Although the title is "Bayesian financial models", this article describes no Bayesian financial models. It gives an example of Bayes' theorem in action (the usual medical "probability of false positive" one), and then gives another toy example in which the events we're looking at are labelled "happy/sad market sentiment" and "stock price increase/decrease" -- and that's it.
I guess this is part of a series on probability or quantitative analysis or something[1], and there will be more contentful stuff later in the series, but I don't see how anyone's going to learn very much from this one.
[1] Looking at other articles on the site, it looks like they're all about quantitative analysis. They all have rather the same character as this one: they introduce some notion (binary options, "Greeks" (first partial derivatives of derivative price w.r.t. various things), etc.), they state some definitions and maybe give a toy example or a couple of formulae, and then they stop.
I assume the toddmoses who posted the link to HN is also the Todd Moses who wrote the article. Todd, if you're reading this, would you like to say a few words about the intended future direction of your articles? Is the idea that they will form a kind of informal course on the elements of quantitative analysis? Will they be getting "deeper" than the ones so far, or are you intending that they will all be basically giving some definitions and a few words of explanation?
I am troubled by the mammogram analysis. These sorts of health care examples (mammograms, AIDs testing, etc.) are often used to explain Baysian statistics and obviously make an interesting point. But as someone below points out, these tools are meant to be used in situations where we have incomplete information. We have direct experimental evidence of the accuracy of a positive mammogram in predicting cancer, and the accuracy is far, far higher than 7.8% From direct studies of patients who get positives, it looks like about 80% of them actually have breast cancer. See, for exmaple, http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-s...
It may be that the author of this article simply go mixed up -- he reports than 1% of the population that 80% of the women who have cancer get positive mammograms, while from what I can see, evidence actually shows that 80% of the women who have positive mammograms have cancer. So the problem with the example might just be a matter of garbage in garbage out.
Mammograms, incidentally, are still controversial, especially doing them on an annual basis, because if you,for example, do a test with 20% false positives 10 times, you're pretty likely to get a false positive in at least one. But that probability is still not 92.2%, which is what the article suggests is the false positive rate for a single mammogram.
But it's disturbing to see statisticians flippantly saying things like, only 7.8% of positive mammograms represent actual cancer, when evidence shows, 80% of positive mammograms represent actual cancer. Survival rates for breast cancer have gone up and most everyone agrees early detection of cancer plays a role. I certainly hope that any woman who reads this article recognizes that, if she has a positive mammogram, the changes are much, much higher than 7.8% that she has cancer.
I've seen the same arguments made about AIDS tests. Why is it that statisticians like to use examples of life threatening illnesses and present a Baysian model that vastly underestimates the effectiveness of tests that could be crucial in saving lives?
On the other hand this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21249649 suggests that for every correct treatment there are 10 mistreatments and 200 initial misdiagnoses.
How could the numbers differ so much from study to study?
I think you're misreading that study. It compares the number of women estimated to have their life prolonged because of a mammogram, to the number of women estimated to have been treated unnecessarily because of a mammogram. The issue with whether mammograms prolong life is different than the issue of whether mammograms accurately predict cancer. Depending what research you look at, other approaches are sometimes seen as just as effective as mammograms. This is very controversial right now among people who do cancer treatment.
The point is, however, the article you cite does not say for every correct treatment there are 10 unneeded treatments; it suggests that for every life saved there may be 10 unneeded treatments. The summary doesn't say what they mean by a life saved. Mammograms find a certain number of cancers. Other diagnostic techniques also find a certain number of cancers. These sets overlap. It may be that the authors consider the number of lives saved by mammograms to be the delta between cancers detected/treated due to mammograms and due to other diagnostic techniques. This seems to me to be a valid issue, but it has nothing to do with how accurate mammograms are in detecting actual cancers, which seems to be 80%. (So, for example, what if other diagnostic techniques have a 70% chance of detecting cancer -- this might lead to the 10 unneeded treatments per one life saved statistic)
The issue I have with the article posted above is that it claims the probability of a woman having cancer after a positive mammogram is 7.8% when actual results show this to be 80%.
