Thursday, September 8, 2011

Of hurricanes and economic equilibrium

Economists generally interpret economies and financial markets as systems in equilibrium or at least close to equilibrium. The history of economics has revolved around this idea for more than a century since the early theories of Leon Walras and Stanley Jevons. More recently, the famous Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH) has been the guiding theme of financial market theory. I've written earlier about the many shortcomings of this hypothesis, but of course EMH enthusiasts often point to evidence in favour of the hypothesis. For example, it's hard to beat the market and difficult to find any predictability in market movements. This seems to point to something like information efficiency -- all public information already being reflected in prices.

The EMH runs into trouble in the form of many exceptions to market unpredictability, so-called "anomalies," such as those identified by Andrew Lo of MIT. His 1990 book A Non-random Walk Down Wall St., written with Craig MacKinlay, documented a number of persisting patterns in market movements. For example, he and colleagues found in a study of price movements over a period of 25 years that the present returns of lower valued stocks were significantly correlated with the past returns of higher valued stocks. This means that by looking at what has happened recently to higher priced stocks, investors can in principle predict with some success what will happen to the future prices of cheaper stocks. This clearly contradicts the efficient market hypothesis.

But there's a way out for the EMH enthusiast, who typically responds by saying something like "Of course, there may be small deviations from equilibrium from time to time, but the market will then act to eliminate this deviation. As arbitragers move to profit from it, their actions will tend to wipe out the deviation and its associated element of predictability, restoring the efficient equilibrium after a short time."

The EMH defender can then even claim that this insight is precisely where the EMH displays its greatest power, as it makes specific predictions which generaly turn out to be true. In the case of the "anomaly" identified by Lo, for example, the EMH enthusiast would point out that this particular predictability has disappeared over the past 20 years just as the EMH would predict. By 1997, other researchers revisiting the phenomenon needed high frequency data even to find it at the level of minute-by-minute returns on the New York Stock Exchange. By 2005, when physicists Bence Toth and Janos Kertesz looked at the effect again, they found it had completely vanished. Conclusion: not only is the EMH safe from the criticism, it's a shining example of a theory which makes accurate predictions -- and as every economist knows, this is the sole measure by which to judge the value of a theory, as Milton Friedman argued in his famous 1966 essay The Methodology of Positive Economics.

There are many dubious elements to such a claim, of course. For example, the EMH doesn't make any specific predictions about time scales, so this prediction is a rather weak one. As I noted in my earlier post on the EMH, some similar anomalies have persisted for 20 years and haven't gone away.

But I want to step back and consider something more seriously wrong with the idea that the progressive disappearance of a pricing anomaly is evidence for the "increasing efficiency of the market." This I think is not correct. To see why, it will help to develop an analogy, and the recent hurricane Irene, which swept northward along the coast of the US, provides a good one.

Suppose that some atmospheric theorists developed the Efficient Atmospheres Hypothesis (EAH) which asserts that planetary atmospheres in general -- and the Earth's, in particular -- are always in a state very close to equilibrium with the air resting in a calm state of repose. Given the total amount of air, its density and the force of gravity, the theorists have even been able to predict the air pressure at sea level and how it should fall off with altitude. The EAH works pretty well in explaining some of the most basic aspects of the atmosphere. But the theory also makes a more controversial claim -- that, in fact, the air pressure
at any two places in the atmosphere (at the same altitude) should always be identical, or at least very nearly the same. After all, the EAH theorists argue, if there were pressure differences, they would create winds carrying air and energy from the higher pressure zone toward the lower pressure zone. That flow of air would lower the pressure in the former place and raise it in the latter, eventually bringing those two pressures back into balance.

In other words, any momentary imbalance in air pressure should create forces which quickly act to wipe out that difference. Hence, the pressure everywhere (at the same altitude) should be identical, or almost identical.

Now, critics of EAH might say this is crazy. After all, we observe winds all the time, and sometimes great storms. Just last week high winds from hurricane Irene caused massive flooding up and down the eastern US. Isn't this obvious disproof of the EAH? On the contrary, the EAH theorists might respond, these observations actually provide further evidence for the theory. OK, they concede, the atmosphere does sometimes depart a little from perfect equilibrium, but the hurricane is clear evidence of how normal economic forces drive the system back into equilibrium. After all, if you look at the data on the hurricane after it passed by the US, you'll see that the immense pressure differences within it were slowly eroded away as the hurricane dissipated energy through its winds. Eventually Irene petered out altogether as the atmosphere was restored to equilibrium. This is simply another victory for the EAH; indeed, it predicted just this ultimate fate for such a disturbance.

