB did on its own accord!)

Against this backdrop, Singaporeans must be wondering why not a single government statutory board is representing and acting on behalf of Singaporeans in the matter of alleged mis-selling by DBS bank in the minibond saga? (Note that literally thousands of Singaporeans have asked for the government's assistance in commencing legal action against DBS)

My standard Young Pay-And-Pay answer to these blur-fuck 66.6% Singaporeans is simple:


Do you know what the real name and logo of our party is?



Hint: Read the title of this post

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24644.1

Profit-driven vs reasonable care for employees

Profit-driven vs reasonable care for employees

Friday, 20 March 2009

The following is a letter from Tan Liping

In a Today article, “When layoffs are rooted in opportunity” (Mar 18, 2009), it talks about companies taking the opportunity in this slowdown to restructure and consolidate their operations, even though some of these firms are still having healthy cash flows.

No doubt it is necessary for businesses to constantly improve on its efficiency. It is also understandable for those encountering difficulties in this economic slowdown to trim down and cut costs, though unfortunately, sometimes it involves laying off workers.

But what about those companies which are still doing fine? Is it ok for some of these opportunistic companies to ‘take advantage’ of this time to make redundant some staff? Yes, businesses are meant to be profit-driven, but does that mean businesses being heartless to people who have worked for and contributed to the company, using ‘Oh times are bad, your skills are not needed anymore” as an excuse? In other words, is it reasonable to treat human resources the same as other depreciable assets like a sofa or a computer?

I’m not saying that all retrenchments are totally wrong but they should be justified and should be the last resort. Problem employees aside, if an employee’s skill is obselete, is it possible to send them for training eg. through government’s PREP-UP or SPUR schemes? Isn’t training and cultivating staff part of an employer’s responsibility? If retrenchment is the only solution, is it possible to give employees advice and aid them in finding new jobs elsewhere?

When times are bad, the impact of losing a job will be more magnified. Should the employer say bye bye and that’s it, or offer some kind of help?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24643.1

UK and US printing money 'out of thin air' to fight credit crunch

UK and US printing money 'out of thin air' to fight credit crunch
New worry is hyper-inflation
By Zhen Ming
March 20, 2009

BACK in 1991, when a group of us launched Money Mind (a TV programme still telecast on Channel NewsAsia), I was allowed to film De La Rue Currency's ultra-secretive banknote manufacturing facilities in Singapore.

De La Rue Currency - the world's largest commercial currency printer, involved in the production of more than 150 currencies - closed its Singapore factory in 2002 after finding it difficult to cope with rising costs.

During my visit, I saw the firm's banknote design and production facilities.

A line of 300 Singaporeans were inspecting sheet after sheet of freshly printed $2 banknotes to spot errors (none on that day).

These days, however, most of the money that flows around an economy is created electronically rather than printed physically.

Quantitative easing

And as the world's ailing financial systems continue to remain immobile, central banks everywhere are introducing what's known as 'quantitative easing' (QE) - the modern equivalent of printing more money - as a desperate measure of last resort.

Under QE, a central bank creates new money literally 'out of thin air', which it then uses to buy what are essentially IOUs from ordinary banks.

The banks, in turn, use this money to create even more new money in a process known as deposit multiplication, where the amount of money (or loans) in circulation is further increased to stimulate additional spending.

The impact of QE is not very different from dropping paper money from a helicopter - as Mr Ben Bernanke himself once described this policy before he became chairman of the US Federal Reserve (Fed).

This idea (first mooted by US economist Milton Friedman) won Mr Bernanke the nickname 'helicopter Ben'.

The Fed is effectively practising QE - except, for ideological reasons, the Fed prefers to call it 'credit easing' instead.

To date, total QE assets held by the Fed stand at US$1.9 trillion ($2.9 trillion) - 2.4 times the size of the stimulus package sponsored by US President Barack Obama.

The US, not unlike the UK, has just signalled that it will continue to print more new money (that is, embark on further QE) in order to re-inflate its flagging (or deflating) economy. The Fed is scheduled to issue its statement on QE later today.

Mr Bernanke's view is that if the Fed provides liquidity, credit will flow and lower the price of loans, feeding pent-up demand for homes, cars, credit-card borrowing and capital expenditures by business in the depths of the worst recession in living memory.

Will QE work?

But will QE work? Or will triple-A sovereign borrowers like the US and the UK risk destroying their solvency, as they use QE to rescue over-indebted private sectors?

This possibility of a botched-up QE programme could be nightmarish for surplus countries like China, Japan and Singapore.

These countries currently hoard mountains of foreign reserves denominated in Western currencies like the US dollar and the British pound.

These hard-earned reserves actually stand the risk of dramatically losing their value in real terms because QE, if mismanaged, could trigger runaway inflation or hyper-inflation.

In some extreme examples of old-fashioned money printing, the results were disastrous. Think of the Reichsmarks in Germany after World War I, Japanese banana money in colonial Malaya during World War II, Russian roubles after the fall of communism, and the current hyper-inflation in Zimbabwe.

That's why Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is 'worried' about the safety of China's US$1 trillion investment in US government IOUs.

Singapore should be too.

# Zhen Ming, a Harvard-trained economist based in Singapore, is a freelance contributor.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24631.1

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

An interview with the BBC’s Asia Business report was aired on Thursday. South-east Asia correspondent Jonathan Head asked Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong some pointed questions, and the Straits Times reported the following parts of the Q&A:

JONATHAN HEAD: Your own family has been quite involved in two of these funds. Your wife until recently ran Temasek, your father’s deeply involved in GIC. Is there a risk that when the news is bad, as it has been over the past year for these funds, that people will tend to blame your family rather than look at the institutions?

PM LEE: I think the way you put it is not the way things work in Singapore. The Minister Mentor is chairman of GIC not because he is my father. It’s because he is the best man for the job and he has been chairman since he was Prime Minister.
And Ho Ching is CEO of Temasek not because she’s my wife but because the chairman of Temasek, who’s Mr Dhanabalan, and the board decided that they wanted to appoint her as CEO.
And they are there as long as they are effective, performing, and if they don’t perform, well, they have to take the consequences.

JONATHAN HEAD: Perception is important in politics and in difficult times like this, do you think, in retrospect, it might have been better if your family had a lower profile?

PM LEE: (laughs) Life would be much easier for me if the Minister Mentor was not my father and Ho Ching was not my wife. But they are there. This is the way Singapore has worked. I think Singaporeans have understood that this is how the system works and they will render judgment when elections come.

Now listen to the complete audio for yourself.

Some of the bits left out by the local press:

Asked if he anticipated some shows of public anger or displeasure, PM Lee said: “I think it’s quite understandable that in a situation like this Singaporeans will be quite anxious, will be worried about their future. And I think they have seen what the government has been doing. We had a very decisive budget this year. The package was not only a big one but a very directly focused one on saving jobs and helping people to see through the downturn.”

Querying PM Lee on his take home pay, Jonathan Head put it thus: “Finally, Prime Minister, I read that you are apparently the highest paid head of government in the world. Your salary is about four or five times what President Obama gets. Are you worth all that money?”

PM Lee laughed and said: “I am not comparing myself and I don’t look at these rankings.We go on a system which is open, honest, transparent – what is the job worth, what is the quality of the person whom you want. We need the best people for the job and these are jobs where you make decisions which are worth billions of dollars. And you cannot do that if you are pretending and you just say, ‘Well, we are all in it for the love of King and Country’. We want it to be honest, we want people not to come in for the money. But at the same time the sacrifice cannot be too great. And at times like this, you want the best possible government you can have.”

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24623.1