1.
"it's a shame" – this is about me. looking at 'zero" lecture, I understand, that you still need to first take the `` Mathematical Methods for Quantitative Finance" и надеятся, what a) I will master; b) Cochrane course will be repeated.
nevertheless, the last time I looked in the calculus class in 8-9m (спасибо вам, Svetlana Vladimirovna :)) and this base was enough for all subsequent years. even managed, albeit at the limit, но пройти "economics for scientists" (Caltech, Coursera), turned out to be not economics at all, but a toy in derivatives and integrals with economic logic, sorry, но какого-нибудь 9 class of the Ukrainian school. Nevertheless, on Cochrane already for objective reasons I am missing.
certainly, it is logical – because it was very difficult to keep fit and develop in an absolutely non-applied sphere – I will not say anything about higher education (thanks, what was free time from school, which could be spent on real studies), for Ukrainian realities, naturally, it was all the same it didn't matter, and the period of time turned out to be like this, when the value of quality premises (in the style of & quot; hmm, but the stock market can still fall by 90% '') was incomparable above good technical training. but damn! this is interesting :)
2.
"it's a shame" – in a sense, one could say about Cochrane too :) after week zero with some mathematical nuances for an introduction to the future, week number 1 is in the course – pretty passable. it contains stylized facts about asset price behavior and previews of the general approach to asset pricing. presentation in many ways in the style of Soviet mathematicians – if you don't know what it is about – you will hardly understand the first time. of course, what is this subjectivism, but if I didn't know, who is Cochrane, I would not finish the first set of lectures – chaotic and non-systematic :)
But it's not a problem, take away. each person is closer to something of their own. something else upset me – the essence. все мы знаем, what is the value of the asset = discounted future cash flow. the question is, how to calculate this flow taking into account risk and uncertainty, and how to discount. in this sense, DCF is no different from P =(fEPs)xP / E. Cochrane's formula is absolutely also constructed. Let's leave out the work with cash flow outside the brackets (there is a lot of funny mataparat and, как мне показалось, decent logic), but with a discount … Yes, there are two whole lines of logic, Yes, even loss aversion turns on there. but, there are so many psychological aspects left out of the brackets, that we are not talking about any useful modeling of this discount, Alas.
undoubtedly, we have to choose between realistic and workable model. this choice is somewhat similar to the production possibilities curve, probably – the dependence is inverse when moving along it, but you can think of something better and the whole curve will go to the right. talking about the plan, how much i could understand, Cochrane and asset values – it is too, what IS-LM and macroeconomics – very rude tool, which kind of describes the logic, but it simply cannot be used for real calculations due to the rudeness of the simplifications :) at the same time IS-LM has a great advantage – simplicity. it's like with DCF – pretentiousness of calculations does not matter, if you miss the discount rate by 10 p.p.. – GIGO.
p.s. in fact, I have great respect for finance. existing bias towards useless detailing of methodologically incorrect ideas – this is a normal development of science. for example, EMH – it's a great framework, which allowed for a breakthrough, let him create a number of negative externalities. try to create models, test models, learn from mistakes, etc.. – it's all much better, than to swear in the direction of the mainstream, often without understanding and a little, what is it about?. I am built in order, that I expected to meet something incredible, but expectations were not met. you feel about the same, when you start looking at DSGE with financial frictions with confidence :). generally, Cochrane is working on how to make a quality tool, albeit with extremely limited use. but without a tool, you won't be able to make a better model in the future. this is progress, aside from which it is better not to stay.