I did contact a statistics site that had a similar statement about AIDS tests and their response was, Baysian statistics are correct and they saw no problem with telling people that a positive AIDS test only indicated a very low chance of having AIDS.
Yeah, that's a good point that numbers used in a made-up example might have an effect on what people think about real-world diagnostic tests. The example is probably copied from another web page such as [1]. If you're sure they got it wrong, maybe write to them and get it fixed, or at least add a link to a page about the real tests.
The analogy incorrectly compares a binary outcome (cancer / no cancer) with a continuous variable (stock price returns, which may have skewed magnitudes depending on upside or downside). So while it is nominally correct about the formula for "stocks up" or "stocks down", it does not help for an actual trading situation where "stocks down" could have a negative return mean much larger than the corresponding positive mean return of "stocks up", for example.
Reality is continuous. Human categories--like cancer--only have sharp edges because we draw them with an act of selective attention. The edge of our attention is discontinuous. Nothing else (that doesn't involved quantum mechanics or integer counting of attentionally-isolated objects) is.
"Cancer" is not a simple thing. Two people with "breast cancer" may have very similar or almost completely different diseases. As others here have pointed out, the magnitude and frequency of wins and losses matter even though trades are binary win/lose (which they can be because we've created an entire category of imaginary objects called dollars that can be counted).
Bayes rule is as applicable to any area of significant uncertainty, including win/loss magnitude. It is universal.
seriously though, the example is just a model, and a simple one at that. it's certainly useful to call out where and how the model breaks down, but it's also useful to understand the conditions under which a model performs well. like most models, this one is not designed for black swan events (to which you allude).
also, the author acknowledges your point at the end: "...it is only part of a financial modeling solution" and "one needs ... to learn more through careful experimentation and study". you'd need to include some information about the magnitude of losses and gains, to be sure. i do like that he used a relatable example like sentiment analysis though.
Black-Scholes is pretty flawed in assuming normal distributions, which financial markets don't show. Following power laws or Omega metrics can be informative. The more, the merrier.
That is useless in the real world. Trade loses is inevitably a larger absolute value P&L than trade wins. Trade wins frequency > trade loses frequency. Trade loses size > trade wins size. You need both and the analysis only does the former.
Bayes is about working with incomplete information, you don't need all the data, you just need a slight edge. Just because it's not a complete analysis of all necessary input doesn't make it useless. Beyond that, you can directly control your win and loss size with targets and stops, so they're not necessarily unknown, and you certainly know your win/loss ratio which of course you'd want to plug in, at least for money management reasons, especially if you're using any variant of the Kelly formula for position size.
Trade win:lose ratio > 1 is an elementary mistake in algorithmic backtesting. Not knocking Bayes. Only saying the analysis is incomplete. Cancer/noCancer is not a good analogy.
> Trade win:loss ratio > 1 is an elementary mistake in algorithmic backtesting
Who said anything about that? Perhaps I was unclear, it's not about the ratio, it's about the streaks, you need to understand patterns of your wins and losses as it's critical to applying money management. If you only win 30% of the time, you could still make a killing if you can withstand the losing streaks without much drawdown or if the winners are big enough.
Obviously I agree. My simple point is that the OP is making claims about a binary outcome, which could lead one to infer that stock trading binary up/down outcomes are all that matter.
I really wanted to read this but for some reason it doesn't resize for mobile unfortunately. I'll have to bookmark it. It may also possibly be my phone which is not on its best legs.
I guess this is part of a series on probability or quantitative analysis or something[1], and there will be more contentful stuff later in the series, but I don't see how anyone's going to learn very much from this one.
[1] Looking at other articles on the site, it looks like they're all about quantitative analysis. They all have rather the same character as this one: they introduce some notion (binary options, "Greeks" (first partial derivatives of derivative price w.r.t. various things), etc.), they state some definitions and maybe give a toy example or a couple of formulae, and then they stop.
I assume the toddmoses who posted the link to HN is also the Todd Moses who wrote the article. Todd, if you're reading this, would you like to say a few words about the intended future direction of your articles? Is the idea that they will form a kind of informal course on the elements of quantitative analysis? Will they be getting "deeper" than the ones so far, or are you intending that they will all be basically giving some definitions and a few words of explanation?