Posted by Kenneth Anderson:
Peter Bernstein, Risk-Management Pioneer, Passes Away at 90
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_06_07-2009_06_13.shtml#1244919078


   I report with sorrow that Peter L. Bernstein, all of whose books I
   have on my shelf, has passed away at the age of 90. The [1]WSJ has a
   lovely obituary by Jason Zweig today.

     Investing has yielded a few stars so famous they are known by first
     name. Warren Buffett is one. Peter L. Bernstein -- the economist,
     investment consultant and prolific author who died on June 5 at 90
     -- was another ....

     In his almost 70-year career, he taught economics at Williams
     College, worked as a portfolio manager at Amalgamated Bank and ran
     the investment-counseling firm of Bernstein-Macaulay, co-founded by
     his father and Frederick Macaulay, who invented the modern
     discipline of bond investing.

     In 1974, as Wall Street was suffering its worst market decline
     since 1929, Mr. Bernstein co-founded the Journal of Portfolio
     Management to improve risk management with insights from academic
     research.

     His introduction to the maiden issue reads as if it were written
     yesterday: "How could so many have failed to see that all the known
     parameters were bursting apart?...It was precisely our massive
     inputs and intimate intercommunication that made it impossible for
     most of us to get to the exits before it was too late."

     He was the author of 10 books, five of which he published after the
     age of 75. Two of them, "Capital Ideas," a history of modern
     finance, and "Against the Gods," a dazzling survey of probability
     and risk, were international best sellers. With his wife and
     business partner, Barbara Soskin Bernstein, Mr. Bernstein also
     published "Economics & Portfolio Strategy," a biweekly newsletter.

   Bernstein was one of those gifted finance economists who effortlessly
   bridged the divides of Wall Street, government service at the Fed, the
   academy - but was best known to the broader reading public as the
   author of several wonderful books on risk and finance. And note, five
   of the ten books that Bernstein authored were written after he was 75;
   I have always taken a certain comfort in that. While it is true that
   many of today's leading economists also bridge those divides,
   Bernstein was part of an older generation that was primarily rooted in
   the practice of finance on Wall Street first, and the academy only
   second - in today's world, it is typically the other way around, and
   the backing of theory onto Wall Street rather than practice into the
   academy is not always a happy endeavor, at least for investors, as we
   found to our sorrow in the LTCM debacle.

   Of Bernstein's books, the one that has always remained highest on my
   list is his intellectual history of the idea of risk and its
   measurement, Against the Gods. I reviewed that book in the Times
   Literary Supplement when it first came out - having convinced the
   then-editor, Ferdinand Mount, that this was more than just a business
   advice book, but genuine intellectual history. (I combined the review
   with a technical book on derivatives (I began life as a tax lawyer
   doing the first wave of derivatives) by the editor of the trade
   journal, Risk, on the double edged sword we call 'leverage', and it is
   one of those book reviews that has stood up pretty well over the past
   dozen years, still readable and still relevant; I've posted [2]the
   review at SSRN.

   Bernstein possessed a certain practical sense of someone who was
   extremely sophisticated and quantitatively adept, having a healthy
   respect for what risk analysis can do, and an even healthier respect
   for what it can't. In that, he was part of a generation of older Wall
   Street financial analysts who, whatever their politics and policy
   commitments, shared a common culture that embraced quantitative risk
   analysis while remaining apart from a belief that it can predict the
   future. George Soros and Henry Kaufman are others of that generation
   and that inclination. I recall a conversation with George Soros, in
   Moscow no less, at the time of the LTCM meltdown in the late 1990s, in
   which he said - I paraphrase, but not by much: "Every ten years the
   quants come up with a new version of the old thing, and then it breaks
   down and causes a panic; afterwards everyone can see so obviously why
   it went wrong, but that doesn't stop another version of it a decade
   later." Why a decade? Because that's "how long it takes for the
   important players to forget what happened the previous time around."
   And regarding the LTCM breakdown, Soros shrugged and said to me later,
   once what had happened at LTCM was better known - "Even you, Ken,
   dealing with the foundation's affairs in Russia, would never have
   thought the possibility of Russian default on its sovereign bonds was
   effectively zero."

   These were sentiments Bernstein surely shared. And yet Bernstein
   embraced and had an enormous intellectual interest in the currents of
   risk analysis and management that began sweeping the world in the
   1970s - his books Capital Ideas and Capital Ideas Evolving spoke to
   that deep interest.

   Here are two things that I took away from reading Peter Bernstein's
   gifted output over several decades; my formulations and views, of
   course, but I don't think he would have much disagreed:

   First, much of finance consists of seeking to convert uncertainty into
   risk. Second, however, the nature of that conversion means that much
   of finance consists of trying to find a way to do exactly what mutual
   fund advertisements in the fine print say you shouldn't do, viz,
   predict future returns on the basis of past performance.

   Somewhere in Against the Gods, Bernstein remarks that while 'reversion
   to the mean' is a powerful heuristic, it is not in fact a causal law
   of nature, and it cannot tell you when underlying causes have shifted
   so to cause a long term shift in the mean. Anyone think that
   observation is any less relevant today than in 1997?

References

   1. 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124486041357112031.html#mod=article-outset-box
   2. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902514

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to