How to Avoid Fragility of Financial Systems: Lessons from the Financial Crisis and St. Petersburg Paradox

  • Hideki Takayasu


Firstly, I point out that the financial crisis occurred in 2008 has many analogous points with a physical phenomenon of brittle fracture in the sense that it is a highly irreversible phenomenon caused by concentration of stress to the weakest point. Then, I discuss distribution of gain–loss of continuous transactions of options which can be regarded as a source of stress among financial companies. The historical problem of Saint Petersburg paradox is reviewed and it is argued that the paradox is solved by decomposing the process into a combination of a fair gamble and an accompanied financial option. By generalizing this fair gamble it is shown that the gain–loss distribution in this problem is closely related to the distribution of gain–loss of business firms in the real world. Finally, I pose a serious question to the ordinary way of financing money to business firms with compound interest rates. Instead we introduce a new way of financing business firms without applying prefixed interest rates, in which financial stress is shared by all involved firms. This method is expected to reduce the risk of both financial firms and business firms, and is applicable even in the non-growing society.


Interest Rate Brittle Fracture Option Price Fair Price Business Firm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Takayasu H (1985) Prog Theor Phys 74:1343–1351ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mandelbrot BB, Hudson RL (2004) The (mis)behavior of markets. Basic Books, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feller W (1950) An introduction to probability theory and its applications. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Takayasu H, Nishikawa I, Tasaki H (1989) Phys Rev Lett 63:2563–2566ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernoulli D (1954) Econometrica 22(1):22–36 (originally published in 1738, translated by Dr. Lousie Sommer)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Menger K (1934) Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 5(4):459–485MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arrow KJ (1974) Q J Econ 88(1):136–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Econometrica 47:263–291MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Samuelson P (1960) Int Econ Rev 1(1):31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin R (2004) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, fall 2004 edn. Stanford University, Stanford,
  11. 11.
    Takayasu H, Sato A-H, Takayasu M (1997) Phys Rev Lett 79:966–969ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Takayasu H, Okuyama K (1998) Fractals 6:67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mizuno T, Takayasu M, Takayasu H (2004) Physica A 332:403–411MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ohnishi T, Takayasu H, Takayasu M (2009) Prog Theor Phys 179:157–166MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Riccaboni M et al (2008) Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:19595–19600ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fundamental Research GroupSony Computer Science LaboratoriesShinagawa-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations