Strategical Reality and Misbehavior of Markets

"Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a straight line".

"Being a language, mathematics may be used not only to inform but also, among other things, to seduce".

It does not matter whether you have heard of the name of the author of the above two quotes, but it matters if you are dealing with finance and financial markets.

Benoit Mandelbrot, author of the above two quotes, has had a remarkable career which includes seminal work in theoretical and applied mathematics. Mandelbrot might be largely unknown to the wider world, but for the beautiful pictures that can be produced on a computer using the fractal equations he popularized (including the famous Mandelbrot set, named after its discoverer).

Most people who work in mathematics write for an audience of their colleagues. The majority of Mandelbrot's writing falls into this category. He recently published Fractals and Chaos (Springer-Verlag, 2004), which is a collection of some of his papers from 1979 onward. Mandelbrot's papers can be difficult reading for anyone who is not a skilled mathematician. Mandelbrot has also written for a more general audience. His book The Fractal Geometry of Nature (Freeman, 1982) can be read by anyone who has a solid high school math background and patience with an academic writing style.

But his latest book, selling like hot cake, The (Mis)behavior of Markets Mandelbrot is writing for the general reader, who usually has no tolerance for mathematical equations.

The roots of the book The (Mis)behavior of Markets go back to 1961 when Mandelbrot was a new researcher at IBM. Among other things, he was working on using computers to analyze the distribution of income in a society. Mandelbrot's work echoed the work of Vilfredo Pare to and showed that many economic factors, including wealth, are distributed according to an inverse power law. Most of the economists have claimed that the change in market prices followed a Gaussian distribution. This distribution describes many natural features, like height, weight and intelligence among people. The Gaussian distribution is one of the foundations of modern statistics. If economic features followed a Gaussian distribution, a range of mathematical techniques could be applied in economics.

The behavior of markets reflects a complex system and fractal mathematics. In The (Mis)behavior of Markets Mandelbrot argues that the Gaussian models for financial risk used by economists like William Sharpe and Harry Markowitz should be discarded, since these models do not reflect reality. Mandelbrot argues that fractal techniques may provide a more powerful way to analyze risk.

But can Fractals Explain What's Wrong with Wall Street?

Individual investors and professional stock and currency traders know better than ever that prices quoted in any financial market often change with heart-stopping swiftness. Fortunes are made and lost in sudden bursts of activity when the market seems to speed up and the volatility soars.

According to Benoit Mandelbrot, the classical financial models used for most of this century predict that such precipitous events should never happen. A cornerstone of finance is modern portfolio theory, which tries to maximize returns for a given level of risk. The mathematics underlying portfolio theory handles extreme situations with benign neglect: it regards large market shifts as too unlikely to matter or as impossible to take into account. It is true that portfolio theory may account for what occurs 95 percent of the time in the market. But the picture it presents does not reflect reality, if one agrees that major events are part of the remaining 5 percent. An inescapable analogy is that of a sailor at sea. If the weather is moderate 95 percent of the time, can the mariner afford to ignore the possibility of a typhoon?

The risk-reducing formulas behind portfolio theory rely on a number of demanding and ultimately unfounded premises. First, they suggest that price changes are statistically independent of one another: for example, that today's price has no influence on the changes between the current price and tomorrow's. As a result, predictions of future market movements become impossible. The second presumption is that all price changes are distributed in a pattern that conforms to the standard bell curve. The width of the bell shape (as measured by its sigma or standard deviation) depicts how far price changes diverge from the mean; events at the extremes are considered extremely rare. Typhoons are, in effect, defined out of existence.

Do financial data neatly conform to such assumptions? Of course, they never do. Charts of stock or currency changes over time do reveal a constant background of small up and down price movements-but not as uniform as one would expect if price changes fit the bell curve.

According to portfolio theory, the probability of these large fluctuations would be a few millionths of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth. (The fluctuations are greater than 10 standard deviations.) But in fact, one observes spikes on a regular basis-as often as every month-and their probability amounts to a few hundredths.

