March 15, 2011
A very last minute notification of an event tomorrow at Goldsmiths which might interest some readers of this blog:
A presentation by Professor Franck Cochoy
CERTOP, University of Toulouse
‘The curious marketing fate of human curiosity: Technologizing consumers’ inner states to build market attachments’
Wednesday March 16th, 4-6pm
Goldsmiths, University of London
Richard Hoggart Building, Room 308
STS has done a terrific job in exploring the sociology of technical devices, but in so doing it has somewhat tended to neglect the properties of human subjects. I would like to suggest a more symmetrical analytical approach, by focusing on some market dynamics that bring “devices” and “dispositions” together. More precisely, I would like to focus on a particular disposition – curiosity – and the technologies market professionals have developed as a means to seduce consumers. The idea is that, more than any other disposition, focusing on curiosity can help in understanding how market professionals and technologies, in playing on human subjects’ inner states, may reinvent their very identity and behavioral logic. I will show that from Genesis to the curiosity cabinets of the 15th-18th centuries, to modern shop windows and the “teasing” strategies of today’s advertising, seducers and merchants have constantly built “curiosity devices”, that have helped ordinary persons to become curious and/or to become consumers. In the process, they have freed themselves from previous action schemes – routine and tradition for example –, as well as coming to behave in patterns very different from those understood according to the more familiar logics of interest and calculation. The contemporary commercial game introduces a real market of consumer drives, where “Blue Beard’s curiosity” ends up facing a real “rainbow market” of competing dispositions.
Organised by the Department of Sociology, Goldsmith University of London
Free. No registration required.
Many contributors to this site have an interest in using the methods and concepts of what has been called the ‘economization’ approach to studying markets (myself included). And have come in for criticism from some quarters for doing so. But in the effort to defend themselves against competing approaches, is insufficient attention being paid to the blindspots of their own academic practice? This is the question I ask in the following provocation. This was originally written for other purposes but, following Daniel’s suggestion, is reproduced here. Above all, it is intended as a prompt for debate. Daniel and I—and I hope others—will be interested in any and all responses.
The Actor-Network Theory influenced ‘economization’ programme as it has been recently termed, has gained much traction by providing an account for of how and under what conditions objects become mediators for—and agents in—the operations of markets. At the same time, work within the related field of the social studies of finance has come in for considerable criticism—particularly from political economists and ‘new’ economic sociologists—for focusing too closely on devices and technologies, with accounts centring around highly particular cases. The debate has, however, often been framed in oppositional terms: as around where to ‘start’. Put simply, this tends to mean opposing a case for starting with the work of following markets with its particular objects/practices/technologies against starting with the (macro) politics that underpin them. But does the construction of this kind of binary obscure some real issues which this ANT-inspired work needs to address? For instance, irrespective of the critique from political economy, is there a tendency within this branch of economic sociology to over-focus on the technical composition of markets, to the exclusion of the voices and (politics implied by the) participation of human actors? It is noticeable that these ANT-influenced studies appear selective about where they choose to trace markets—there is, it seems, a bias in its selection of empirical sites, tending favour organisations, firms and the world of finance, over and above, for instance, domestic spaces and/or spaces of consumption. With these (overly briefly) sketched elisions in mind, is it time, therefore, for economization type approaches to stop worrying (as much) about the critique of political economists and pay more attention to tracing the politics of their own academic practice?
January 22, 2011
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) recently published a headline article titled “Hedge Funds’ Pack Behaviors Magnifies Market Swings”. While it is not unusual to see the WSJ write on hedge funds and market swings, this article is unusual because it emphasizes the social ties linking investors. It reflects a sea change in the way that the public and the media view financial markets – and an opportunity for the social studies of finance (SSF) to reach a broader audience.
For the past decade, the quant metaphor has dominated public perceptions of financial markets. Institutional investors – particularly hedge funds – were seen as “quants” that used sophisticated computer models to analyze market trends. This idea went hand-in-hand with the view that markets were efficient – fueled by reliable, public data, proceed through sophisticated, rational algorithms, and powered by intelligent computer systems instead of mistake-prone humans.
