Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm 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?






