Tag Archives: metaphysics of markets

What are financial derivatives?

A simple, textbook definition of financial derivatives will typically resemble the following:

A derivative is a financial contract, asset or instrument that derives its value from another underlying security.

Typically, derivatives are treated as distinct instruments within financial institutions. Historically, banks have tended to have ‘derivatives desks’ and specialist ‘derivatives traders’.
However, in The Metaphysics of Markets, I question whether this straightforward definition is adequate and likewise whether the segregation of ‘derivatives’ as an asset or security class is appropriate. This is because the fundamental nature of derivatives contracts can be hard to pin down. After all, what about well known cases of futures markets ‘driving’ spot markets? Does this make the relevant underlying contract derivative?
My suspicion is that derivatives instruments are generally misclassified. A better approach is to realise that derivativeness is a property or attribute rather than a class in its own right. And whilst certain commonly-perceived to be derivative instruments such as options contracts exhibit a great deal of derivativeness, this is not the same is simply classing them as derivative instruments simpliciter.
Why does this apparently subtle difference in interpretation matter? It matters because derivatives as currently conceived are thought to be separable. It is thought that derivatives can neatly be isolated in terms of their risk and character and even in terms of their users. But this could well be a false impression. If derivativeness is thought of as a property that many assets can exhibit, this is more than just a change to our current perception. It has profound implications with respect to regulation and risk management for instance.
Derivatives instruments (although this term is formally question-begging in any enquiry into the nature of derivatives) are generally thought to be well defined and understood. However, to my mind, the elementary definition of derivatives that is commonly accepted, is insufficient. This means comprehension of derivatives and their impact is based on a false proposition from the outset. And this is never an optimal starting point.

Read more and buy the book…
The Metaphysics of Markets

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Financial markets

On the disquieting absence of the philosophy of finance

In my first book, The Metaphysics of Markets, I argue that finance as we understand it has no philosophical underpinning. But what does this mean exactly? And why should it matter?
Almost any subject studied professionally or academically today has a ‘branch’ dedicated to the ‘philosophy’ of that subject. This branch asks reflexive and abstract questions about the nature of the subject. So for example, the philosophy of mathematics, concerns itself with questions relating to how mathematics ought to be studied, the extent of what can be known about mathematics, and of what mathematical concepts consist. The philosophy of law (jurisprudence) asks what is meant by law and justice and how the judiciary ought to operate.
Such questions can seem remote and intangible. They can seem not to matter pragmatically, as we muddle on regardless of whether or not these issues have been settled. And yet, as soon as our regular or prosaic way of dealing with certain unusual situations seems inadequate, very swiftly we proceed with retort to these fundamentals.
The recent financial crisis has been just one such occasion. Seeing a near melt-down of financial institutions and markets, it is natural to expect discourse to turn towards the fundamentals. However, there is very little in the way of substantial research in this field. In consequence, we see politicians and commentators resorting to mere name-calling (‘greedy bankers’,’reckless speculators’). We see ad hoc solutions to the on-going problems; liquidity provision here, bonus capping or super-taxing there. In short, an amateurish response to a global crisis. And this response is necessarily inadequate given that our understanding of finance and the financial markets is so shallow. The philosophy of finance simply hasn’t been given proper consideration.
In The Metaphysics of Markets I offer an explanation of why, historically, this gap in our understanding exists. Briefly, it is a result of the direction taken by economists and their descendants, finance theorists. This path has been to over-emphasize pseudo-scientific methods and mathematical modelling. Finance theorists have played at mathematicians, forgetting they are to be found in Humanities faculties.
I suggest that finance theorists, regulators and financial market participants should give thought to matters that underlie their subject, as have other thinkers in other fields. It is time to consider what exists in the financial markets, instead of assuming that this is known. It must be asked whether the markets have a purpose other than that currently presumed. It must be asked what can be known of the markets. Is there an ethical basis to the markets or is the Friedmanite concept of a value-free corporate structure the right answer? I offer several possible answers to these questions as well as outline many of the other branches that the philosophy of finance ought to encompass. It is a matter I consider of grave and pressing importance if we are to understand and deal with financial crises which, modern history suggests, will continue to occur only too readily.

Read more and buy the book…
The Metaphysics of Markets

Leave a comment

Filed under Financial markets