Occam's Razor Shows the Immature State of Quantitative Economics

"In physics, it takes three laws to Explain 99% of the data; in finance, it takes more than 99 laws to explain about 3%". According to an article [1] in HBR, the source of this statement from MIT finance professor Andrew Lo. He followed up by saying: "Economists consequently suffer from physics envy".

What does it mean if Lo's statement is true ? In my experience I believe he is, and I see two alternatives:
(1) Economics and its mental world is not at all as amendable to the power of mathematics as physics in the physical world. This is the conclusion in [1].
(2) Economics is simply too immature, and totally new approaches to its understanding is needed in order to build predictive models. If this is the case, the emergence of such a theory will be through the collaboration from other fields.

According to alt. (2), Occam's Razor will force a new and radically simpler quantitative economic theory with greater accuracy. It might be you who finds this theory?

[1] Article in Harvard Business Review.