Groupthink

IMF evaluated its role and performance in the recent financial and economic crisis.

Cause

In a 2011 crisis report with the short title: 'IMF Performance in the Run-Up to the Financial and Economic Crisis:IMF Surveillance in 2004–07 ', IMF concludes that the main cause of their inadequate response during the crisis was:

Groupthink

IMF’s ability to detect important vulnerabilities and risks and alert the membership, was undermined by a complex interaction of factors, many of which had been flagged before but had not been fully addressed.

The IMF’s ability to correctly identify the escalating risks was hindered by:

1. A high degree of groupthink 
2. Intellectual capture
3. A general mindset that a major financial crisis was unlikely
4. Inadequate analytical approaches
5. Weak internal governance
6. Lack of incentives to work across units and raise contrarian views
7. A review process that did not “connect the dots” or ensure follow-up
8. Some impact of 'political constraints'....

Recommendations

IMF suggests some recommendations on how to strengthen its ability to discern risks and vulnerabilities and to warn in the future. Main point is to enhance the effectiveness of surveillance: it is critical to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Board, Management, and senior staff, and to establish a clear accountability framework.

Looking forward, IMF needs to

1. 
   Create an environment that encourages candor and considers dissenting views
    
2. Modify incentives to “speak truth to power”
    
3. Better integrate macroeconomic and financial sector issues
   
   
4. Overcome the silo mentality and insular culture; Deliver a clear, consistent message on the global outlook and risks.

Recognize Groupthink
Groupthink is not just something happening to IMF or 'other organisations'. We, financial institutions, all suffer somehow or somewhat from the Groupthink Virus.

How can we recognize Groupthink?
Derived from an article by Irving Janis, the inventor of the word Groupthink, let's take a look at some explicit signs of Groupthink:

1. Winning Mood syndrome
   A common illusion of success (Folie à deux), invulnerability, over-optimism, unanimity and risk-taking as a consequence.
2. Collective rationalization
   Managers, employees discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions
3. 
   Repression or Ridicule
   Direct pressure on and ridicule of  individuals who express disagreement with or doubt about the majority view or the view of the leader
4. Fear
   Fear of disapproval for deviating from the group consensus. Fear from or doubt about expressing your opinion.
5. Manipulating
   Remaining silent in a discussion is implicitly interpreted as agreeing.Obviously 'wrong' arguments are used to achieve a certain goal or policy.
6. Disrespect
   Stereotyped views of out-groups or enemy leaders as evil, weak or stupid. Good or serious ideas of colleagues are rejected on basis of the source instead of 'judged by the facts'.
7. Moral Blindness
   Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the in-group. Lack of discussion about ethical or moral aspects of certain decision.
8. Miscommunication and Misinformation
   Information, bottom up or top-down is (deliberately) strongly filtered
9. Idolization
   Idolization of the leader or of certain five star employees.

Lessons Learned
If you recognize some of the above signs in your organization, it is time for action.
Discuss it, do not accept it and if you cannot change it... LEAVE!

A humorous example of Misinformation are the quotes of Iraq's minister of (Mis)Informaton, Al-Sahaf, during the 2003 Iraq war.
Enjoy, laugh and learn.....



Make sure your board presentation is not based on' sahaf-statements' but on simple provable actuarial facts....

Related links/sources:
- 8 signs of groupthink
- What is Groupthink?
- IMF Crisis Report 2011

Solvency II: Standard or Internal Model?

Solvency II is entering the critical phase.Time is running out!

But...., as a wise proverb states:

"When The Actuaries Get Tough,

The Tough get Actuaries"

However, the market for actuarial resources is limited and Solvency II Actuaries that  combine strategic and technical knowledge with 'common sense' are like  white ravens.

In the case of Solvency II, actuaries and models are moving forward in a particular way.

Standard Model
Originally, the 'standard model' was foreseen as a simple model for small and mid-size insurers (apart from very small insurers that were excluded). Big insurers, with more developed actuarial models, larger scale and more resources, were expected to work out a more sophisticated 'internal model'.

As the Solvency II Time Pressure Cooker gets up steam, things start turning.

Small and mid-size insurers found out that the 'standard model' was highly inefficient and the wrong instrument to steer adequately on risk management and to determine adequate solvency levels in their company.

Just because of their limited size and product selection, small and mid-size insurers often already have a well tuned risk management system in place and implemented throughout the organization. The manager, actuary (being the risk manager as well) and CFO of such companies therefore have enough time to develop a formal Solvency II 'internal model' that could be easily implemented throughout their organization.

