Finance vs. knitting
Recently I have been reading a bit about finance again. I actually really like the scientific/mathematical side of finance a lot, mainly because I have always been fascinated by random processes and complex systems and the stock market is a pretty neat realization of these mathematical theories. The thing that stroke me in my last reading is how similar finance and knitting are: both involve mostly elementary algebraic operations, including a lot of percentages. It is funny how differently they are perceived, however. The former is supposedly only to be understood by the most intelligent of male minds, the latter is supposedly a mindless activity pursued by mentally disadvantaged women.
Financiers have been using dirty tricks to make their business seem very, very mentally challenging, when it is not. The main one being a completely ridiculous use of jargon. Jargon per se already has a bad reputation for reasons well known, but financiers have taken it to a whole new dimension by using: several words or expressions to define one thing, the same word or expression to define different things, words that in common English have a specific meaning used for a different concept that is related to another concept that usually shows up in the same context (like using rain to mean weather and blue to mean rain, but continue to use blue to mean blue, and let the reader figure out if blue skies means clear ones or rainy weather, blue rain undoubtedly means the latter, but not for the reason you are thinking) just to make the text or explanations as cryptic as possible.
Just to give a recent example I have been struggling with, I was reading a chapter on bonds and there was a passage like this: first paragraph "A, which is also called B or C, is [short definition goes here]" (not so bad, usually finance text do not do you the favour of providing all the different terms for the same concept they intend to use), then the rest of the section goes on talking about D without ever mentioning that D=A=B=C. I had to google the damn thing and after half-an-hour I finally established this simple fact. Which means that it took me half an hour instead of half a minute to understand an extremely simple concept. But my problems did not end here, there is more.
You would think that, given their high intellect and superior education, financiers would use equations in order to describe mathematical processes —after all, that is what they are made for—, but not all of them do. Many, just like Elizabeth Zimmermann, prefer to describe mathematical operations in steps. And another dirty trick that financiers use in order to make finance as cryptic as possible, is to, unlike EZ, never explain simple mathematical operations in a straightforward way. A lot of finance actually involves nothing more than simple algebraic operations and, in order to hide their simplicity, financiers explain them in long complex series of steps that frequently involve superfluous steps. Like, for example, if A is a/b*c+3, I would probably just write down this simple equation, which anyone who has finished primary school can easily understand (* means times, if you are not familiar with this standard notation, which is not usually taught at primary school, although it should). But if necessary I could describe it in 3 steps: take a, divide it by b, multiply the result by c and add 3 in the end. A financier would tell you to first compute Y, then go on explaining how Z (which is just another term for Y, but he will not tell you this) is computed by dividing a by b and adding 10. Then explain that you should subtract 10 from Y (if you are lucky, otherwise he will use a third term for the same concept) and multiply it by 100 in order to get a percentage. The next step is to multiply the last result by c and finally to divide the result by 100 and add 3. And this is the short version of it, you will be able to find other even longer versions easily.
So I have taken half-an-hour to establish that D is simply another word for A and then half-an-hour to establish that a long list of very confusing steps is simply described by a very simple equation. Something I could have done in 1 minute, but instead I have just wasted one hour of my life. If I persevere, I will finish this book in a century.
The proof that finance does not require a very sharp intellect is that, despite its true simplicity, I have often found stupid errors in the reasoning of quite respected sources. Which is proof of the fact that you can be highly respected in this field even if you still struggle with some of what you should have learned in primary school. Mostly, I wish I knew of a nice book where the author was as at ease with simple mathematics as say Elizabeth Zimmermann.
You surely think I am exaggerating and argue that finance pays handsomely in order to hire the best minds fresh out of the best universities. That is true. But there is a difference between affording and needing. Many people around the world are unfortunately dying because they cannot afford the treatment they need, while many celebrities are wasting money and resources getting one more plastic surgery that will make them look even more similar to an ugly toad than they already do. The same thing happens in places like the City or Wall Street. The fact they can pay the highest salaries and hence attract the most qualified individuals does not necessarily imply these individuals' abilities are necessary for the job or being used in any relevant way.
Financiers have been using dirty tricks to make their business seem very, very mentally challenging, when it is not. The main one being a completely ridiculous use of jargon. Jargon per se already has a bad reputation for reasons well known, but financiers have taken it to a whole new dimension by using: several words or expressions to define one thing, the same word or expression to define different things, words that in common English have a specific meaning used for a different concept that is related to another concept that usually shows up in the same context (like using rain to mean weather and blue to mean rain, but continue to use blue to mean blue, and let the reader figure out if blue skies means clear ones or rainy weather, blue rain undoubtedly means the latter, but not for the reason you are thinking) just to make the text or explanations as cryptic as possible.
Just to give a recent example I have been struggling with, I was reading a chapter on bonds and there was a passage like this: first paragraph "A, which is also called B or C, is [short definition goes here]" (not so bad, usually finance text do not do you the favour of providing all the different terms for the same concept they intend to use), then the rest of the section goes on talking about D without ever mentioning that D=A=B=C. I had to google the damn thing and after half-an-hour I finally established this simple fact. Which means that it took me half an hour instead of half a minute to understand an extremely simple concept. But my problems did not end here, there is more.
You would think that, given their high intellect and superior education, financiers would use equations in order to describe mathematical processes —after all, that is what they are made for—, but not all of them do. Many, just like Elizabeth Zimmermann, prefer to describe mathematical operations in steps. And another dirty trick that financiers use in order to make finance as cryptic as possible, is to, unlike EZ, never explain simple mathematical operations in a straightforward way. A lot of finance actually involves nothing more than simple algebraic operations and, in order to hide their simplicity, financiers explain them in long complex series of steps that frequently involve superfluous steps. Like, for example, if A is a/b*c+3, I would probably just write down this simple equation, which anyone who has finished primary school can easily understand (* means times, if you are not familiar with this standard notation, which is not usually taught at primary school, although it should). But if necessary I could describe it in 3 steps: take a, divide it by b, multiply the result by c and add 3 in the end. A financier would tell you to first compute Y, then go on explaining how Z (which is just another term for Y, but he will not tell you this) is computed by dividing a by b and adding 10. Then explain that you should subtract 10 from Y (if you are lucky, otherwise he will use a third term for the same concept) and multiply it by 100 in order to get a percentage. The next step is to multiply the last result by c and finally to divide the result by 100 and add 3. And this is the short version of it, you will be able to find other even longer versions easily.
So I have taken half-an-hour to establish that D is simply another word for A and then half-an-hour to establish that a long list of very confusing steps is simply described by a very simple equation. Something I could have done in 1 minute, but instead I have just wasted one hour of my life. If I persevere, I will finish this book in a century.
The proof that finance does not require a very sharp intellect is that, despite its true simplicity, I have often found stupid errors in the reasoning of quite respected sources. Which is proof of the fact that you can be highly respected in this field even if you still struggle with some of what you should have learned in primary school. Mostly, I wish I knew of a nice book where the author was as at ease with simple mathematics as say Elizabeth Zimmermann.
You surely think I am exaggerating and argue that finance pays handsomely in order to hire the best minds fresh out of the best universities. That is true. But there is a difference between affording and needing. Many people around the world are unfortunately dying because they cannot afford the treatment they need, while many celebrities are wasting money and resources getting one more plastic surgery that will make them look even more similar to an ugly toad than they already do. The same thing happens in places like the City or Wall Street. The fact they can pay the highest salaries and hence attract the most qualified individuals does not necessarily imply these individuals' abilities are necessary for the job or being used in any relevant way.
Comments
Post a Comment