Morgan isn’t just a financial planner. It’s a person with a great deal of good sense and a great deal of good data. We do all of this together, and Morgan is what we call a data manager. Morgan is the most important way of getting you to think about your data, which is a good way to start looking at things in a more productive way.
Morgan is a fantastic finance-related person because he is the guy who makes you buy things that make other people’s lives easier. He made me buy a big house and hire a good accountant to help me keep track of my finances since I had no idea what I was doing. When I first started, my accountant did all the work for me.
Morgan is also a great role model for people who want to move to the finance side of the industry. You see, he has a real knack for getting himself to take the time to get to know the people who will make the decisions that affect your life. He’s a wonderful example of the difference between a good manager and a great manager.
We’re in the middle of a game where we’re looking for a good accountant and we’re stuck with our accountant. My accountant is a smart one in that he can figure out the best way to manage my money, and then he takes the advice I give him. The accountant is also the boss of the team, so we don’t have a lot of room to run around with people who don’t like to be bossed around.
That’s Morgan Stanley’s quantitative finance manager, Dan Harris. He’s also a brilliant manager who manages to find and hire the best people in our business. And we all know how that goes. I think Dan has his own philosophy about how we should be running the business. He doesn’t like being bossed around, so he goes out of his way to find people who don’t like to be bossed around. But the more he hires, the more he realizes how amazing his employees are.
The two biggest problems with quantitative finance are that its a science, and it has been shown over and over again to be a highly variable science that is almost impossible to predict. In fact, over and over again over the past 30 years, the scientific consensus has shown that the probability of a given forecast being right has no correlation to the accuracy of the forecast.
This is the same problem that the financial crisis had. Now, the problem is not that the financial system is in trouble, the problem is that the system is in trouble. The system has been under severe stress for quite some time now.
This doesn’t mean that a particular prediction is correct all the time. In fact, the odds that the forecast will be right are directly related to the degree to which the forecast is wrong.
Now, there’s a long track record of financial predictions being wrong. I think it stands to reason that there will be greater and greater degrees of wrongness in the future.
There was a time in the past, yes. I don’t know how long ago, but there was a time when the market was wrong. The day the market crashed was the day the market fell. The crash of 1929 was the crash of 1929. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, there were predictions that the stock market would crash. But, like the last example, the market was only 5% wrong, and a further 8% that the market would be 5% wrong.