Modern portfolio theory poses a danger to those who believe in it too strongly and is a powerful challenge for the theoretician. Though sometimes acknowledging faults in the present body of thinking, its adherents suggest that no other premises can be handled through mathematical modelling. This contention leads to the question of whether a rigorous quantitative description of at least some features of major financial upheavals can be developed. The bearish answer is that large market swings are anomalies, individual "acts of God" that present no conceivable regularity. Revisionists correct the questionable premises of modern portfolio theory through small fixes that lack any guiding principle and do not improve matters sufficiently.

Mandelbrot claims that variations in financial prices can be accounted for by a model derived from his work in fractal geometry. Fractals-or their later elaboration, called multifractals-do not purport to predict the future with certainty. But they do create a more realistic picture of market risks.

A fractal is a geometric shape that can be separated into parts, each of which is a reduced-scale version of the whole. In finance, this concept is not a rootless abstraction but a theoretical reformulation of a down-to-earth bit of market folklore- namely, that movements of a stock or currency all look alike when a market chart is enlarged or reduced so that it fits the same time and price scale. An observer then cannot tell which of the data concern prices that change from week to week, day to day or hour to hour. This quality defines the charts as fractal curves and makes available many powerful tools of mathematical and computer analysis.

A more specific technical term for the resemblance between the parts and the whole is self-affinity. This property is related to the better-known concept of fractals called self-similarity, in which every feature of a picture is reduced or blown up by the same ratio-a process familiar to anyone who has ever ordered a photographic enlargement. Financial market charts, however, are far from being self-similar. In a detail of a graphic in which the features are higher than they are wide-as are the individual up-and-down price ticks of a stock-the transformation from the whole to a part must reduce the horizontal axis more than the vertical one. For a price chart, this transformation must shrink the timescale (the horizontal axis) more than the price scale (the vertical axis). The geometric relation of the whole to its parts is said to be one of self-affinity.

Necessasity and importance of art education

Whenever education budgets get tightened, art programs are the first to get cut. Like the enduring popularity of reality TV, this never ceases to amaze me. So much evidence points to art's importance in a child's development - and not just in the development of abstract thought. Art is a critical component in a well-rounded education. Art is the level playing field - no matter how rich or poor, tall or short, pretty or ugly to the bone, if you can draw, you can find personal fulfillment and build self-confidence. Art is the highest achievement of mankind. And, when art is suppressed, so is the civilization that suppresses it. Remember the monumental Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban in the months leading up to 9/11. Remember the suppression of art in Nazi Germany.

Studies show that art-centered schools outscore non-art-centered schools in academic achievement scores. Art education can actually help the brain to rewire itself, to make stronger and more plentiful neural connections, and can help build memory skills. Self-discipline, intuition, reasoning, imagination, and dexterity are just a few of the other benefits of an art-filled education, especially for primary school students. According to First Lady Michelle Obama, "Learning through the arts reinforces critical academic skills in reading, language arts, and math, and provides students with the skills to creatively solve problems."

So, how is it that, when it comes to art education, California comes in dead last out of all 50 states - even below Guam? According to State Councilman Bobby Shriver, California's public schools no longer even offer arts education.

This is why, my personal love of art aside, Stewart and I have made a point of supporting P.S. ARTS, an organization dedicated to providing arts education to students attending under-served public schools. We were so impressed with the program that we've made it a part of our educational programs in the Central Valley in California , where many of our employees' children attend school. For many children in California, English is a second language, but art is a universal language.

Seeing some of the recent work from these budding Picassos and O'Keeffes prompted me to share with you their progress. The P.S. ARTS program was founded in 1991, and has been in the Central Valley since 2003. We've watched these children's imaginations blossom since their first few classes, and their progress has been inspiring.

