Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Sign in to follow this  
Hlm

ECON 252: Financial Markets (Yale Spring 2008)

Recommended Posts

attachment.php?attachmentid=8686&stc=1&d=1228075116

  About The Course said:
Financial institutions are a pillar of civilized society, supporting people in their productive ventures and managing the economic risks they take on. The workings of these institutions are important to comprehend if we are to predict their actions today and their evolution in the coming information age. The course strives to offer understanding of the theory of finance and its relation to the history, strengths and imperfections of such institutions as banking, insurance, securities, futures, and other derivatives markets, and the future of these institutions over the next century.
  About Professor Robert Shiller said:
Robert J. Shiller is Arthur M. Okun Professor of Economics at Yale University and a Fellow at the International Center for Finance at the Yale School of Management. Specializing in behavioral finance and real estate, Professor Shiller has published in Journal of Financial Economics, American Economic Review, Journal of Finance, Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times. His books include Market Volatility, Macro Markets (for which he won the TIAA-CREF's Paul A. Samuelson Award), Irrational Exuberance, and The New Financial Order: Risk in the Twenty-First Century.

 

Audio, video, and course materials for all lectures can be found HERE

 

1. Finance and Insurance as Powerful Forces in Our Economy and Society

2. The Universal Principle of Risk Management: Pooling and the Hedging of Risks

3. Technology and Invention in Finance

4. Portfolio Diversification and Supporting Financial Institutions (CAPM Model)

5. Insurance: The Archetypal Risk Management Institution

6. Efficient Markets vs. Excess Volatility

7. Behavioral Finance: The Role of Psychology

8. Human Foibles, Fraud, Manipulation, and Regulation

9. Guest Lecture by David Swensen

10. Debt Markets: Term Structure

11. Stocks

12. Real Estate Finance and Its Vulnerability to Crisis

13. Banking: Successes and Failures

14. Guest Lecture by Andrew Redleaf

15. Guest Lecture by Carl Icahn

16. The Evolution and Perfection of Monetary Policy

17. Investment Banking and Secondary Markets

18. Professional Money Managers and Their Influence

19. Brokerage, ECNs, etc.

20. Guest Lecture by Stephen Schwarzman

21. Forwards and Futures

22. Stock Index, Oil and Other Futures Markets

23. Options Markets

24. Making It Work for Real People: The Democratization of Finance

25. Learning from and Responding to Financial Crisis, Part I (Guest Lecture by Lawrence Summers)

26. Learning from and Responding to Financial Crisis, Part II (Guest Lecture by Lawrence Summers)

shiller.jpg.c3d740b195efa803f268438c4abf6416.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Good read with the transcript.

Session 6. Efficient Markets vs. Excess Volatility

  Quote
Brad Barber and Terry O'Dean were professors at UC--at different campuses of California--teamed up with some economists from Taiwan and looked at data of--they got really good data from Taiwan about day traders and their actual returns. Day traders are people who trade everyday in the markets and they found that there was a really predictable pattern. The young people--they start in as a day trader and they quickly lose everything; they lose badly because they're trading too much and they really can't predict the market. There's like 1% of them, though, who seem like they can actually beat the market. This looks like really good for efficient markets. They found that there are some Taiwanese people who know how to beat the market--1% survives and stays in. Is that contrary to efficient markets? Well, it does seem contrary because they found that a small number of people did find some forecasting rule and succeeded. On the other hand, none of the--hardly any of them got really rich and so it's very rare--Warren Buffett is an extremely rare outcome. So it's--I guess, when I talk about efficient markets I want to help prevent you from suffering under any delusions about your forecasting ability. I don't mean that Warren Buffett can't do it or that you can't do it if you develop yourself into a Warren Buffett.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the beginning of lecture 21 he talks a little more about efficient market theory and makes some good points....

 

  Quote
Professor Robert Shiller: I wanted first to just think back a little bit about the lecture we got from Steve Schwarzman on Friday. Before he came, I talked with him in my office and I had the audacity to ask him if he thought there was any chance that his fortune was just due to luck. I said, why we have this efficient markets theory in finance that says that nobody can beat the market. So, what do you think he said? Well, obviously he believes in himself, but I'm inclined to believe in him also. Efficient markets theory never sounded right; one thing about efficient markets theory that has always bothered me is this idea that the so-called "smart money" sets prices in the market. The thing that bothers me about it is, who is the "smart money," anyway? It's as if it's all or nothing thing; there's the smart money and then it's the dumb money and the smart money rules. Aren't there all different gradations of intelligence and insight? It's not like--why should there be just one level of smart money? So, I think he probably exemplifies a higher level of smart money than smart.

 

I think a lot of mistakes people make in judging financial markets is being easily impressed by someone's stockbroker or someone's analyst who seems very smart and is very smart, but may not be enough to outsmart the markets. That's the lesson of efficiency, especially when you're young. I think you may not realize how many smart people there are in the world, so when you're dealing in a--trying to win in financial markets--you have to take account of who is really out there and how much insight and effort and research are they putting into their trading. Do you really think you can beat that? That's the lesson of efficient markets. I don't think the lesson is that you can't--it's impossible for anyone no matter how smart to beat the market. Now of course, Albert Einstein never made any money in the stock market. In fact, TIAA-CREF, the pension fund, had an ad campaign in which they pointed that Albert Einstein left all of his pension investing to TIAA-CREF. He was a professor and they're a pension fund for professors.

 

Einstein didn't think he could beat the market and Mr. Schwarzman very candidly pointed out that he didn't have the greatest math scores. Isn't that how he put it? He said he was no math genius and you think finance requires a lot of math, but I think that it's something about practical intelligence. Psychologists have talked about different kinds of intelligence [power point discussion/trouble] But, remember Carl Icahn, when he talked to us, said something about he always just had some--he was always just good at making money. I think that there are separate talents. I mean, some people love markets and they like to think about them and figure out how they work. If they have the right kind of intelligence and the right kind of spirit to do the work, they ought to be able to beat the market.

 

I've talked to Icahn a number of times and I have the idea that he's a very down-to-earth, solid, inquisitive sort; he wants to know what's going on. When I've talked to him, sometimes he'll ask the same question of me; he's trying to get information from me. He asks the same question from me three different ways because apparently my answer isn't satisfactory and he must think I might know something because he keeps asking. But, I think that's the kind of persistence--certain personality traits--persistence at trying to figure out what really makes things work is important in these markets. I think it's just relish or inclination to keep thinking about them, so maybe that's why I went into economics as a professor. I don't know that I really was someone who wants to watch the markets all day; so, you have to judge your own interests. Anyway, it was very nice that we got--that Steve Schwarzman came and told us about his life's work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.