Of course, the recent financial crisis has dislodged such beliefs. Instead of mathematical geniuses finding hidden patterns in public data, quants were revealed as Wizards of Oz – mere human beings capable of making mistakes. Their tools – computerized systems – went from being the enforcers of an efficient market to a worrying source of market instability. As stories about flash trading and inexplicable volatility popped up, the public even began to ask whether the quants were trying to defraud the public.
If institutional investors are mere humans instead of quantitative demigods, shouldn’t they also act like humans? And – shouldn’t their social natures affect the way they make investment decisions? The mainstream media is finally confronting such questions – which SSF has long raised. This particular WSJ article parallels a widely-circulated working paper by Jan Simon, Yuval Millo and their collaborators, as well as my own work under review at ASR.
The world is finally catching up with SSF. Will we finally be heard? It is our responsibility to reach out to the public and the media.
September 26, 2010
Many readers of this blog may have already come across a fascinating story in August from the Atlantic about mysterious high-frequency trading behavior. I missed it the first time around, on account of ASA perhaps, but recently found it: Market Data Firm Spots the Tracks of Bizarre Robot Traders. If the title alone didn’t make you want to read this story, I don’t know what could. Bizarre Robot Traders? I’m sold!
The story describes a tremendous number of nonsense bids – bids that are far below or above the current market price, and thus will never be filled – made at incredible speed in a regular, and quite pretty, patterns:
Are these noise trades an attempt to gain a tiny speed advantage?
Donovan thinks that the odd algorithms are just a way of introducing noise into the works. Other firms have to deal with that noise, but the originating entity can easily filter it out because they know what they did. Perhaps that gives them an advantage of some milliseconds. In the highly competitive and fast HFT world, where even one’s physical proximity to a stock exchange matters, market players could be looking for any advantage.
Or are they trial runs for a denial of service attack?
But already since the May event, Nanex’s monitoring turned up another potentially disastrous situation. On July 16 in a quiet hour before the market opened, suddenly they saw a huge spike in bandwidth. When they looked at the data, they found that 84,000 quotes for each of 300 stocks had been made in under 20 seconds.
“This all happened pre-market when volume is low, but if this kind of burst had come in at a time when we were getting hit hardest, I guarantee it would have caused delays in the [central quotation system],” Donovan said. That, in turn, could have become one of those dominoes that always seem to present themselves whenever there is a catastrophic failure of a complex system.
I certainly don’t know – do any of you? Either way, this story (“Bizarre Robot Traders!”) makes me feel like finance has finally entered into the science fiction future I was promised in my childhood.
July 18, 2010
Ratings and rankings have received considerable attention here at Socializing Finance, whether it be in the FICO score or in bond ratings that read like some cumulative grade point average (AAA, AA+ AA, AA-, A+, A, A-, BBB+, BBB, B, and so on). In this post, I want to examine a phenomenon that takes ratings and rankings to their logical absurdity – the proliferation of Top 10 lists. The object is frivolous; but the growth of consumer ratings is not. They offer a wealth of data on the practice of valuation – an alternative metric for assessing what’s valuable.
As a Google search will quickly reveal, there are Top 10 lists of everything, including the Top 10 stupidest Top 10 lists. Entire sites are devoted to the genre: TopTenz.net, for example, has thousands of lists organized according to 15 categories, with drop-down menus revealing dozens of subcategories. (But there’s room for more: I was disappointed when I searched the site and didn’t find a Top 10 list of quotes from the Yankee philosopher Yogi Berra.)
Although it has a long pedigree – think of Moses’ list of the Top Ten prohibitions – in its current form the genre probably found its impetus in the 1950s when the standard jukebox held 40 singles. Out of this emerged Top 40 radio programming with the notion of a Top 40 list, later refined in the 1970s in the cloying voice of Casey Kasem’s weekly countdown, defining what would be played on popular music radio – with lucrative results for the major record labels. David Letterman’s nightly Top 10 lists echo Kasem’s countdown, even as his deadpan reading mocks the very project of the genre.