If art means as much to you as it does to me, or even if you're just exploring the art world for the first time, I invite you to turn off the boob tube, pry the Wii controllers from your kids' hands, and drag them to a museum. You may be surprised to learn that many museums have weekend activities geared to families, and almost all museums now have or are planning hands-on exhibits and playrooms specifically geared towards their younger visitors, which help to enrich the museum-going experience. Your kids might feel more apt to try some art of their own after viewing contemporary works that are far less intimidating than those of the Old Masters.

Art is a great way of appreciating the other cultures in our society. When viewing the great art traditions of the Middle East, you may find a new respect for this ancient culture. Or when children view the historical works of their own culture, it builds pride in one's heritage. Art builds bridges of understanding.

Once you reconnect with the freedom and openness that come with art, you just might recall how satisfying it was to finish a paint-by-number or to bring home your macaroni opus to hang on the fridge. Memories of personal fulfillment aside, artistic expression has been proven to stimulate brain activity, and in our age of Tivo, iPhones, and technological doodads, we could all use some good old-fashioned cerebral stimulation. The next time your local school puts its arts program on the chopping block, I hope you'll consider all that's at stake: It's so much more than construction paper and pipe cleaners. It is the doorway to a whole new world of expression.

Nightmare on Wall Street

“He’s not going to do it,” Paulson told Geithner in amazement, “He said he didn’t want to ‘import our cancer.’” That’s the US treasury secretary telling the head of the New York Fed that Alistair Darling, Britain’s chancellor of the exchequer, had just turned down his request to clear some hurdles for British bank Barclays to buy – and save – Lehman Brothers last September.

It reveals the greatest strength of this book: a near-minute by minute recounting of the events from Bear Sterns’ failure to the collapse of Lehman and the rest of the drama as Wall Street and Washington fought to save the US financial system.

To give a fly on the wall account of almost every conversation, memo, email and phone call between each of the major – and some not so major – players in the drama needs two things: very hard work and tremendous access. Sorkin, a financial columnist for the New York Times, conducted more than 300 hours of interviews with his sources and he makes full use of the seemingly unlimited access that he enjoys with the protagonists.

Most of the people who told their stories refused to be identified, but that adds a tantalizing challenge for the interested reader: now, who could have revealed that? Sometimes the solutions are no-brainers.

Warren Buffet is getting ready to leave for a dinner when he’s called by Barclays and requested to guarantee Lehman’s trades for two months. With no intention of doing so, but ever polite, Buffet asks for a fax that he’d “be glad to read.” Moments later after hanging up, Buffet remembers an incident from 10 years ago and thinks: “Maybe he had to stop being so polite to these Wall Street boys.” Now who could have told Sorkin that?

It’s a tribute to his writing that despite his ball-by-ball narrative Sorkin manages to hold your attention for nearly 550 pages. His character sketches are lean and unjudgemental. Yet, though he doesn’t pass judgement, by the end most of the characters – with the possible exception of Buffet and some of the regulators – come across as distinctly unsavoury.

And yes, there’s the story of then-Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who quit Goldman Sachs to join government, visiting Russia at the exact time that Goldman was holding its board meeting there. He asks to meet the board, purely as a ‘social event.’ Advised by his staff against it, he decides to meet them anyway without noting it on his official calendar. Sorkin describes some Goldman folks feeling as if they were in a ‘spy thriller’ as they rode down in a special bus to meet Paulson in his hotel suite

in the evening. It was June, 2008 and Paulson still felt the US economy would ride out a rough patch by year-end.

If you’re looking for analysis and interpretation you’ll be disappointed. Sorking faithfully sticks to his task as chronicler. Near the end, he observes that the financial system, created to support real businesses and the economy, had crossed the road. Instead of helping trade and commerce, it was busy feeding itself, money making money. As the crisis receded, “it left the survivors with a real sense of invulnerability at having made it back from the brink. Still missing in the current environment is a genuine sense of humility.” That should raise some red flags about the current state of global markets.

Whether of Climate

Even as you read this article, you may see on the right-hand corner, a rather endearing caption, 'Hopenhagen..' I understand the aspirations of those who have worked for the cause. But I feel, that the initial 'Copenhagen' was fine. Copenhagen, actually sums up the reality. The success lies in the ability to 'cope' with the 'hope'.

