Modern Finance

Modern Finance vs. Behavioural Finance: An Overview of Key Concepts and Major Arguments ArXiv ID: ssrn-1678414 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Modern Finance has dominated the area of financial economics for at least four decades. Based on a set of strong but highly unrealistic assumptions its advocate Keywords: Modern Finance, Financial Economics, Economic Assumptions, Economic Models, Theoretical Critique, Academic/Financial Economics Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 2.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 1.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a conceptual overview comparing theoretical frameworks, with no mathematical derivations or empirical backtesting. It focuses on arguments and assumptions rather than data or implementation. flowchart TD A["Research Goal<br>Compare Modern & Behavioral Finance"] --> B["Methodology<br>Literature Review & Theoretical Analysis"] B --> C["Data/Inputs<br>Key Assumptions & Major Arguments"] C --> D["Computational Process<br>Critique & Comparison of Frameworks"] D --> E["Key Findings<br>MF: Highly unrealistic assumptions<br>BF: Incorporates psychological factors"]

ModernFinancevs. BehaviouralFinance: An Overview of Key Concepts and Major Arguments ArXiv ID: ssrn-746204 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Modern Finance has dominated the area of financial economics for at least four decades. Based on a set of strong but highly unrealistic assumptions its advocate Keywords: Modern Finance, Financial Economics, Economic Assumptions, Economic Models, Theoretical Critique, Academic/Financial Economics Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 2.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 1.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper appears to be a conceptual overview comparing two theoretical frameworks in finance, likely involving descriptive arguments and literature review rather than advanced mathematical models or empirical backtesting. flowchart TD A["Research Goal:<br>Compare Modern vs. Behavioral Finance"] --> B["Methodology:<br>Literature Review & Conceptual Analysis"] B --> C["Inputs:<br>Historical Assumptions &<br>Empirical Anomalies"] C --> D{"Computational Process:<br>Theoretical Framework Comparison"} D --> E["Modern Finance<br>Assumptions: Rationality, Efficiency"] D --> F["Behavioral Finance<br>Assumptions: Psychology, Biases"] E --> G["Key Findings:<br>Strong theoretical models<br>but limited real-world predictive power"] F --> G

Life-CycleFinancein Theory and in Practice ArXiv ID: ssrn-313619 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract This paper draws upon the modern science of finance to address several important practical issues in personal finance. Chief among these is how much to save for Keywords: personal finance, saving strategies, modern finance, Cash/Fixed Income Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 7.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 2.0/10 Quadrant: Lab Rats Why: The paper employs advanced multi-period hedging and dynamic programming models, representing high mathematical complexity. However, it lacks any backtesting, code, or dataset implementation details, relying on theoretical proposals and conceptual product design. flowchart TD A["Research Goal:<br/>Optimize Life-Cycle Saving<br/>for Personal Finance"] --> B["Methodology:<br/>Modern Finance Theory<br/>(Cash/Fixed Income Models)"] B --> C["Data Inputs:<br/>Lifetime Income<br/>Risk Preferences<br/>Time Horizon"] C --> D["Computational Process:<br/>Dynamic Programming &<br/>Stochastic Optimization"] D --> E["Key Findings:<br/>Optimal Saving Strategies<br/>Align with Life-Cycle Patterns"] E --> F["Outcomes:<br/>Practical Guidelines for<br/>Personal Finance Planning"]