Top 10 lists are frivolous; yet their very ubiquity invites a moment of reflection. Taking them (not too) seriously, requires understanding the humorous component of the genre. Parody is most effective when it gets under our skin to jab at a social practice in which we are complicit. Who has not resulted to a favorite critic’s list of the Top 10 best movies of the past year when one couldn’t decide on a film to rent? Or never taken into account a wine’s ratings when choosing a bottle to take to a dinner party? Or consulted an online guide of users’ ratings when choosing a hotel, restaurant, vacation package, software program, or new electronic gadget? Which is the PhD applicant, dean, or department chair who never perused the rankings of graduate programs?
And so we laugh because we laugh at our partial dependence on lists of ratings and rankings to navigate the uncertainties of finding what’s valuable in the overly abundant world of consumer choices.
We laugh also because, when the humorous genre works best, it does so by exposing a mixture of assessment criteria so ad hoc and absurd as to defy all rhyme or reason in the selection principle whereby any element on the list was “ranked” as higher or lower than any other. Such ironic lists thus evoke an unsettling sense that many of the rankings and ratings that we (along with our deans, our creditors, and our regulatory agencies) use are organized on an ordinal scale but were cobbled together from disparate and incommensurable principles of evaluation.
Most Top Ten lists, however, are not ironic. What is immediately striking is how many are deadly earnest. John Dewey is insightful at this juncture. In his Theory of Valuation (University of Chicago Press,1939), Dewey distiguishes appraisal and prizing:
The double meaning is significant because there is implicit in it one of the basic issues regarding valuation. For in prizing, emphasis falls upon something having definite personal reference, which, like all activities of distinctively personal reference, has an aspectual quality called emotional.
Prizing, Dewey notes, has an emotional quality with a definite personal reference. This is exactly what one sees in the emphatically non-ironic and non-expert Top Ten lists that are awash on social networking sites. “If expert critics and juries can award prizes, so can I,” they seem to exclaim. Here’s my list, the objects I prize, and the reasons for this decidedly personal attachment.
Dewey then goes on to contrast the affectual moment of prizing with the intellectual moment characteristic of appraisal:
Valuation as appraisal, however, is primarily concerned with a relational property of objects so that an intellectual aspect is uppermost of the same general sort that is found in ‘estimate’ as distinguished from the personal-emotional word ‘esteem.’ That the same verb is employed in both senses suggests the problem upon which schools are divided in the present time. Which of the two references is basic in its implications? Are the two activities separate or are they complementary?
The move is typical of Dewey. Just when we think we have grasped the analytic separation of the emotional and the intellectual – as with the too-quick parsing of means and ends – he invites us to wonder “are they separate or are they complimentary?”
Dewey’s query is a fruitful insight for the sociological investigation of what’s valuable. On-line ratings and rankings by consumers now provide new sources of data on prizing and appraising – new means to register value judgments in the economy. Personal Top Ten lists are but the tip of the iceberg of a vast digital repository, much of it time-stamped data. Whereas economists have long had time sensitive data on price movements, we now (or will soon) have alternative (not separate but complimentary) data bases on the movements of prizing and appraising that register consumer attachments. These “valuemeters” will need new measures and metrics (Latour and Lepinay 2009: 16). They can be quantified, but these metrics of personal value judgments need not be expressed in terms of money. In fact, we will need to avoid the quick temptation to assess how prizing and appraising translate to pricing. That is the work for corporate (and start up) research departments. The task for economic sociology (and for the field of critical accounting) will be to develop new metrics of what’s valuable (the prizings and appraisings that give us access to value judgments) – valuable precisely because they are metrics that are alternatives to prices.
May 29, 2010
Every week starting today, Socializing Finance will post a couple of SSF-readable / related links. This week’s choice is a classical SSF theme, “humans and machines”.
“Settlement Day“: reading the future through the development of GSNET. A parody of the ‘rise of the machines’ starring algorithms (among others).
“Trading Desk”: If you ever wanted to know how traders use their keyboards in order to release daily tensions at work, this link is for you.
“Me and my Machine“: Automated Trader’s freaky section. This is Geek’s stuff.
“Nerds on Wall Street“: A recent (2009) reference with interesting information on algo trading and the development of automated markets.