It assumes that the underlying model follows a Gaussian distribution but as Mandelbrot showed a Lévy distribution is a better model.
Black-Scholes is a name for a formula that was around before Black and Scholes published. Beforehand it was simply a heuristic used by traders. Those traders also did scale a few parameters around in a way that a normal distribution wouldn’t allow. Black-Scholes then went and proved the formula correct for a Gaussian distribution based on advanced math.
After Black-Scholes got a “nobel prize” people stated to believe that the formula is actually measuring real risk and betting accordingly. Betting like that is benefitial for traders who make bonuses when they win but who don’t suffer that much if they lose all the money they bet. Or a government bails you out when you lose all your money.
The problem with Levy distributions is that they have a parameter c that you can’t simply estimate by having a random sample in the way you can estimate all the parameters of Gaussian distribution if you have a big enough sample.
*I’m no expert on the subject but the above is my understanding from reading Taleb and other reading.
I did read Nassim Taleb description of the situation in “Fooled By Randomness” and “The Black Swan”, so I’m not sure whether you think I misrepresented Taleb or whether you think Talebs arguments are simply wrong.
“No clue” is not a good representation of my knowledge because I did read Taleb as introduction for the topic. That doesn’t make me an expert, but it does give me a opinion on the topic that might be true or false.
It assumes that the underlying model follows a Gaussian distribution but as Mandelbrot showed a Lévy distribution is a better model.
Black-Scholes is a name for a formula that was around before Black and Scholes published. Beforehand it was simply a heuristic used by traders. Those traders also did scale a few parameters around in a way that a normal distribution wouldn’t allow. Black-Scholes then went and proved the formula correct for a Gaussian distribution based on advanced math.
After Black-Scholes got a “nobel prize” people stated to believe that the formula is actually measuring real risk and betting accordingly. Betting like that is benefitial for traders who make bonuses when they win but who don’t suffer that much if they lose all the money they bet. Or a government bails you out when you lose all your money.
The problem with Levy distributions is that they have a parameter c that you can’t simply estimate by having a random sample in the way you can estimate all the parameters of Gaussian distribution if you have a big enough sample.
*I’m no expert on the subject but the above is my understanding from reading Taleb and other reading.
That is painfully visible.
I don’t think contributing noise to LW is useful.
Then please point me to the errors in the argument I made.
The point of having discussions is to refine ideas. I do not believe that potential of being wrong is a reason to avoid talking about something.
You didn’t make an argument. You posted a bunch of sentences which are, basically, nonsense.
The problem is not the potential of being wrong, the problem is coherency and having some basic knowledge in the area which you are talking about.
If you have no clue, ask for a gentle introduction, don’t spout nonsense on the forum.
I did read Nassim Taleb description of the situation in “Fooled By Randomness” and “The Black Swan”, so I’m not sure whether you think I misrepresented Taleb or whether you think Talebs arguments are simply wrong.
“No clue” is not a good representation of my knowledge because I did read Taleb as introduction for the topic. That doesn’t make me an expert, but it does give me a opinion on the topic that might be true or false.