Talk:Lin Chen

Untitled
Is "Prof. Chen" really a professor? He did not invent the first three factor model of the term structure of interest rates. The article lists no peer-reviewed publications. Why is it remarkable that Chen's out-of-print work was mentioned is some secondary surveys of the literature?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.103.186 (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As a former student of Prfessor Lin Chen and a researcher in term structure modeling, I‘d offer a brief answer to your questions. 1)	The journal, Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments, where Dr Chen‘s entire dissertation was published, is a peer-reviewed journal. It is mentioned in the journal’s cover page. You may also want to check the past issues of the journal to see who the authors are. You will find that most authors are well-established scholars, including several past presidents of American Finance Association. 2)	Chen model is indeed the first three-factor model of the term structure. Sometimes, I heard some people mentioned the model by three NYU professors as the first three-factor model. Actually, it is published later than Chen model. In addition, it is worthwhile to point out that Chen model is technically more challenging and practically more useful than any other multi factor models. 3)	I believe that it is truly remarkable to be mentioned by Sunderasan’s centennial review article on finance. Personally, I know few people were mentioned and those who were are all distinguished scholars. In my department, presumly the number one department of finance in Asia, only Professor K C Chan was mentioned.  He was former chairman of the department, dean of the school and candidate for president of the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkusts (talk • contribs) 06:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys should leave this article alone. If you are unfamiliar with Dr. Chen and his areas of expertise, you should read the article again carefully and go over all the references and citations. Once you have done so,I think, you will no longer have any adoubt about its significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkusts (talk • contribs) 10:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, what about the claims that state Prof. Chen is a "talented physicist and accomplished artist"? there are not any citings supporting the statement. Actually, I do not know how you can prove objectively without doubt that someone is a "talented phycicist", unless you are talking about a Nobel Proze winner. Much less an "accomplished artist". I think this article would be greatly improved by a) adding more citations to these statements and b) maybe commenting more about objective events on his life, such as date of birth, studies, advisor, current hold positions, more explanation about the bad journalism. This article sounds too much subjective about someone who either is really involved with him as a person or involved with his work. Finally, every important work in science and finance is subject to some criticism.. For the sake of having an objective article some of the criticism must be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.143 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you made some good points. Actually　some stories are well known to people here in China as why Prof. Lin Chen is considered a ‘talented physicist’ and ‘accomplished artist’. As I remembered it said that Mr. Chen, as a sophomore in engineering, spent six months to teach himself all the coursework leading to a PhD in theoretical physics. That ‘s really impressive. It also said that, when Chen was a little boy he made an excellent drawing of King David sculpture. His drawing was later displayed along with the works of Masters in the world as a permanent sample for students to follow. That was really unbelievable. The older version of the article included these stories but I don’t know why they were deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankert (talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)