At first glance, genes and financial markets seem worlds apart, but both are complex, data-driven systems. Quantitative genetics arose in the early 1900s to understand traits like plant height influenced by many genes. Quantitative finance also took shape in the 20th century when Louis Bachelier applied probabilistic models to stock prices introducing Brownian motion to finance. In each field, pioneers sought statistical laws in noisy data: genetics used controlled breeding experiments, while finance mined historical price data. Both ask similar questions of prediction under uncertainty, searching for hidden patterns in large datasets.
Historical Foundations
Quantitative Genetics
The foundation of quantitative genetics was laid by Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright and J.B.S. Haldane in the 1910s–1920s. They introduced statistical concepts like mean, variance and regression into heredity. For example, Fisher defined gene effects as deviations from the population mean, enabling use of familiar tools like ANOVA. Early work was driven by agriculture and animal breeding: by treating many small genetic effects collectively, breeders improved crop yields and livestock traits. In modern times, this approach underpins genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which scan millions of genetic variants to find tiny effects on traits. Throughout this history, quantitative geneticists have summed the small contributions of many genes to predict complex phenotypes.
Quantitative Finance
Quantitative finance also grew from early 20th-century mathematics. In 1900 Louis Bachelier published Théorie de la spéculation, modeling stock prices as a random walk -Brownian motion. This idea that price changes behave like a continuous random process laid the groundwork for modern stochastic finance. Later, Kiyoshi Itô (1951) developed calculus for stochastic processes (Itô’s lemma), which lets analysts derive formulas for evolving random variables. In the 1950s and 1960s, Harry Markowitz introduced portfolio optimization (balancing expected return vs. risk) and Sharpe/Lintner developed the CAPM, regressing asset returns on market return to explain risk. The breakthrough came with Black, Scholes and Merton (1973), who derived a closed-form model for option pricing under Brownian assumptions. From these foundations grew a rich toolkit (ARCH/GARCH volatility models in the 1980s, multifactor models, etc.) that modern finance uses to manage risk and price derivatives.
Shared Mathematical Tools
Stochastic Processes:
Random-walk models appear in both domains. Finance models asset prices as stochastic processes (Bachelier’s Brownian motion), while population genetics shows that neutral trait evolution (genetic drift) also follows a random walk. In other words, if no trait affects fitness, average trait values wander through generations much like particles diffusing. Techniques like diffusion equations and Ornstein–Uhlenbeck processes appear in evolutionary theory and in interest-rate models alike.
Regression and Variance:
Quantitative genetics uses linear regression to link gene variants to traits For example, regressing trait values on the number of copies of a particular allele. Similarly, finance uses regression in factor models (CAPM is essentially a single-factor regression). Both fields partition variance: genetics defines heritability as the fraction of trait variance explained by genetics, analogous to R² in statistics, while finance decomposes portfolio variance into explained (market factor) and unexplained parts. In both cases, analysts use variance components and regression slopes to gauge effect sizes.
Time-Series Analysis:
Finance heavily uses time-series models (ARIMA, ARCH/GARCH) to model price and volatility fluctuations. In genetics, time appears in evolutionary or experimental processes for example, tracking allele frequencies over generations modeled by Wright–Fisher or coalescent processes. While the fields use these methods differently, the mathematical underpinnings (Markov chains and autocorrelation functions etc.) are shared ideas.
Optimization and Search:
Both portfolios and breeding programs involve optimization. Markowitz’s mean-variance model is an optimization problem and geneticists use selection indices (weighted sums of traits) to choose the best breeders. When exact solutions are hard, both fields use heuristic search. Notably, genetic algorithms (GAs) optimization methods inspired by biological evolution are applied in finance. Genetic algorithms generate candidate solutions like portfolios or trading rules and evolve them via crossover and mutation. For example, researchers have used binary or integer-coded GAs to solve portfolio models . (A GA, by design, iteratively “breeds” better solutions in the way organisms with higher fitness are likelier to reproduce.) Such algorithms are literally named after genetics but are now mainstays in financial engineering.