Unparalleled literary works of yesteryear have come full circle in today's science. In the kingdom of Denmark shall we declare that there is something 'rotten on this earth', in a circumstance that may be a preamble to the 'to be or not to be ' situation.Copenhagen, the venue of the largest UN conclave on environment ever, has always been among the prettiest and cleanest cities on the globe. It may entertain, even bias the extreme enthusiast by its surreal ambience, that the heat, as yet, is not on.The need of a global agreement to start cutting down carbon emissions to slow down a predicted global disaster, and finally to avert it, is an unescapable fact.

The urgency and significance to bring a binding universal agreement, places some unrealistic compulsions on the developing world. Most of these have little to spare from their fragile economies, have internal political hurdles, and what goes with all that, is poor governance. It also happens, that while they have much to do to give a reasonable living standard to their people, they probably have been nowhere near the worst offenders. The ranking order at the moment is China leading with 6,000 plus points, followed by the US at 5,700 or so. Japan, India, Russia, between the 1,200 to 1,500 mark. The clear and present danger is that China and India have the largest populations, and these economies are bound to grow, for their own sake, as well as to buoy the western economies.

The worrying circumstance is that China hits the highest, even with a fraction of per capita emission compared with the US. As it is the main trading and manufacturing partner of the US, its economy is just about hitting the base where an exponential spurt may start, and perhaps that is bound to happen, considering the needs of the US economy. With a large population base, and given the demands and the pricing of the west, it may have to continue to do so at low costs. That means cheap labour and cheap unrefined fuels will continue, and will be used to finally steer its own economy to the top.India naturally becomes the next concern. Extrapolating a steep rise in production, the total emissions may climb up, even if the per capita emissions are low. Slightly different concerns are raised here. It is a democracy, and in spite of having world-class IT setups, a massive pharmaceutical production, ample opportunities for developing healthcare infrastructure, textiles, and chemicals, a significant part of the population strides on, or is below the poverty line.

Agriculture, electricity, infrastructure like roads and basic irrigation facilities are yet to be streamlined for internal stability as well as for external trading. Its ability to qualify but its failure on the logistic front is being seen as a liability. India's lack of coherence in development, showing precipitous declines between the urban, semi-urban, and rural, in almost all parameters of civic, economic and social evaluation, is a disparity which only its people and changing governments can put up with. It has become its nemesis in bidding at global levels, be it a mega sport event, major tourist destination, or its ability to pick global challenges as the one in question.

It is a privilege of circumstance, that it continues to retain its importance as the next developing economy after China, though by today's parameters of industrialization and GDP, many see a yawning gap between the two economies. China may be a threatening super-performer, with much more to come. India is a likeable underperformer. Only performance matters. In essence though, the Copenhagen conclave is likely to end in predictable declarations. Its prime purpose is to pull out of the stumbling blocks of the Kyoto protocol, the developed world did not take much fancy to.

The present week is the time for, tier-two delegates, scientists, environment ministers, as well as prominent 'green' groups to compose a rough draft. In all probability, there will be a commitment of the Top 10 rankers to start reducing their emissions by 20-25% over the next decade. The glamour and oratory shall begin next week, when heads of states will begin to occupy the stage. The only show of wit and guile will be the developing world asking for financial concessions, in the absence of which, they may commit an effort, but refrain from the promise to achieve a target. Back home, and at the ground level, there will have to be drastic changes. Our politics needs a change of approach and attitude. Inclusive reforms that centre on overall development will have to be installed. If there is not much coming by way of concession, India may jack up the IT sector.

