Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2009.14682

Regression to the Tail: Why the Olympics Blow Up

Bent Flyvbjerg·Alexander Budzier·Daniel Lunn
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Olympic Games are the largest, highest-profile, and most expensive megaevent hosted by cities and nations. Average sports-related costs of hosting are $12.0 billion. Non-sports-related costs are typically several times that. Every Olympics since 1960 has run over budget, at an average of 172 percent in real terms, the highest overrun on record for any type of megaproject. The paper tests theoretical statistical distributions against empirical data for the costs of the Games, in order to explain the cost risks faced by host cities and nations. It is documented, for the first time, that cost and cost overrun for the Games follow a power-law distribution. Olympic costs are subject to infinite mean and variance, with dire consequences for predictability and planning. We name this phenomenon "regression to the tail": it is only a matter of time until a new extreme event occurs, with an overrun larger than the largest so far, and thus more disruptive and less plannable. The generative mechanism for the Olympic power law is identified as strong convexity prompted by six causal drivers: irreversibility, fixed deadlines, the Blank Check Syndrome, tight coupling, long planning horizons, and an Eternal Beginner Syndrome. The power law explains why the Games are so difficult to plan and manage successfully, and why cities and nations should think twice before bidding to host. Based on the power law, two heuristics are identified for better decision making on hosting. Finally, the paper develops measures for good practice in planning and managing the Games, including how to mitigate the extreme risks of the Olympic power law.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.GNq-fin.RM

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bent Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier, Daniel Lunn. 2020-09-28. Regression to the Tail: Why the Olympics Blow Up. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x20958724

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Virtue of Sparsity in Complexity

Sparsity or complexity? In modern high-dimensional asset pricing, these are often viewed as competing principles: recent empirical evidence favors richer models, while economic intuition has long favored parsimony. We reconcile this tension by distinguishing capacity sparsity-restrictions on effective model capacity-from factor sparsity-the parsimonious structure of priced risks. Revisiting the benchmark empirical design of Didisheim et al. (2025), we combine nonlinear feature expansions with basis pursuit, using column generation and GPU acceleration to scale estimation to 432 million candidate factors. Reaching this scale reveals a reversal in out-of-sample performance: sparse portfolios trail dense ridgeless benchmarks at lower complexity but achieve a higher Sharpe ratio and lower pricing error at the largest candidate set. Capacity expansion and factor sparsity are therefore complements: enlarging the candidate space allows a parsimonious pricing kernel to outperform its dense counterpart.

q-fin.GN↗
arXiv2026

Prediction Markets Beat the Weather Forecast on Tomorrow's High Temperature

The sooner we receive information, and the more accurate it is, the better planning decisions we can make. Every day, prediction markets let anyone bet on tomorrow's high temperature in cities around the world, creating a market-implied forecast built on dispersed information. We use the past five years of market data from the Kalshi exchange for seven American cities to extract, hour by hour, the market-implied forecast. We use this forecast as a measuring instrument to see how much information about the temperature the market makes public before the public forecasting system does. We race it against the leading American and European weather forecasts. In six of the seven cities we study, the market beats the most accurate single public forecast, the National Blend of Models (NBM). Aggregating every city-day, at the end of the market's first hour of trading it beats the best single public product by about 10 percent in root-mean-square error, and holds its lead through the day, overnight, and into the target day. Looking at how the forecasts move over time, we find the National Blend travels four times further toward the market between its postings than the market travels toward the NBM. The market does not react to new weather forecast updates; instead, the forecast slowly publishes information that the market had already shared publicly.

q-fin.GN↗
arXiv2026

Firm Valuation When AI Shapes the Business Model: A Milestone-Based Real-Options Framework for the AI Valuation Uncertainty Problem

Standard valuation methods, including discounted cash flow, the income approach standard IDW S 1 of the Institute of Public Auditors in Germany, and market multiples, compress milestone probabilities, continuation options, and risk shifts into opaque aggregate parameters; none provides a structured protocol for decomposing AI integration into auditable option-level assumptions. We propose an industry-agnostic taxonomy separating AI Integrators from AI Providers. AI Integrators are further classified by their Integration Depth Level, ranging from no integration to AI at the core of the product or process. A milestone-gated real-options overlay decomposes milestone state value into five components, and an Analytic Hierarchy Process-based Success Readiness Index derives per-option probabilities from structured pairwise comparisons for scenario analysis. Applied to an AI-native energy software-as-a-service firm, the framework yields a coherent valuation band traceable to identifiable option-level assumptions. Risk concentrates in later-stage continuation options, matching the structural prediction for AI Providers. The protocol applies across the firm lifecycle, including mergers and acquisitions due diligence. The case is a single-firm demonstration of protocol coherence, not empirical validation; multi-case testing against realised post-exit valuations is left to future research.

q-fin.GN↗