• Coast Online - Love the Music

    Now Playing

    Love the Music - Coast Online

  • PAUL McCARTNEY - WITH A LITTLE LUCK

    Previously Played

    WITH A LITTLE LUCK - PAUL McCARTNEY

  • ROD STEWART - RHYTHM OF MY HEART

    Previously Played

    RHYTHM OF MY HEART - ROD STEWART

  • David Bowie - SORROW

    Previously Played

    SORROW - David Bowie

  • THE POINTER SISTERS - JUMP

    Previously Played

    JUMP - THE POINTER SISTERS

  • ELVIN BISHOP - FOOLED AROUND AND FELL IN LOVE

    Previously Played

    FOOLED AROUND AND FELL IN LOVE - ELVIN BISHOP

  • STEVE WINWOOD - WHILE YOU SEE A CHANCE

    Previously Played

    WHILE YOU SEE A CHANCE - STEVE WINWOOD

  • NEIL DIAMOND - I AM...I SAID

    Previously Played

    I AM...I SAID - NEIL DIAMOND

  • EURYTHMICS - IT'S ALRIGHT

    Previously Played

    IT'S ALRIGHT - EURYTHMICS

  • RUPERT HOLMES - ESCAPE (THE PINA COLADA SONG)

    Previously Played

    ESCAPE (THE PINA COLADA SONG) - RUPERT HOLMES

  • KIM CARNES - BETTE DAVIS EYES

    Previously Played

    BETTE DAVIS EYES - KIM CARNES

  • STEVIE WONDER - PART TIME LOVER

    Previously Played

    PART TIME LOVER - STEVIE WONDER

  • CHICAGO - IF YOU LEAVE ME NOW

    Previously Played

    IF YOU LEAVE ME NOW - CHICAGO

  • BILLY JOEL - BIG SHOT

    Previously Played

    BIG SHOT - BILLY JOEL

  • GORDON LIGHTFOOT - IF YOU COULD READ MY MIND

    Previously Played

    IF YOU COULD READ MY MIND - GORDON LIGHTFOOT

  • KC & THE SUNSHINE BAND - GIVE IT UP

    Previously Played

    GIVE IT UP - KC & THE SUNSHINE BAND

  • THELMA HOUSTON - DON'T LEAVE ME THIS WAY

    Previously Played

    DON'T LEAVE ME THIS WAY - THELMA HOUSTON

  • MICHAEL JACKSON - MAN IN THE MIRROR

    Previously Played

    MAN IN THE MIRROR - MICHAEL JACKSON

  • SUZI QUATRO & CHRIS NORMAN - STUMBLIN' IN

    Previously Played

    STUMBLIN' IN - SUZI QUATRO & CHRIS NORMAN

  • AEROSMITH - I DON'T WANT TO MISS A THING

    Previously Played

    I DON'T WANT TO MISS A THING - AEROSMITH

  • MARVIN GAYE - LET'S GET IT ON

    Previously Played

    LET'S GET IT ON - MARVIN GAYE

-

Carmel Fisher - Nobel prize for economics confirms markets behave randomly

Author
Carmel Fisher,
Section
Money,
Publish Date
Friday, 18 October 2013, 12:00AM

A funny thing happened this week – three American economists, two of whom have seemingly conflicting theories, shared the 2013 Nobel prize for economics.  Their prize-winning idea? That wild swings in asset prices can cause havoc!

Well, it’s not quite as simple as that, but the naming of Robert Shiller, Eugene Fama and Lars Peter Hansen as Nobel prize winners had a few scratching their heads.    

Yale professor Robert Shiller is probably the best known, having successfully predicted the dotcom bust in 2000 and the US housing crash seven years later.  His Shiller price-to-earnings ratio is used by investors around the world to spot looming overvaluation.  

Chicago professor Eugene Fama is known for his work that shows stock movements are a "random walk" and cannot be predicted in the short run.   He believes that it is folly to try to beat the market, and Fama is considered responsible for the popularity of index funds that don’t attempt to pick stocks.  

While Fama talks about rational markets, arguing that investors respond to known facts, Shiller regards markets as irrational and driven by emotion.  

Professor Hansen is an expert in mathematical modelling and cautions that “we often underestimate how much uncertainty there is”.

In awarding the three economists the prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said that “mispricing of assets may contribute to financial crises and, as the recent global recession illustrates, such crises can damage the overall economy.”

You can’t argue with the logic, it just might have been more impressive if the trio had reached agreement and found a way to use their research to consistently predict looming crises and avoid them.

While justifiably proud of the Nobel prize – which has been won by Americans 300 times compared to the United Kingdom and Germany at 100 each – some Americans are sceptical.  

One blogger questioned why with so many Americans winning prizes in economics, the nation continues to spend beyond its means forcing it to borrow forever to pay its bills.  Others say that the trio of economists merely stated the obvious (as financial bubbles have been bursting since time immemorial) and should not share the podium with real scientists who make significant contributions in the field of medicine, chemistry, physics and literature.  

The other niggle is that the economics prize is not a “true” Nobel prize, but rather was sponsored as a memorial to Nobel by Sweden’s central bank in 1968.  The notion of an award, paid for by a bank to legitimise the ‘science of economics’ which has failed to avert so many financial crises does not sit well with everyone!

One economist even waded in to the discussion saying “a good test in medicine is whether the recipient's research has saved a million lives.  In economics it's about writing down clever squiggles on diddles that mostly gets rewarded”.

But let’s not be uncharitable, there must be something to take from this year’s prize.  The fusion of the trio’s research boils down to this – we know that markets behave randomly and efforts to time the market are probably counterproductive.