|
Peter Bernstein is an elder statesman of finance. He
has served time in the rough-and-tumble world of portfolio management.
He was the first editor of the venerable Journal of Portfolio
Management, and his diverse writings have made him somewhat the
chronicler of twentieth century finance. He is best known for his book
Capital Ideas: The Improbable Origins of Modern Wall Street . It is a
wonderful book that introduces readers to the ideas of modern finance
theory. Many books do the same thing through weighty mathematics.
Bernstein did it with fascinating historical narratives.
A problem with being a bestselling author is the
fact that you have an editor who wants you to do it again and again.
Bernstein, with some coaxing, has published a number of books that have
never matched the brilliance of Capital Ideas. One of these was
Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk . This was Bernstein's history of
risk. Tacitly identifying risk with risk measurement, it was largely a
non-technical history of the development of probability theory. There
are better histories of probability theory, but this didn't matter. Bernstein was a star, and the book sold healthily.
Since then, Bernstein has frequently commented on
risk, and it has been interesting to watch his ideas evolve. It is as if
he first wrote the book on risk and later became an expert. Perhaps the
most telling indication of how far his thinking has come from the
risk-measurement focus of Against the Gods are remarks he made at a CFA
Institute symposium in February 2006:
I am increasingly
concerned with how the risk management business today focuses so
intently on the tools of risk measurement—probability, normal curve,
sampling, regression to the mean, mean-variance. To me, risk management
is not about measurement at all. It is about how we make decisions and
only incidentally about the math we use in making those decisions. If we
stare at just the models and equations, we lose sight of the mystery of
life—we lose sight of the unknown. There would be no such thing as risk
if everything were known. If only a finite number of things could
happen, risk would not exist. Even the most brilliant mathematical
genius will never be able to tell us what the future holds. What
matters in thinking about risk is the quality of the decisions we make
in the face of uncertainty.
I have long held a similar view. In my 2004 paper
Defining Risk, I concluded that it is impossible to define risk. We
speak intuitively of risk, but there is no "true risk." At best, we can
define perceived risk—a far less compelling notion. Risk metrics such as
volatility, delta or value-at-risk, are really metrics of perceived
risk. In my paper, I elaborated
What is risk? How can we
quantify risks that cannot be perceived? If a trader or business manager
has knowledge that is not reflected in a risk metric, does the risk
metric misrepresent risk? In the absence of true risk, these questions
are empty. A more practical question is whether a risk metric is useful.
Used in a given application, will it promote behavior that management
considers desirable?
So why discuss Bernstein now? He has a new book out
called
Capital Ideas Evolving .
This is a follow-up to Capital Ideas. Picking up where the
earlier book leaves off, it focuses on subsequent developments in both
finance theory and practice. Bernstein's new thinking on risk is
front-and-center. Indeed, I now perceive his comments at the 2006
symposium as just a preview.
Glyn A. Holton
See
Peter Bernstein's book
Capital Ideas
See
Peter Bernstein's book
Against the Gods
Read
Glyn Holton's paper
Defining Risk
See
Peter Bernstein's book
Capital Ideas Evolving
|