How Fractals Can Explain What's Wrong with Wall Street

The geometry that describes the shape of coastlines and the patterns of galaxies also elucidates how stock prices soar and plummet















Share on Tumblr

On a practical level, this finding suggests that a fractal generator can be developed based on historical market data. The actual model used does not simply inspect what the market did yesterday or last week. It is in fact a more realistic depiction of market fluctuations, called fractional Brownian motion in multifractal trading time. The charts created from the generators produced by this model can simulate alternative scenarios based on previous market activity.

These techniques do not come closer to forecasting a price drop or rise on a specific day on the basis of past records. But they provide estimates of the probability of what the market might do and allow one to prepare for inevitable sea changes. The new modeling techniques are designed to cast a light of order into the seemingly impenetrable thicket of the financial markets. They also recognize the mariner’s warning that, as recent events demonstrate, deserves to be heeded: On even the calmest sea, a gale may be just over the horizon.



ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

BENOIT B. MANDELBROT has contributed to numerous fields of science and art. A mathematician by training, he has served since 1987 as Abraham Robinson Professor of Mathematical Sciences at Yale University and IBM Fellow Emeritus (Physics) at the Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, N.Y., where he worked from 1958 to 1993. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and foreign associate of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Norwegian Academy. His awards include the 1993 Wolf Prize for physics, the Barnard, Franklin and Steinmetz medals, and the Science for Art, Harvey, Humboldt and Honda prizes.


28 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. gjbloom 07:21 PM 9/15/08

    Many of the illustration links are broken.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. waltond 08:13 PM 9/16/08

    This article is completely useless: the random nature of stock markets has been recognized for some time, and a fractal description provides no useful information.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. Kaleberg 10:08 PM 9/16/08

    The article is far from useless. Randomness does not imply a lack of structure. The modern portfolio analysis software for valuing derivatives assumes a normal distribution of portfolio motion. That is, changes tend to be small, and large changes are increasing infrequent with a rapidly falling percentage. Mandelbrot is arguing in this article that this assumption is wrong. The appropriate statistics should be fractal statistics in which large moves are much more likely to interrupt long stretches of smaller movements. In other words, the pricing models are bogus, and in light of current events, this seems to be true. (No, this article does not tell you how to beat the market, just how to evaluate certain pricing strategies.)

    Internet traffic also has fractal statistics which can lead to serious bursts of traffic and make it hard to build enough capacity to manage peak traffic. Telephone systems were designed using what are called Erlang statistics which are smoother. These were used in the early days of network design, and this led to lots of slow downs and sometimes router crashes. More modern models provide for better performance using better statistics.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. waltond 09:33 AM 9/17/08

    Statistics are useful in a predictive capacity: for instance the statistical mechanics of gas molecules allow us to predict the response of gases to changes in temperature and pressure. The statistics of chaotic systems can lead to the identification of attractors, leading to an assessment of the probability that the system will have a particular value (although it will not tell you WHEN that value will occur). Fractals do not help in any sense to predict the likelihood of market behaviour, on the other hand studies of social phenomena that lead to flocking in birds show promise.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. igor schagaev 09:39 AM 9/17/08

    it is shame that sciam started to publish this kind of articles. are edtors lost good sense of science?



    the power of every theory is in its prediction and our ability to act on this prediction.

    i. schagaev

    or is is deliberate misleading?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  6. 6. blindjustis 09:43 AM 9/17/08

    I wonder about fractal models. It seems to me that all they tell us, is that we can take a complex phenomenon and approximately compress it. Does the compressed representation tell us anything much about the original?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. johnb9990 09:49 AM 9/17/08

    We have criminals in charge and they ran a pyramid scam on the American people disguised as a real estate "boom". You don't need a complicated mathematical model to predict how a pyramid scam will end, unless you're stupid.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  8. 8. igor schagaev in reply to blindjustis 09:51 AM 9/17/08

    exactly! thanks for this. i am bit tired from pseudo-scientific papers....

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  9. 9. jcac45 01:05 PM 9/17/08

    I suggest you look into Elliott Wave Analysis, and remember to factor in 1) expectation, 2) mass human psychology, and 3) perhaps part of 1 & 2, greed.
    Jim C. La Mesa, Calif.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  10. 10. julesruis 01:15 PM 9/17/08

    For more and better information abour fractals please have a look at http://www.fractal.org

    Jules Ruis.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  11. 11. rajarambojji 01:44 PM 9/17/08

    Failure of regulators to control runaway behavior of a few smart guys playing with the market using too many layers of derivatives to camouflage and present a complex financial structure building up mythical pyramids of wealth - ended in the individual players making tons of money. Why no one questions the regulators? The solution again is to make the tax payer pay for the failure of the regulators whom also the tax payer funded. Well, knowingly a magical feel-good- feeling was allowed to prevail without sound financial diligence checks and the entire financial world on the planet are now questioning the maturity of managing markets in USA, the largest economy built by sheer hard work over decades by people believing in simple values of following ethics in business. Fraudsters are getting rewarded now.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  12. 12. northsheep 01:57 PM 9/17/08

    None of the illustration links work on this article, and even moving from one page to the next sometimes draws a blank. For a magazine about science, your web design seems embarrassingly lacking in technical quality. And my computer is not at fault - it accesses stuff faultlessly on more technically comples sites.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  13. 13. philgrimm 04:24 PM 9/17/08