The extra revenues can be ploughed into energy intensive industries. Plans to tap all possible hydro power will need to be cleared without delay, with private participation. The untapped gas fields on the east and west coast should be the source of clean and addition energy. The need to sign a mega project on solar energy, with US and Japan, would be a greater achievement than any financial concessions right now. Lastly, setting aside political motives, acceptable but effective methods for population control need to be pressed in once again, quite the way China has been able to address this problem. Finally, Copenhagen reminds one of the historic Copenhagen Agreement of 1927, almost as difficult to comprehend as the uncertainties of climate. That was 'The Uncertainty Principle' of Heisenberg, and 'The Principle of Complimentarity' of Bohr. These two authors of Quantum Mechanics rejected the causality seen in conventional mathematics and physics, taking the subject to the levels of metaphysics and philosophy. Despite its many objections, some equations of the universe can only be answered by Quantum Physics. These may still be the bottom lines, 'uncertainty' and 'complimentarity'. Surely, the 'Little Mermaid' at the harbor will count the number of times she was vandalized. "All these acts were man-made", she is likely to add.

Getting used to a new world order

When end of year coincides with end of decade, the number of theme-questions for a columnist multiplies by 10. Most are as boring as an honest obituary. But one did hear an unusual question: Have you changed your mind about anything in the last 10 years?

I celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the consequent downward slither of the Soviet Union, in the 1990s for two non-sustainable reasons: Principle and self-interest. In retrospect, the second is more comprehensible than the first. As a journalist one had a vested interest in free expression, and the Soviet regime was its boring antithesis. But that is so last century. There is today a vacuum where once lay the brooding, looming Soviet shadow, a force which kept its own citizens under a form of house arrest and yet, inspired enough fear in Anglo-American hawks to restrain their imperial tendencies. Would the Bush-Blair partnership have invaded Iraq in 2003 with such impunity if Uncle Stalin, or even Cousin Brezhnev, had been living in the Kremlin?

My faith in principle was foolish. Principle is an impotent yardstick if it is used to measure Saddam Hussein but not Tony Blair. Few emperors have been as airily indifferent to their own deceptions as Blair has been on Iraq. The politician who sent Britain to war against the will of his own party, told British television some days ago that he would have invented another excuse if he had been caught out on the weapons-of-mass-destruction subterfuge. Blair now admits what we knew all along — that the Iraq war was never about its stated cause.

Coincidentally, President Obama chose to dwell on the complexities of a just war in his Nobel Peace prize speech, delivered around the time Blair was shrugging off any pretence to morality. If the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq was based on a lie, were those who resisted American troops fighting a just or an unjust war? How many more nations would Bush-Blair have sought to conquer had there been no resistance in Iraq?

Obama waded into uncharted territory when he stated a proposition with the confidence of conviction: That a holy war could not be a just war. He was, of course, taking a sideswipe at jihad, understandable in the context of his need to be closer to American opinion than Muslim dogma. In the process, he slashed at Hinduism. Its two great texts, Ramayana and

Mahabharata, are war epics, and a Hindu would be aghast to hear that the holy wars of Lord Rama in Lanka and Lord Krishna at Kurukshetra were unjust. The moral code of most eastern faiths is deeply ingrained into popular belief, for we remain believers. Obama will probably be surprised to learn that the iconic holy warrior in the Holy Quran is David, king of the Jewish people.

The balance of power between the principal victors of the Second World War, the alliances led by the US and the Soviet Union, has given way to an imbalance in which the space for a legitimate counterweight has been handed over to shadow armies impelled by private agendas but mobilized in the name of nationalism. Patriotism gives theocratic movements strength that they might never have achieved by a more transparent declaration of intent. This was the story in Iraq; this is the shifting narrative in Afghanistan. In Iraq, most of the insurgents have been co-opted into the system, where they bide their time, waiting for local politicians to self-destruct and American forces to leave. They will shape Iraq to their will when they get the opportunity. In Afghanistan they have history and geography on their side.

A nebulous battle zone is perfect territory for shadow-warriors like the terrorist David Coleman. We must not confuse him with cannon fodder like Kasab; he is much higher in the Lashkar-e-Taiba hierarchy. His expertise in terrorist tradecraft is evident from the confusion: Was he double-crossing the Americans or triple-crossing them?. Coleman wore a cover, which could have been stitched from a perfect spy story: He became an informer for the US Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI. He could now trawl, with American blessing, the drug-trade marts between Mumbai and Af-Pak. Maybe, we should call this region Maf-Pak.