Internal Model
Quit the opposite happens in the world of big insurers.

Big insurers coordinated Solvency II at Holding level and started to challenge their business-units around 2009 to develop and implement Solvency II programs on basis of an 'internal model'.

Collecting homework at the Holding in 2010, it became clear that a lot of technical issues in the models were still unclear. Moreover, models were not integrated (= condition)  in the business and counting up several 'internal models' showed up several consolidated inconsistencies. 

The complexity of developing a consistent risk model turned out to strong. Some big insurers are now considering to fall back on the 'standard model' (or partial model) before it's too late: the shortest errors are the best.

Looking back it's not surprising that big insurers need more time to operationalize a fine tuned risk model. It took specialist Munich Re 10 years to implement an internal model.

This development is also an indication that some big insurers are strongly over-sized. In order to keep up with the speed of the market, big insurers have to be split up into a manageable and market-fit size.


Related Links:

- Surviving Solvency II (2010)
- The influence of Solvency II on an insurer’s strategic policy
- White Ravens and Black Swans (Math Fun)

Actuarial Chess?

As actuaries we often have to explain HOW variables like profits, mortality, investments or costs will develop in the future.

In doing so, it would really help and strengthen our credibility if we were able to explain also WHY these variables developed in the past as they have developed, as a result of certain circumstances (other 'explaining' variables).

On basis of these WHY-arguments and the specific expected future circumstances, we could increase the credibility and diminish the volatility of our predictions.

This HOW-WHY-Insight urges us for example to analyze "medical developments" in case of predicting longevity and to study "economic developments" with regard tot predicting future costs, inflation or investment rates.

Moreover this understanding obliges us to develop our capabilities and competence to explain certain given outcomes like "increasing longevity" and "increasing stock return volatility".

Test Your 'Outcome Explanation Competence'

This 'Outcome Explanation Competence' (OEC) is key in actuarial science. No actuary can do without!

To test your OEC level, solve the next chess problem.

Black has made the last move... Which move?

You'll find the solution of this chess problem as a part of the next 5 minute 'Thinking Out of the Box' test ( on SCRIBD)......

5 Minute 'Thinking Out of the Box' Test

Just like in 'climate change predictions', our OEC (the 'competence to explain past phenomena') is necessary for us actuaries to be confident about our theories and predictions about the future.

However, developing OEC might not be enough as the explanations of the past could turn out to be fundamentally invalid with regard to the future. New techniques  like High-frequency trading (HFT) might come up. Or... in chess vocabulary: 'A pawn may promote to a Bishop' (frequency: 0.2%)

The conclusion must be that Actuarial predictions are a kind of 'Actuarial Chess':
So start practicing as an Actuarial Chess Master by Explaining the past and Guiding the future.

2011: Happy Risk Year!

Life is full of Risk..  We can not deny or totally exclude risk. Have you ever thought about living a (professional) life without taking any risk? What kind of life would that be?

There's this great actuarial risk quote of the famous economist John Maynard Keynes that states:

On the long run, we are all dead.....

So if you want some 'return' in life, you might as well take 'somewhat' risk before you 'certainly' die.

A nice illustration of total risk aversion is the 2004 movie "Along came Polly" were Reuben Feffer (actor Ben Stiller) is an actuary who, since his job involves analyzing risk for insurance purposes, likes living life in complete safety and free from any unnecessary risk.

This movie urges to ask yourself a simple question:

What's the risk of a riskless life?

Living life without risk if for dummies! Optimize the risk-return in your life.

Risk Guidelines

At the end of 2010 some simple Maggid 'Risk Guidelines' for 2011:

1. As long as there are no risks that'll kill you on the 'middle' or 'short' term: Take risk if you like the return outlook.
   
   
2. Think about how much bad luck or suffering you're willing to accept for a desired return.  Key question here is:
   Why does a marathon runner punish his body every day for weeks on end for an individual race?
   
   
3. Take a small risk every day! Invest small 'good things to do' by helping others without expecting a return. Soon you'll harvest some of your sowed investment seeds.....

Riskless Investment
Remember..., the only one riskless investment in life is.....

YOU

Anyhow, make 2011 a happy and healthy risk year!

Related Links:
- "Watch the movie 'Along came Polly' online !
- Learning about Risk and Return: A Simple Model of Bubbles and Crashes 

Actuarial Thought Leadership: What is success?

What is success? Are you a successful actuary?

Simple questions, easy to answer you would think. Right?

Wrong!

To illustrate the deeper  meaning and the nuance of success, let's take a look at the next 'Best Practice of Success'. A real life story from Joshua Maggid.....

