
Did the smart guys and gals on Wall Street cause the financial crisis that struck one year ago? That's what
Calvin Trillin, a pretty smart guy himself, believes.
Trillin explores an interesting point: You would expect that smart people would not have gotten Wall Street into its current mess. But they apparently outsmarted themselves, and as a result, American households have lost more that $14 trillion in net wealth in the past couple of years. Shareholders have lost some hundreds of billions since the investment banking community imploded last September.
Get the new
PD toolbar! And I agree with Trillin to some extent. Let me provide some background. I was in graduate school in economics (Harvard) in the mid-1980s after having worked on Wall Street, both in investment banking and at the Fed. This was the time when math really took off as an economics tool.
I've always been pretty good at math, so calculus and all of the other mumbo-jumbo never scared me. But I do recall being astounded when some of my graduate school friends took topology classes over in the math department to help them do better in economics. That topology -- the study of geometric figures under distortion -- would help anyone understand economic policy seemed rather remarkable to me, for I saw little connection between math, which was elegant, and economics, which can become rather inelegant once you bring humans into the equation. Any mathematical formula can get you to wherever you want to go. But people don't always follow equations. So, to take a model of, say, options pricing, and develop a likely distribution of possible outcomes works fine and dandy on paper. But it can fail rather spectacularly in real life, as we all learned last year.
So there's some truth to Trillin's premise -- it surely is difficult for senior managers who went to school before math took off to understand the financial models that their young "quants" (quantitative modeling experts) have put together. Not many of them probably took the time to understand the data that went into those fancy VaR models. (But, that said, would we want to go back to the era where we did everything with pencil and paper? No, we wouldn't.)
And certainly the salaries on Wall Street attracted a lot of bright minds that might have otherwise gone into academics or manufacturing. In fact, the biggest loss to the U.S. economy probably is that so many smart people went to work on Wall Street instead of Main Street.
But that's not the whole story.
The failure was not that so many smart people went to Wall Street but that too many of them didn't ask enough smart questions. It sort of goes back to Warren Buffett, who doesn't invest in things he doesn't understand. That seems like pretty good advice.
Credit default swaps are not hard to understand. But if you're the head of Lehman Bros. and you have $600 billion in assets at stake, you certainly better start asking questions about investment models that purportedly can't lose.
And, if you don't understand the answers -- and don't care that you don't understand -- then the problem isn't too many smart people on Wall Street but too many dumb ones.
Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!