    This article does not explain price fluctuations, it describes them

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  14. 14. rajarambojji in reply to philgrimm 11:26 PM 9/17/08

    Most of our scientific knowledge fail to explain the why part-but only try to describe and fail rigorous test of cause and effect relation ships. Surprisingly logic has the fallacy described as post hoc ergo propter hoc which roughly means after this, therefore because of this...But all our knowledge if you introspect deeply, falls under this category. Trends can be foreseen but not spikes and timing. But what can be monitored is the ethical governance which is within human control, and which when we over look on a massive scale, can result in the current stock market melt down. Instead of describing the symptoms accurately with mathematical models, if we look for underlying driving forces and how the initial innocent belief that market forces will work in unbiased manner FAIRLY, is not proven sound and we do need HONEST regulation, not human based but may be digitally enforced ruthlessly, all will be better off. Interestingly if you mandate a group of us to lay down a process, we all do it very well but when one or two of us are asked to implement the same, discretion and human weaknesses allow the process to be compromised initially as one time exception and then the precedence slowly opens the flood gates of vitiating the process totally! Entropy is real in human ethical behavior while once we accept the process to be implemented by un-emotional silicon chips, this danger is eliminated. Yes some will crib that creativity will be stunted. But we observe that creativity is always viewed with suspicion in all other human endeavors except financial world, unless proven beyond doubts by the society, to protect itself. Society hence must now learn to restrict the over zealous and daily creativity obsessed boys walking out of our business schools through electronically enforced ethical practices. Human regulators fail for obvious reasons. No amount of covering tracks explaining away by mathematical models based on different assumptions can replace simple observance of basic value based systems and enforcement in the markets for balanced and sustainable growth. Else this bleeding periodically appears the only way to correct our thinking and after sometime we go back to our old ways till next bleeding session.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  15. 15. sciamrox 01:50 PM 9/18/08

    might as well just write off the market's volatility to brownian motion. or perhaps just that bad news travels WAY faster than good news and the slightest hint of bad news sends investors heading for the SELL in a huge hurry.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  16. 16. sciamrox 01:57 PM 9/18/08

    perhaps greenspan's presence in the fed was better for the markets. when financial sector businesses like lehman are dropping like flies, something is clearly wrong with regulators' enforcement and governmental fiscal policy. please explain to me how we fit that into mathematical fractal equations of any kind.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  17. 17. tomget in reply to johnb9990 06:06 PM 9/18/08

    well said!!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  18. 18. tomget in reply to johnb9990 06:08 PM 9/18/08

    well said
    Tom, Yountville, Calif

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  19. 19. Quantum_flux 01:00 PM 9/21/08

    Well, fractals explain many things in nature. It's time staticians start using imaginary numbers in their prediction models.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  20. 20. Quantum_flux 01:02 PM 9/21/08

    What are the odds of a company succeeding vs. a company going bankrupt anyhow?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  21. 21. EconomistsAreNotDummies 11:50 PM 12/19/08

    Why do people always set up ridiculous "straw men" about economics and then, surprise surprise, tear them down ? Why do they make preposterous claims about what economists believe, insulting the intelligence of many serious scholars ? If Mandelbrot were onto something he wouldn't be publishing in Scientific American, sorry.

    With the end of the George W Bush era, hubris is going out of style. Get with it Mandelbrot.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  22. 22. EconomistsAreNotDummies 11:57 PM 12/19/08

    Oh yeah, the financial crisis is evidence market participants took excessive social risks for personal profit, at no personal risk. Not necessarily evidence the models are fundamentally flawed.

    When Mandelbrot says something like "statisticians don't like invariants," I wonder if he took a random sample of statisticians to find that out.

    Mandelbrot kind of reminds me of the "fuzzy math" guy who has a big chip on his shoulder that the academic community doesn't think he has a very deep result and should garner more respect.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  23. 23. Artu 10:00 AM 1/16/09

    Enjoyable, nicely written. In fact it iselequentely written.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  24. 24. statcat in reply to gjbloom 03:42 PM 3/27/09

    I believe that the links to Illustrations 3 and 4 are, indeed, the same as to Illustration 2, just further down the page.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  25. 25. statcat in reply to waltond 03:47 PM 3/27/09

    I agree with Kaleberg. I used to be involved with statistical analysis of bond portfolios. We would run 200 random-walk scenarios based on the log-normal distribution. After reading this article back in 1999, we discussed trying fractals, but we did not have the software support to accomplish it.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  26. 26. pushnkin in reply to igor schagaev 08:24 AM 7/23/09

    Igor, you said prediction??

    this is one of the thing not possible for human being.

    trying to predict financial markets is sure the wrong way to go

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  27. 27. pushnkin in reply to igor schagaev 08:24 AM 7/23/09

    prediction ??

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  28. 28. elizawinters 02:03 PM 9/14/12

    I am amazed at how much the economy continues to struggle. I think this could be why <a href="http://burtonwrightresidential.org">new life services</a> are becoming so successful. People need a new start and need it now.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital

Latest from SA Blog Network

  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

How Fractals Can Explain What's Wrong with Wall Street

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X