In the setting of atmospheric physics, of course, no one would take the EAH seriously. It's obviously crazy to claim that the gradual disappearance of Irene was evidence for the "increasing efficiency" of the atmosphere, or (equivalently) for its return to the equilibrium state. Irene was one very much out-of-equilibrium disturbance, but it's disappearance says nothing about whether the atmosphere as a whole has become closer to equilibrium. As Irene disappeared, hundreds of other storms, and perhaps other proto-hurricanes, were being stirred up elsewhere on the planet. Storms are always fading away and others are always growing in the great chaotic maelstrom of the atmosphere, and all of this reflects its condition as a system driven out of equilibrium by energy from the Sun. To show that the atmosphere was actually moving closer to equilibrium over time would require some global study of storms and winds and air pressure differences to see if they were in some general sense progressively getting smaller. What happens to one storm is actually quite irrelevant.

Returning to the case of financial markets, the same must be true of a single anomaly such as the one identified by Lo and MacKinlay. Over twenty years, this one has slowly disappeared, as good empirical work has shown. But this doesn't really tell us anything about whether the market as a whole is getting more or less efficient, closer to or further away from equilibriuim. That's an entirely different question.

I've belabored this analogy because I think it helps to illustrate an important point. Arguments over the EMH often center on highly technical analysis of statistical correlations and market predictability or the lack of it. Yet often such analysis can be correct in their technical detail, but not actually support the larger claims made by the people doing the analysis.

I think the analogy also helps to bring into focus the shady deviousness of many arguments about market efficiency based on the EMH. In a talk from several years ago, soon after the crisis, Jeremy Siegel of the University of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether the crisis had shown the EMH to be false. The EMH asserts, of course, that markets work very efficiently to exploit the wisdom of crowds to funnel savings into investments giving the best long run returns (rather than, say, fueling a financial bubble based around mortgages bundled opaquely into crappy CDOs). But no, he asserted, the financial crisis hadn't shown anything to be wrong with the EMH, indeed it offered further evidence for the EMH because (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "everything that happened did so for sound economic reasons." In other words, when people finally understood the true nature of those CDOs, their values plummeted, just as the EMH would predict.

This is like an Efficient Atmospheres Hypothesis theorist saying, first, that "a hurricane could never come into existence, because the atmosphere is efficient and in equilibrium, and the forces of physics act to keep it there," and then, in the aftermath of a hurricane, saying "see, I was right, the atmosphere worked to restore equilibrium just as I said." 

It's a simple case of using the theory when it fits the data, and ignoring the data when it doesn't fit the theory.

32 comments:

  1. "It's a simple case of using the theory when it fits the data, and ignoring the data when it doesn't fit the theory."

    Or perhaps it is a case of defining a theory so as to be able to claim validity but only at the expense of making it utterly useless. Since the financial crisis Eugene Fama has consistently engaged in this sort of defense of the EMH. In effect he now defines the EMH in essentially tautologial terms, which makes one wonder why he has spent a career refining it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Continuing with your analogy of EMH to the atmosphere, an individual anomaly such as the size-based lead-lag anomaly is more akin to a weather phenomenon than to an individual event. The disappearance of this anomaly is more like the disappearance of tornadoes in a particularly tornado-prone region of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What I find to be missing in the discussions of economic equilibrium is the economic analogy of energy flows. In a thermodynamic system, we identify two basic situations.

    A closed system (i.e. one which has no flow of energy in or out) can be far from equilibrium because the energy is distributed in a manner inconsistent with maximum entropy. Over time, as entropy increases, it approaches equilibrium until entropy reaches a maximum possible level. The definition of equilibrium is closely associated with energy distributions and entropy levels.

    On the other hand, an open system has a flow of energy into it and out of it. The energy in the system may be constant (on average) but there is a flow. While such a constant-energy system might appear to be in equilibrium, it is not. While many characteristics may, on average, stay roughly constant, I do not believe this meets the definition of equilibrium. The weather system is such a system. The atmosphere, on average, has a constant level of energy, but there is a source (the sun) and many sinks (radiation into space, sequestering into stores of various kinds). It is never in equilibrium because there is no time when the energy distribution can adjust to attain maximum entropy.

