Conspiracy theorists will have to wait until the article described in Inside Science is published to determine whether it delivers on its claims. It purports to analyze stock holding across 48 countries and alleges they are held in very few hands. But the work was done by physicists, which means they may not have understood the limits of the data they were working with.
I suspect this will wind up resembling a paper a friend studied in his graduate level statistical methods course over two decades ago (he has since gone on to a successful career in academia). Everyone in the seminar was assigned a single paper and told to analyze the techniques used and to present their findings to the class. This was the sole basis for the grade.
The paper my buddy got had already created a bit of a stir, although it had not yet been published. The author had looked at the prices at which the Fed did its daily operations (then the famed “noon buying rate”) and compared it to the results of Treasury auctions. The paper concluded the Treasury was doing a terrible job, as demonstrated in all sorts of analyses.
When my friend’s day to present came, he stood up and said, “I have only one comment to make. The Fed conducts its daily operations in transaction sizes ranging in the millions. Treasury auctions are in the billions. The Fed data is irrelevant to the Treasury analysis,” and sat down.
He received an A.
In this case, an obvious fly in ointment is many (most?) stocks are held in street name, meaning in the name of the brokerage firm or fund, not the ultimate owner. I presume it is impossible to segregate accounts where the broker has discretion to trade versus those where the clients simply trades through the securities firm.
But even if the analysis is flawed, it might stir up some interesting discussion.
From Inside Science (hat tip reader John D):
A recent analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries has revealed that the world’s finances are in the hands of just a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first clear picture of the global concentration of financial power, and point out the worldwide financial system’s vulnerability as it stood on the brink of the current economic crisis.
A pair of physicists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich did a physics-based analysis of the world economy as it looked in early 2007. Stefano Battiston and James Glattfelder extracted the information from the tangled yarn that links 24,877 stocks and 106,141 shareholding entities in 48 countries, revealing what they called the “backbone” of each country’s financial market. These backbones represented the owners of 80 percent of a country’s market capital, yet consisted of remarkably few shareholders.
“You start off with these huge national networks that are really big, quite dense,” Glattfelder said. “From that you’re able to … unveil the important structure in this original big network. You then realize most of the network isn’t at all important.”
The most pared-down backbones exist in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. Paradoxically; these same countries are considered by economists to have the most widely-held stocks in the world, with ownership of companies tending to be spread out among many investors. But while each American company may link to many owners, Glattfelder and Battiston’s analysis found that the owners varied little from stock to stock, meaning that comparatively few hands are holding the reins of the entire market.
“If you would look at this locally, it’s always distributed,” Glattfelder said. “If you then look at who is at the end of these links, you find that it’s the same guys, [which] is not something you’d expect from the local view.”
Matthew Jackson, an economist from Stanford University in Calif. who studies social and economic networks, said that Glattfelder and Battiston’s approach could be used to answer more pointed questions about corporate control and how companies interact….
Based on their analysis, Glattfelder and Battiston identified the ten investment entities who are “big fish” in the most countries. The biggest fish was the Capital Group Companies, with major stakes in 36 of the 48 countries studied. In identifying these major players, the physicists accounted for secondary ownership — owning stock in companies who then owned stock in another company — in an attempt to quantify the potential control a given agent might have in a market….
Glattfelder added that the internationalism of these powerful companies makes it difficult to gauge their economic influence. “[With] new company structures which are so big and spanning the globe, it’s hard to see what they’re up to and what they’re doing,” he said. Large, sparse networks dominated by a few major companies could also be more vulnerable, he said. “In network speak, if those nodes fail, that has a big effect on the network.”
The results will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review E.
I'm unsurprised and not in a tinfoil way either.
If an individual examines their surroundings and multiples the effect to expand it globally, it becomes quite chaotic. Where if one moves out ward, not unlike in our solar system it becomes much clearer.
Skippy… so why is that huge magnafing glass with the *tm* of Capital Group Companies over my head.
Link to Pdf document re:
The backbone of complex networks of corporations: Who is controlling whom?
Is this supposed to be news??? Is it not obvious that the predatorclass owns 95% of the worlds wealth and resources, and manipulates both markets and governments for it's own illgottengain???
Well worth reading and eagerly await peer review.
From this perspective if borne out, one can see concentrations of mass within a system, not unlike massive stellar events and we all know where that road leads too.
Skippy…now how are they going to polarize this, sheez.
PS. well at least I can run the math with my own data sets, should be fun, graphic analysis is the bomb.
The fly in this ointment is indeed the problem of 'street name' holdings. In fact it's not even a fly, it's a damm big elephant!
Now what happens when you compare the published 'research' with the relative concentration of holdings.
In that you might be able to infer that there is motivation. Barring some collateral comparison, the study is crap! Those fellows must be waiting for the Large Hadron Collider to fire up again.
“Conspiracy theorists will have to wait until the article described in Inside Science is published to determine whether it delivers on its claims.”
articles published in peer-reviewed journals have been screened by referees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Procedure)
“But the work was done by physicists, which means they may not have understood the limits of the data they were working with.”
the results are based on ownership data from a commercial database. this data is understood as yielding a network. network analysis is not something economists traditionally engage in…
It’s the physics profession trying desperately to be politically relevant on college campuses. Otherwise, less funding and not as many cocktail parties.