Stuart_Armstrong comments on Consequences of arbitrage: expected cash - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 13 November 2009 10:32AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (27)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 13 November 2009 06:19:12PM *  0 points [-]

You can' t even trade these evenly on the world market, and if they're not tradeable options then most people would be silly to take the latter.

And when they do become tradable, must people suddenly then change their preferences? (The arbitrage argument for Independence, I feel, is as weak and as strong as the arbitrage argument for a utility linear in money)

Now if I wanted to do that exact bet, a bank would put it together for me - with a hefty premium because it's an unusual one (maybe UK bookies would give me a better bet). This exact option is only rare because people don't want to admit that playing the stock market is similar to playing the lottery. If I transformed the bet into something similar, except phrased in terms of hedged commodities future, then you would easily be able buy and sell it, and its price would be around ¥10 000.

For it is easy to show that if those 50% lottery were generally traded, they would have to cost ¥10 000. First, take the lottery as above, along with a similar lottery that pays out ¥20 000 only if the first lottery pays nothing.

Together, these two lotteries are worth a certain ¥20 000. Yet the two lotteries are identical individually, so the Law of one price implies they have the same price - which must then be ¥10 000.

Charging higher prices for low variance is one of the ways banks pump money from the suckers.

Comment author: CronoDAS 13 November 2009 09:04:56PM 1 point [-]

And casinos charge for high variance.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 14 November 2009 08:06:51PM 0 points [-]

Indeed. Ultimately, we might prefer high or low variance, but on proper financial markets, the cost of increasing or decreasing variance is negligeable.