That question can be interpreted in various ways, from the trivial to the slightly challenging. In the latter case it might not belong to money.stackexchange, so in these situations it should be helpful also asking for clarification first. In particular strictly speaking the critical monthly returns are not required necessarily disjoint/independent, where it all gets interesting...


For exactly the reason that Matt Wolf addressed in the comments. I thought the question was really odd for someone who actually works in quant finance.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok, but who knows if the poster was looking for an answer avoiding the 1st moment? and probably he's satisfied with a GBM already if not otherwise stated. Of course it sounds like an annoying newbie/outsider and it's tempting to dismiss him. Yet I am worried that such reactions develop so instinctively without even trying to approach in a constructive way. Why not answer with std assumptions or waiting for a comment? Who draws the line tomorrow between warranted reactions and personal itches? There's enough noise already, discipline is needed on all "sides", if any of 'em. Just my 2c. $\endgroup$ – Quartz Jun 6 '13 at 13:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Quartz he is not. You can have a feel of the poster's experience and sharpness in technical areas easily be reading the question. Trust me, if the person is off-topic in his mind, it will be though to turn the question into an interesting one. If you want to discuss advanced topic in the matter, just post a question yourself mentioning that the migrated question motivated yours. $\endgroup$ – SRKX Jun 6 '13 at 14:31
  • $\begingroup$ @SRKX: I was trying to highlight the need for a shared policy for more borderline future cases, this was just an example where reactions are more emotional than technical. We might probably agree on this specific case (although I dont get what he's not, satisfied with GBM? why? :) ), but might also disagree tomorrow; and such relying only on impressions is hardly that professional. Nevertheless thanks for your view. Btw I already posted a similar question on dependence for overlapping intervals... I'll wait for the site to grow larger before trying variations on the topic. $\endgroup$ – Quartz Jun 6 '13 at 15:01
  • $\begingroup$ I'm curious as to why the question was migrated for the reason stated in Matt's comment, since the reason given was essentially "it's impossible." Was the implication that more information should/could be added once it reached money.SE? If so, that's valid. If that wasn't the implication, the migration seems odd, because if a question is impossible on one site, migrating it won't change that. $\endgroup$ – user5064 Jun 6 '13 at 15:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JohnBensin In retrospect, this was probably a bad migration on my part. Feel free to close it there. There's not much hope for the question here since the OP hasn't returned to our site. $\endgroup$ – chrisaycock Jun 6 '13 at 15:44
  • $\begingroup$ @chrisaycock I've voted to close it on money.SE already, but I did attempt to leave helpful comments addressing the question (in the trivial case only; I didn't address Quartz's comments, which are a different issue). $\endgroup$ – user5064 Jun 6 '13 at 15:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .