Download Free On The Usual Misunderstandings Between Econophysics And Finance Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online On The Usual Misunderstandings Between Econophysics And Finance and write the review.

In line with the recent research and debates about econophysics and financial economics, this article discusses on usual misunderstandings between the two disciplines in terms of modelling and basic hypotheses. In the literature devoted to econophysics, the methodology used by financial economists is frequently considered as a top-down approach (starting from a priori “first principles”) while econophysicists rather present themselves as scholars working with a (empirical data prone) bottom-up approach. Although this dualist perspective is very common in the econophysics literature, this paper claims that the distinction is very confusing and does not permit to reveal the essence of the differences between finance and econophysics. The distinction between these two fields is mainly investigated here through the lens of the Efficient Market Hypothesis in order to show that, in substance, econophysics and financial economics tend to have a similar approach implying that the misunderstanding between these two fields at the modelling level can therefore be overstepped.
This article highlights the current misunderstanding between economists and econophysicists by adopting the financial economists' viewpoint in order to explain why the works developed by econophysicists are not recognized in finance. Because both communities do not share the same scientific culture, and for the other reasons developed in the article, economists often consider econophysics as a strictly empirical field without theoretical justification. This paper shows the opposite; it also tries to facilitate the dialogue between econophysicists who often do not explain in details their theoretical roots and financial economists who are not familiar with statistical physics. Beyond this clarification, this paper also allows to identify what remains to be done for econophysicists to contribute significantly to financial economics: 1) development of a common framework vocabulary in order to better compare and integrate the two approaches; 2) development of generative models explaining the emergence of power laws; and 3) development of statistical tests for the identification of such statistical regularities.
This book provides the first extensive analytic comparison between models and results from econophysics and financial economics in an accessible and common vocabulary. Unlike other publications dedicated to econophysics, it situates this field in the evolution of financial economics by laying the foundations for common theoretical framework and models.
This paper aims at analyzing the unexpected influence of Financial economics on Physics. The rise of Econophysics, a fundamentally new approach in finance, suggests that the influence between the two disciplines becomes less unilateral than in the past. Methodological debates emerging in Econophysics led physicists to acknowledge that dealing with financial complex systems contributed to a wider modelling of their field. The approach of econophysicists suggests that physicists might try to conceptualize physical phenomena by integrating elements they faced with in Financial economics, and more generally in Economics. Surprisingly, many of econophysicists' argumentations have some methodological similarities with practices used in Financial economics. This paper analyzes the influence of Financial economics on Physics by discussing three examples: (i) out of equilibrium processes, (ii) signal detection and information filtering, and (iii) the role of information in complex systems. It investigates and illustrates what are the methodological changes generated by Econophysics that explain this new influence of finance on Physics. This paper sheds new light on the way finance and economics can improve physics modelling. With this purpose, this article is going one step further in the dialogue between econophysics and economics. Indeed, by investigating the reciprocal influence between the two fields, this methodological paper identifies some areas for a better cross-fertilisation between the fields.
This title was first published in 2002: From Individualism to the Individual treats finance as a social and cultural process, exploring the unseen side of academic discourse and the many obstacles the deeply entrenched elite puts in the way of alternative thinking. Opening with a detailed discussion of the role of ideology in the perpetuation of the limited methodological bias of the profession toward markets, the book then examines the more specific effects of such ideological limitations on theoretical and empirical research in finance. The authors develop alternative ways to examine finance both as a profession and as a field of inquiry. This book will be of particular value to researchers and practitioners working in finance, as well as those in other social science disciplines whose research relates to finance, culture and society.
Economists broadly define financial asset price bubbles as episodes in which prices rise with notable rapidity and depart from historically established asset valuation multiples and relationships. Financial economists have for decades attempted to study and interpret bubbles through the prisms of rational expectations, efficient markets, equilibrium, arbitrage, and capital asset pricing models, but they have not made much if any progress toward a consistent and reliable theory that explains how and why bubbles (and crashes) evolve and are defined, measured, and compared. This book develops a new and different approach that is based on the central notion that bubbles and crashes reflect urgent short-side rationing, which means that, as such extreme conditions unfold, considerations of quantities owned or not owned begin to displace considerations of price.
The financial crisis has fuelled a heated debate about the responsibility of financial economists. Critics such as Paul Krugman, Robert Shiller or David Colander argue that financial economists have developed useless or even harmful theories. This is an important debate, but it suffers from the fact that the role of financial theories remains unclear. In this paper we enter the field of philosophy of science to clarify this issue. In particular we emphasize the research interests and the various philosophical assumptions of three alternative views on financial theories. We analyze the widespread positivistic conception of financial theories and contrast it with a postmodern perspective. We conclude that both positions have limitations. As an alternative, we outline a constructivist conception of financial theories. In the final section, we use these insights from philosophy of science to clarify the responsibility of financial economists. Financial economists have to critically reflect the problems in practice that need to be addressed and to keep their theories closely tied to these original problems. We show how, in the case of the “efficient market hypothesis,” the misunderstanding of the role of financial theories led financial economists to neglect this responsibility.
Financial economics and mathematical finance are the two traditional scientific disciplines that constitute modern financial theory. Although they still largely dominate modern financial theory, in the past few years a new “player” has increasingly been making itself felt and could lead to a rethinking of some of the theoretical foundations of modern financial theory. This new player is econophysics. Econophysics is a very recent movement that is beginning to interest increasing numbers of financial practionners. To date, no history of econophysics has been produced. This article aims at filling both this gap. It analyses the theoretical foundations of econophysics and their connections with the history of financial economics. It also studies of the reasons underlying the emergence of econophysics and presents the manner in which econophysics has become the third component of modern financial theory.
Finance, Econometrics and System Dynamics presents an overview of the concepts and tools for analyzing complex systems in a wide range of fields. The text integrates complexity with deterministic equations and concepts from real world examples, and appeals to a broad audience.
This document tries to answer to a frequent question of students and clients: are Finance and Financial Economics the same thing? My answer is NO: I think that they are very different, although the terms are very often confused and many Finance professor positions in many Business Schools have been filled with Financial Economists.Two ways, among others, to see the differences: a) attend a class on “Finance for managers” taught by a sensible Finance professor and attend another taught by a “Financial Economist”; b) read a book on “Finance for managers” and another on “Financial Economics”.Financial Economics is a subject developed by economists whose main purpose is to elaborate “models” based on unrealistic assumptions. The conclusions and predictions of the “models” have very little to do with the real world: companies, financial markets, investors, managers... the most emblematic example is the CAPM.The most used word in the Nobel Prize lectures of Fama, Shiller, Hansen and Sharpe was “model” (513 times).This document contains facts and some opinions held by the author. I welcome comments (disagreements, errors, anecdotes...) that will help the readers and me to better differentiate between Finance and Financial Economics. It also contains very interesting comments of 59 readers.