I am going for a Finance BA. I still see no need for stats.

I spent more than 10 hours this last week on reading and my homework but I still could not finish it.

wtf. I do not want to fail this class but I have no where to turn to for help.

any sort of true investing relies on predictions based off statistical models...

The one thing I regret not taking in college was an advanced stats course. Having to learn different statistical tests adhoc is a pain.

Finance?

No statistics?

Build a portfolio of 10 stocks and determine it's expected return and it's overall risk using individual covariances.

Finance is nearly 100% stats...at least it was for me (Masters in International Finance).

Why does statistics suck?

Because it makes you look at things objectively.

The math professors teaching statistics seem to be a lousy lot.

In engineering we have to make it work.
No failures in the test lot? Assign a single failure to avoid dividing by zero.
Recognize what this means statistically.
Your failure rate is a bound.
Select a confidence interval based on the system goals.
60% is not good for high rel systems.
Try 95% or better.


It takes a LOT of hours to get there.

Watch out for long term failure mechanisms.
Testing one million parts for 100 hours each may not show the same result as testing one part for a million hours.

Learn how 'activation energy' and failure mechanisms work.
Some mechanisms simply cannot be tested out.

PM me.

I actually thought stats was fun.  Numbers are fun.  Figuring out how you can just squeak by in measuring populations is very fun.

Few things thrill me more than seeing how the individuals vary from the mean, and then for a real hoot check out the median!  CV, confidence levels, t-tests, it's all right there!!

What you did there... I saw it, even if it wasn't really there.  

I agree with the others.  If you think finance does not use stats, you have a LOT to learn.

What is the probability you will achieve the desired return on your investment?  How confident are you that the return on the investment is X%?  How deep is the down-side risk?

If you cannot answer these questions with a statistics-based answer (quantitative, supportable by past history, etc), you will NEVER get any of my money to invest.

Stats are special ED math

“Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a "correct" one by excessive elaboration. On the contrary following William of Occam he should seek an economical description of natural phenomena. Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity.”
George E. P. Box (October 18, 1919 – March 28, 2013) Science and Statistics (1976), p. 792

Many larger econometric models fall into this class.
Remember how badly the FED handled interest rates under Carter?
Volcker finally got the timing (lag factors) down correct under Reagan.

No more waiting for the economy to show affects before adjusting rates.
This only exaggerated the swings.

I remember the FED being asked why they adjusted rates when the economy was still not showing outward signs.
The answer was that in a few weeks or monoliths when it DID show obvious signs it would have gone to far.

Think of it as the difference between feathering the gas pedal instead of mashing it to the floor than releasing it completely to try and get to a desired speed.