Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon
- DealBreaker
- Ryan Avent: The Bellows
- The Epicurean Dealmaker
- Chris Anderson
- Ultimi Barbarorum
- MarketBeat
- Michelle Leder
- John Quiggin
- The Panelist
- Andrew Leonard
- Streetsblog
- Brad Setser
- Michael Mandel
- Financial Crookery
- Kash Mansori
- Dean Baker
- Calculated Risk
- Free Exchange
- Curbed
- Lance Knobel
- Econospeak
- Carbon Tax Center
- Overcoming Bias
- Mark Thoma
- Naked Capitalism
- Alphaville
- Barry Ritholtz
- Alexander Campbell
- The Bayesian Heresy
- Brad DeLong
- DealBook
- Greg Mankiw
- Deal Journal
- FP Passport
- Carl Bialik
- Marginal Revolution
- A Fistful of Euros
- Dan Gross
VaR Datapoint of the Day
Morgan Stanley has some of the most sophisticated risk-management systems on planet earth. And yet, somehow,
The company disclosed today that daily trading losses during the quarter exceeded the firm's trading value-at- risk calculation on six days during the quarter.
Needless to say, this is something which is not meant to happen. "Value at risk" means, basically, the amount of money you could conceivably lose in one day. To lose more than that in a day is a sign that your models might well be broken. To lose more than that six days in one quarter is a sign of utter cluelessness.
Update: jck has the rather misleading graphic, from Morgan Stanley's Q3. It shows four trading days with more than $125 million in losses, and three days with losses of somewhere between $50 million and $125 million, which means that Morgan Stanley's VaR was probably somewhere around $75 million or so.
What it doesn't show is just how skewed the distribution really is: on its worst day, Morgan Stanley lost $390 million. Which is more than four times its VaR. Fat tail, much?