    So, I like the analogy between the weather and the economy. Both are far from equilibrium. In the case of the weather, it is due to energy flows. What is it that is flowing from source to sink in an economic system that causes it to remain turbulent? Is it economic value? Is it material resources? What is the economic analogy of energy flows?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "What is the economic analogy of energy flows?"

    Information and capital.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your blog is really helps for my search and i really like it.. Thanks a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I found this blog looking for a way to explain out-of-equilibrium economics to some people.

    This post is absolutely brilliant.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great blog you people have maintained there, I totally appreciate the work.
    gold ira investing

    ReplyDelete
  8. I truly get pleasure from while I read your blogs and its content.online direct payday loans

    ReplyDelete
  9. Economics is my favorite subject and this article tell me how to read his lesson with easy way thanks for share it do my physics homework .

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is a wonderful article, Given so much info in it, These type of articles keeps the users interest in the website, and keep on sharing more.autoasesor.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. Total of us extract obtained essentially obtained an superb skill by contemplatives of respect in requisition to distract relating to an atypical internet employee.Bicycle Injury Lawyer Key West

    ReplyDelete
  12. Excellent Publish. I have been looking for this actual factor all 7 days. Awesome discuss for me, maybe nice for all audience of your site.native american pottery

    ReplyDelete
  13. As part of an assignment for research I have to find an article with relevant information on this topic and give the teacher our opinion and the article. Your article helped me a lot.plantation auto accident lawyer

    ReplyDelete
  14. Its a great pleasure reading your post.Its full of information I am looking for and I love to post a comment that "The content of your post is awesome" Great work.loft conversion plans

    ReplyDelete
  15. I really appreciate this wonderful post that you have provided for us. I assure this would be beneficial for most of the people.exchange rates

    ReplyDelete
  16. I read your excellent post. I really appreciate your post. Thanks a lot for share this interesting post. Keep it up.book lovers fall in love with books

    ReplyDelete
  17. Very awesome publish. I just came by your site and desired to say that I’ve really liked reading your articles. From now on I will save and follow some of your post. Thanks and God bless!printing t shirts

    ReplyDelete
  18. Interesting topic shown here, i am now working on it regularly here and would say keep the future posts like this continusoly.Job posting software

    ReplyDelete
  19. on-site bvlgari archives watch guidance media guests to explore the movement of replica watches the mysterious experience of watchmaking swiss replica watches art rigorous precision, sharing brand legendary watchmaking process. Site participants have expressed the favor of the movement


    ReplyDelete
  20. I read your excellent post. I really appreciate your post. Thanks a lot for share this interesting post. Keep it up.Lipo battery

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks for the nice blog. It was very useful for me. I'm happy I found this blog. Thank you for sharing with us,I too always learn something new from your post.garage screen door

    ReplyDelete
  22. The is attractive judge viewpoint is at possibilities with other pest control tucson

    ReplyDelete
  23. will need this post to total my assignment in the college, and it has exact same topic together with your write-up. Thanks, good share.louer une voiture agadir

    ReplyDelete
  24. Economics is my favorite subject and this article tell me how to read his lesson with easy way thanks for share it.niagara on the lake real estate

    ReplyDelete
  25. This blog is great i love reading your posts. Keep up the great work! You know, a lot of people are hunting around for this info, you could help them greatly.Casco Antiguo or Casco Viejo

    ReplyDelete
  26. Heh. Since I started playing MMOs as melee (Paladin), I guess I don't have the same sort of view on melee combat. Of course, trying to level via quests out in a PvP server as Holy Spec wasn't exactly the smartest thing I've ever done, either. That probably is why I tend to take things nice and slow when I can.Popcorn Supplies

    ReplyDelete


  27. Goood post. I learn something nnew annd challenging onn blogvs I stumbleupon everyday. It will always be helpful to read content from other authors and use a little something from their websites.pobyty pre dvoch na slovensku

    ReplyDelete
  28. i always want a dining room that is brightly colored that is why i always paint our room with cream accent,
    Costa Calida

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am thrilled to hear about Harris Teeter, although I'm sorry to see that Rust, Orling will design it. They designed the nearby Monarch, which is a monstrosity, to put it very kindly. Hopefully, the City will do a better job this time keeping them in line.babysitting Brandon

    ReplyDelete
  30. Amazing article..!! Thank you so much for this informative post. I found some interesting points and lots of information from your blog. Thanks 메이저놀이터


    ReplyDelete