In the best of all possible worlds, we would have had a quasi-Brezhnev as head of a muscular Union of Semi-Socialist Soviet Republics in which Pravda was as free as The Times of India. What we have is a single superpower, America, in offensive-defensive siege mode, focussed on its own security even if the collateral damage is visited upon an ally. That seems like a policy worth imitating.

Now showing: 2009 Fall Collection, Dubai

Days like this, I feel like I'm stuck in one of those surreal science fiction movies about an unending time loop. Around this time last year, I remember sitting around with the kind of people who matter - bankers, CEOs, analysts and journalists - all muttering and shaking heads in hushed tones about Dubai. We had the prospect of Dubai imploding, a mad scramble to find out exactly what everyone's exposure was to the crisis.

A year on, it's the same old, same old. Okay, Dubai. Don't panic. Or yes, do, because to me it seems like those traders and financial market players haven't learnt a single lesson in the past two years. Despite even the most respected oracles like the JP Morgans and Merrills putting out large Don't Panic signs, everyone decided to panic en masse. Again. Some smart commentators are calling it lehmanitis: when world markets stage a concerted walk out at the first sign of trouble.

Unless they make it so, what has happened in Dubai should not be Armageddon Part II. Dubai wants to delay paying a lot of money to its creditors for six months. Yeah, so? Most of those lenders are already heavily underwritten by their respective governments and, according to analysts I trust (not necessarily the ones the market swears by), the UK banks at least should be able to absorb the hit, with a little bit of discomfort. Or I'll end up paying for it, again. Not the markets.

The funniest bit, to me, is the sense of outrage and betrayal coming out of the largely western media, reflecting the views of the investors and the market. Ooh, Dubai didn't tell us things were so bad. Ooh, this creates such a huge confidence crisis, we assumed the Arabs would pour in oil money to protect the interests of its western lenders and investors. They're not 'one of us' they need to work that much harder. Exactly how are palace politics any worse than Wall Street politics, pray? Which planet were they living in the past year, with thousands unemployed, building projects lying derelict, and so on?

If you look at the Dubai model, which UK media today is vehemently criticising, it's very similar to the UK model. Little island with not too many natural or manufacturing resources, surrounded by more powerful neighbours, a rich trading history, fabulous time zone and location, let's make it an entrepot and playground for the rich and powerful. Not surprisingly, since Dubai is largely run by Brits.

Okay, so here's yet another theory, which could be as right as anything that all the frantic sellers were moved by. First, the announcement came on the eve of a long Eid holiday break in Dubai, coinciding with Thanksgiving weekend, I'd bet key trading desks were probably staffed with those who drew very short straws. On Thursday, the LSE had a technical problem, and was down for three hours. So, the FTSE tanked. Also, from what I hear, most international banks have already frozen their bonuses for this year - usually decided by Christmas - and no trader is in the mood to take excess risks now. Not worth it.

Now why did the emirate behave as it did? They said it was part of a plan. I suspect that the Sheikh is aware that this year, most of his lenders have again started making obscene profits. Like the rest of us, he doesn't see why he should pay up meekly without a bit of a fight. Or go to Abu Dhabi with a begging bowl, maybe make his own people suffer, just to keep western investors happy. So maybe he's just pushing for a better deal.

Or he's decided that they don't really need another tallest tower in the world, or yet another pleasure island in the sea, and he's making a point that the Emirates isn't about to bail out everyone just to save global face. Maybe he's been listening to Mervyn King and others who say that bad entities should be allowed to go under, only socially-productive ones should be bailed out.

