How much trust should risk managers place on “Brownian motions” of financial markets?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the recent global economic downturn. Particularly, the study explores the utilization of the concept of Brownian motion in financial risk management in organizations in the USA. Design/methodology/approach The three assumptions, namely, independence, stationarity, and normal distribution that underlie the concept of Brownian motion are examined. Findings It is concluded that the widely used risk management strategies predicated on Brownian motion fail to provide a rational understanding of financial turmoil. Consequently, prescriptive insights are offered to aid the industry in developing an apposite mechanism for risk management. Research limitations/implications This paper offers new and improved risk management strategies that need to be undertaken to augment our understanding and prediction of financial scenarios. Practical implications The paper is useful for managers in all financial organizations, which employ computer models using Brownian motions. Specifically, this study contends that static models are unsuitable and dynamic models are more useful for risk assessment. Originality/value The paper reveals the weaknesses of the key assumptions of the risk management models used in financial organizations, namely, normal distribution of stock market price fluctuations, statistical stationarity, and efficient market assumption. Valuable guidelines are provided for financial managers who either do not have the inclination or time to sift through the voluminous literature related to the risk management models and computer software designed on these models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".