Why not “constructive transparency”?


I recently came across a very interesting article that brought to my attention a phrase I hadn’t come across before: constructive ambiguity.

Isn’t that an oxymoron???

The article is here and it touches upon a topic and writers I have written about before in relation to business as war. If you like you economics with a social conscience and a philosophical perspective Ashwin’s your man.

“The interaction between the market participants, and for that matter between the market participants and the regulators, is not a game, but a war.”

Rick Bookstaber

However, in this article ‘constructive ambiguity’ was being used in terms of preventing moral hazard within a regulatory regime.

That’s when it struck me! Why not constructive transparency?

transparency(1)

Read more of this post

Leadership urgently required: Sustainable value or race to the bottom?


I make no apologies for promoting the thoughts and text of someone, whose thinking (on a wide range of financial matters) I have come to respect enormously. Nick’s article (below) reminded me that, if all we do is look address what we observe – treating symptoms – we can expend too much time, effort and money applying patches or plasters (in the form of legislation, regulation, processes) without actually EVER identifying and tackling cause(s). Add a time horizon of years or even decades and the ability of a system to perform the task(s) for which it was originally intended…

Complexity decl marg returnsIs this how successive Governments have allowed the Public Sector to become excessively complex: structurally fragile, morally and financially bankrupt, monuments to institutional neglect?

– why “users” and frontline services suffer in the face of budget cuts whilst layers of management indulge in self-preservation?

Is this why Corporate rewards that are results-driven rather than strategy-led have increased moral hazard?

Why Financial Regulation failed and is “too complex” to pursue those responsible – but not, apparently, accountable – for destroying the global economy? Read more of this post

Fund Strategy Magazine: Complexity lessons from nature…revisited


Some cynics may say that I am re-visiting this blog item because it is coming up for the anniversary of its publication. WRONG.

Others could speculate that I have (finally) run out of things to say – you don’t know me very well! WRONG.

It is because it says what needs to be said, read and understood in order for some to avoid certain extinction and for others as a template from which to build a successful business in the future.


Fund Strategy Magazine: Complexity lessons from nature for a better economic future…
In case you thought that “complexity management” is just more mumbo jumbo from the financial sector I suggest that you read the following piece and any of my previous blogs on the subject of complexity. Complexity analysis, mapping and management is available NOW and, if a business leader is intent upon gaining a greater insight into their operations, making more informed decisions, managing more effectively, gaining competitive advantage and “st … Read More

via Get “fit for randomness” [with Ontonix UK]

Regulators v Barbarian hordes


As a franchise  Alien v Predator has obvious appeal. Unlike our title it actually sounds like a fair fight. One worth watching!

But pin-striped Barbarians atop elephants at the gates of Basel, London and Washington. How could you tell the combatants apart in hand-to-hand clashes? Well apart from the conspicuous mode of transport lack of conscience and the sharp suits. But Holly wood blockbuster? I think not…Art of War “yes”, FSA Handbook “no chance”.

Rome 

Image by Trois Têtes (TT) via Flickr

In his excellent article in this weeks Financial Times, (Barbarians at the gates of complexity) Prof John Kay, succinctly and effectively makes the point that the lessons from history are there to be learnt.

THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE BODY OF QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT A “SYSTEM” CAN SUPPORT A FINITE AMOUNT OF COMPLEXITY. WITH SUITABLE DATA WE,  AT ONTONIX, ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE QUANTITATIVE VERIFICATION AND TO MEASURE BOTH CURRENT AND CRITICAL LEVELS WITHIN THAT SYSTEM…NOW THAT’S WHAT I CALL PROGRESS!

Please follow click these links for more Complexity Facts from Ontonix.

“…complexity breeds complexity, and is subject to diminishing  returns. Eventually the costs of increased complexity exceed the benefits” Prof John Kay

I would like to pose the question:

If the Barbarians of Financial Services have had the books but didn’t bother to read them what will be achieved by the introduction of more regulation?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Complexity: Global Banking – “The Sources of Unpredictability”


The Bank of England in Threadneedle Street, Lo...

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

A recent interesting speech by Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, on the “Uncertainty in Macroeconomic Policy Making: Art or Science?” discusses the sources of unpredictability. He goes on to claim that the sources of unpredictability are at least three: “First, it is very difficult to assign probabilities […]

This is not the first time that Bank of England have dealt with the matter of learning lessons from other “disciplines”. Andy, Haldane, Executive Director, Financial Stability went in to some detail during a presentation in April 2009.

“This paper considers the financial system as a complex adaptive system. It applies some of the lessons from other network disciplines – such as ecology, epidemiology, biology and engineering – to the financial sphere. Peering through the network lens, it provides a rather different account of the structural vulnerabilities that built-up in the financial system over the past decade and suggests ways of improving its robustness in the period ahead.”

The text of the speech is available here.

Of course this all feeds in rather well to previous blog items in relation to my firmly held belief that a fundamental part of the solution is the application of Quantitative Complexity analysis tools and management.

The Woman Who Just Might Save the Planet and Our Pocketbooks

Fund Strategy Magazine: Complexity lessons from nature for a better economic future

The following blog item from Willem Buiter reiterates the folly of financial modelling and, effectively, reinforces the argument

The unfortunate uselessness of most ’state of the art’ academic monetary economics

Those of us who have marvelled at the non-linear feedback loops between asset prices in illiquid markets and the funding illiquidity of financial institutions exposed to these asset prices through mark-to-market accounting, margin requirements, calls for additional collateral etc.  will appreciate what is lost by this castration of the macroeconomic models.  Threshold effects, critical mass, tipping points, non-linear accelerators – they are all out of the window.  Those of us who worry about endogenous uncertainty arising from the interactions of boundedly rational market participants cannot but scratch our heads at the insistence of the mainline models that all uncertainty is exogenous and additive.

Technically, the non-linear stochastic dynamic models were linearised (often log-linearised) at a deterministic (non-stochastic) steady state.  The analysis was further restricted by only considering forms of randomness that would become trivially small in the neighbourhood of the deterministic steady state.  Linear models with additive random shocks we can handle – almost !

Even this was not quite enough to get going, however.  As pointed out earlier, models with forward-looking (rational) expectations of asset prices will be driven not just by conventional, engineering-type dynamic processes where the past drives the present and the future, but also in part by past and present anticipations of the future.  When you linearize a model, and shock it with additive random disturbances, an unfortunate by-product is that the resulting linearised model behaves either in a very strongly stabilising fashion or in a relentlessly explosive manner.  There is no ‘bounded instability’ in such models.  The dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) crowd saw that the economy had not exploded without bound in the past, and concluded from this that it made sense to rule out, in the linearized model, the explosive solution trajectories.  What they were left with was something that, following an exogenous  random disturbance, would return to the deterministic steady state pretty smartly.  No L-shaped recessions.  No processes of cumulative causation and bounded but persistent decline or expansion.  Just nice V-shaped recessions.

There actually are approaches to economics that treat non-linearities seriously.  Much of this work is numerical – analytical results of a policy-relevant nature are few and far between – but at least it attempts to address the problems as they are, rather than as we would like them lest we be asked to venture outside the range of issued we can address with the existing toolkit.

The practice of removing all non-linearities and most of the interesting aspects of uncertainty from the models that were then let loose on actual numerical policy analysis, was a major step backwards.  I trust it has been relegated to the dustbin of history by now in those central banks that matter.