Statistical Learning:
Modern machine-learning techniques appear in both fields. For instance, estimating a person’s disease risk from many genes is essentially a regression or classification task, akin to predicting market trends from economic indicators. Both fields use methods like cross-validation, penalized regressions like lasso and ridge ensemble models to improve predictions when data are abundant.
Cross-Disciplinary Innovations Several concrete examples show methods flowing between genetics and finance:
Genetic Algorithms in Finance:
Heuristics from biology are now standard in quantitative f inance. For example, one study notes that GAs “generate high-quality solutions” to optimization problems. Academics have applied GAs to find technical trading rules and optimize portfolios, taking advantage of the GA’s global search capability . In practice, this means encoding portfolio weights as “chromosomes” and evolving them to maximize return for a given risk – a clear borrowing of evolutionary concepts to solve financial problems.
Polygenic Risk and Portfolios:
Genetics uses polygenic risk scores (PRS) which sum the effects of thousands of genetic variants to predict an individual’s disease risk. This is directly analogous to a diversified portfolio: each genetic variant (“gene stock”) contributes a small piece to total risk. Finance has portfolio risk measures (like Value-at-Risk) that similarly aggregate many factors. In fact, one can think of a person’s genetic risk as a sort of “genetic portfolio” whose variance is the trait’s heritability. Conversely, ideas from finance such as calculating expected loss or covariance could inform genetic risk modeling, though this cross-pollination is still developing.
Covariance and Factor Models:
Both fields analyze covariance matrices. In genetics, multi-trait models and genome-wide polygenic models use matrices of trait covariances. In finance, factor models and principal component analysis also rely on covariances of asset returns. Techniques like principal component analysis (PCA) are applied in both contexts to reduce dimensionality (e.g. genetic ancestry components vs. market risk factors). Though details differ, the math is the same.
Intuitive Analogies
Gene = Asset:
Imagine each gene as a small stock in a portfolio. A complex trait ( height) is like a diversified portfolio of genes: no single gene determines it and the overall trait is the sum of many small contributions. Just as no single stock controls a balanced portfolio, no one gene "controls" a highly polygenic trait.
Heritability = Explained Variance:
If a trait’s heritability is 50%, that means genetics explains half the variation in that trait. Analogously, in finance we might say a market index explains a certain R² of a stock’s returns. Both numbers measure how much of the outcome is driven by the modeled factors (genes or market) versus randomness.
Selection = Optimization:
Choosing the best animals to breed is like optimizing a portfolio. In breeding, farmers pick individuals that maximize future yield (return) while limiting undesirable variations (risk). In finance, investors choose weights of assets to maximize expected return for a given volatility. Both involve solving a constrained optimization problem.
Mutation = Market Shock:
A rare mutation or genetic event that suddenly changes a trait is like a shock in the market that causes a stock price to jump. Both fields model these events probabilistically (for example, using Poisson processes or fat-tailed distributions).
Breeding Value = Expected Return:
The expected genetic “value” of an animal for future generations (its breeding value) is conceptually similar to the expected return of an investment. Both can be estimated from data (pedigree or past performance) and used to rank candidates.
These analogies show that while the subject matter differs, the underlying thinking is parallel: combine many uncertain parts to predict a total outcome.
Conclusion
Quantitative genetics and quantitative finance grew in parallel, each forging tools to handle uncertainty and multivariate data. They share core ideas: stochastic models, regression, optimization and even algorithms inspired by evolution. Over time, innovations have crossed fields of finance, borrowing from biology (genetic algorithms) and genetics adopting statistical frameworks akin to finance like risk scores and covariance models. For curious scientists or traders, studying one field can illuminate concepts in the other, because at heart both are about organizing complexity with mathematics.
Reference:
Li H, Shi N. Application of Genetic Optimization Algorithm in Financial Portfolio Problem. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2022 Jul 15;2022:5246309. doi: 10.1155/2022/5246309. PMID: 35875786; PMCID: PMC9307338.
Historical milestones in genetics (Fisher & Wright, GWAS)
Finance (Bachelier, Itô, Black Scholes).
%20(2).png)
0 Comments