Research Habits in Financial Modelling: The Case of Non-normativity of Market Returns in the 1970s and the 1980s

In Emiliano Ippoliti & Ping Chen (eds.), Methods and Finance: A Unifying View on Finance, Mathematics, and Philosophy. Cham: Springer. pp. 73-93 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In this chapter, one considers finance at its very foundations, namely, at the place where assumptions are being made about the ways to measure the two key ingredients of finance: risk and return. It is well known that returns for a large class of assets display a number of stylized facts that cannot be squared with the traditional views of 1960s financial economics (normality and continuity assumptions, i.e. Brownian representation of market dynamics). Despite the empirical counterevidence, normality and continuity assumptions were part and parcel of financial theory and practice, embedded in all financial practices and beliefs. Our aim is to build on this puzzle for extracting some clues revealing the use of one research strategy in academic community, model tinkering defined as a particular research habit. We choose to focus on one specific moment of the scientific controversies in academic finance: the ‘leptokurtic crisis’ opened by Mandelbrot in 1962. The profoundness of the crisis came from the angle of the Mandelbrot’s attack: not only he emphasized an empirical inadequacy of the Brownian representation, but also he argued for an inadequate grounding of this representation. We give some insights in this crisis and display the model tinkering strategies of the financial academic community in the 1970s and the 1980s.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
DEBRHI-2
Upload history
Archival date: 2018-03-29
View other versions
Added to PP index
2018-03-29

Total views
96 ( #36,635 of 53,765 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #50,169 of 53,765 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.