In the post-Lehman world, the lines are blurred. Lenders are not always the good guys, defaulters are not always the bad guys. It's not a term that's come up much this weekend, but 'resetting a banking covenant' - which hundreds of private companies have done - is something similar. You tell your bankers you can't pay in time, or at the rate and how they want, you renegotiate your penalty clauses and everyone comes to terms.

After all, these guys pretty much bought, as the adage is, the Brooklyn Bridge. Why exactly anyone needed complicated financial instruments to evaluate the potential risk for increasingly more outrageous building projects is one for the historians. It was obvious, even to the most humble labourer, that Dubai's building mania had reached unreal proportions. I do wish I'd managed to start that project for a spa on the moon back then. Someone would have lent me the money.

Ye bankers, be calculating, but not algorithmic

It’s nice, sometimes, to be able to say I told you so. Well, as I did say in my new year predictions, 2010 is turning out to be the year when Big Banks learn to live with new realities. Barack Obama just unveiled one of the most draconian proposals to cut them down to size.

Back in Wall Street, it seems that despite the desperate and high-profile lobbying — one estimate is that Wall Street spent over $500 million last year — Mr Obama has decided to go with the ballot box, and public opinion — after Scott Brown won a shock Republican victory to the Senate. We’ll have to see how much translates into reality, especially as the legislation has to make its tortuous way through US congress. Now, people are betting how much more Wall Street will spend in lobbying support.

I’ve been getting some outraged responses from the banking lobby, including how pandering to ‘ignorant’ public opinion will kill now, both London and New York as financial centres. Yes, but then where will all the bankers go? Timbuctoo? I know these people. There’s no way they want to live in Geneva, for instance. And even if they do, they’ll come and spend their money on weekends in London.

Obviously, this issue will now pretty much take centrestage in Davos, where the rich and powerful gather to schmooze this week. Bankers are out in full force this year, but then so is everyone else — and the anti-banker lobby is just getting stronger every minute. May be the global get-together will bring home to top bankers that they really need to change their bad old ways.

If the auto industry, the IT industry, companies like Pepsico and even Tetrapak can change the fundamental way they do business, so can bankers. Bank shares have tumbled, yes. There are those who think, at least here, that is a good thing.

Yes, it’s nice to have the markets up and so on, but when a company like Cadbury gets swallowed by a hostile takeover, simply because it was so badly undervalued when the bid started — and still is, most would say — maybe it’s time banks stopped hogging more than their fair share of almost every resource.

After all, shareholders don’t even benefit much when banks make obscene profits — they just dole it out as bonuses. The new ‘low’ at Goldman Sachs, of over 35% of its profits being given to its employees, to the average of 50% across the industry, is ridiculous compared to other industries. It works out to a measly average of about $500,000 per employee.

Oh, and if Mr Obama’s reforms go through, they won’t have this excuse that ‘talent’ will flee to hedge funds and the like if their pay is cut because, well, they won’t need that kind of talent any longer. Yes, all the arcane stuff will move into other entities — but those don’t have to be backed by taxpayers. The world is not affected if a hedge fund speculator loses his shirt.

Every gift horse has hidden booby-traps. Just last week, the SEC cracked down on high-frequency trading — now traders and brokers in US aren’t allowed ‘naked’ access, when a broker gives his access to someone to trade directly using formulae that does zillions of deals a minute, without using the brokers risk management controls.
Algorithmic trading, if I may use an oversimplification, is a bit like when a Chef writes a recipe, but a bunch of robots actually make the food.

As long as the ingredients are perfect, it’s machine-efficient. But the robot can’t tell if the fish is off, or the veggies rotten, or the chilly too much or too little. Mathematicians and programmers set up those algorithms, hence the demand for mathematics PhDs in high finance.

It then uses computers to match prices and do deals, at a speed no human can track or match. Sure, an algorithm can’t invent toxic derivatives products, but can spread the infection faster than you can say Salmonella. That’s more or less what happened last year, and why it took so long for traders themselves to figure out what was going on. At least, being late to the algorithm party, we know what the potential pitfalls are. The trick is not to fall into them as well, which is where I have my doubts.