'Best Practice of Success'

That day, together with my new colleague James, I entered the Pension Board's holy board room. All eight pension board members welcomed us with a hopeful smile and a firm handshake.

After introducing James as our company's brand new super professional, an unbeatable actuary and a seasoned specialist in asset liability matters, all seemed set for a successful presentation by James. Todays subject: Board decision on the new - next year's - asset allocation.

As expected, in a more than splendid and fluently short presentation, James handled everything a pension fund board member could possible think of or ask for. From headlines to all the important details. In roughly half an hour James showed his outstanding technical skills and impressed all board members. They were flabbergasted. What a knowledge, this was what one would call real Thought Leadership!

After James finishes his presentation, silence fills the board room. A kind of holy silence... Every board member is overwhelmed by James' stunning presentation. The Pension Board President quietly  looks around and breaks the profound silence as he softly says: "Thank you James.... Gentleman... (a lack of ladies in pension fund board rooms still teases us)...., is there anyone who has a question?......  (silence continues..) .  If not..... Do we all agree on James' new asset allocation proposal? (silence continues, some board members nod their head..). Does anyone disagree with James' proposal?.....(no one replies verbal or non verbal)... If not... Thank you for your continuing support. As a pension board, we've just agreed to the new asset location for next year... Congratulations!.... Dear advisory actuaries - James in particular - thank you for your effective presentation and corresponding proposal."

Aftermath

As always after I visit a client with a colleague, we meet shortly after in a nearby coffee shop to evaluate the meeting as well as each other's performance, irrespective of any form of hierarchy.

When I meet James shortly after the successful pension fund board meeting in the local Starbucks, he comes in walking with a smile....

"Peace of cake ", he opens our conversation. "What do you mean?, I ask him. "Well, making a $ 0.2 million turnover in a 30 minutes presentation, without any questions or comments, seems like a dream. I couldn't have done any better. I surpassed myself. This was one of my most successful presentations ever", James replied.

I looked him in the eye as I dropped an uneasy silence..... "This was as bad as it could get", I answered James. "How do you mean, 'Bad'? It was great, everyone agreed on my proposal, no questions at all.", James responded agitated.  

"Well - in short - It was YOU that took the decision and not the board. That's whats wrong", I stated. James again: "That's not true, I only advised, the board took the decision, not I. Let's keep things clear here, please!".

"No", I answered, "It was actually you!.... You took the actual decision. And if things in practice turn out different from your proposal (as most likely will be the case), this pension board will blame you for a wrong advice two years from now.......  

By demonstrating your enormous technical power in a half hour monologue, you've overpowered the board in such a way that they could not raise any questions or give comments without the risk of showing a form of incompetence or loss of face.

As we discussed in our preparation, you should have presented at least three different scenarios. Each scenario with a a different risk appetite. You should interactively have helped the board with choosing a well understood risk-return scenario. Asking questions, wrapping up opinions, leading the discussion to a point where the board feels that they've clearly understood what's on the table and 'feels comfortable' with the common decision taken."

James replied with anger: "When I have to do it that way, my presentations would take two hours and my preparation as well.  Above all, I have to deal with ten similar clients next week. I simply don't have the time to pick it up the way you suggest."

Moral of the story
From the above example it's clear that 'short term success' is not the same as 'long term success'.

To prevent ending up only in the reality of our own believes, constructive peer reviewing each other's performances is key to keep delivering long term top quality.

So don't forget to discuss your 'actuarial eggs' with one of your actuarial colleagues.....

Finally....
It takes 'new ethics' actuaries (and quants) to make pension fund business successful again.
Are you that actuary?

Related links:
- Making Decisions in the Pension Fund Board Room (PDF,2010)
- Investmentmentor:
   expectation, a force that will release either success or failure

Actuarial Simplicity

What is simplicity? What's the power of simplicity?

Goethe
It was Johann Wolfgang von Goethe ( listen), a German writer (poet), but also a polymath (!), who
stated:

Everything is simpler than you think 

and at the same time more complex than you imagine

And indeed Goethe was right, in (actuarial) science and  practice it's the challenge of overcoming (transcending) this paradox of simplicity and complexity.

The art of actuarial mastership
As models become more and more complex, it takes the art of actuarial mastership to condense this complexity into an outlined, understandable and (for the audience) applicable outcome.

A 'best practice example' of condensing complexity into a powerful inspiring statement, is Einseins famous equation E=MC² :

Like Paulo Coelho states in his blog about Einstein:
A man (actuary) should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… 

It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

Or, to quote Einstein:

Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler

How to cut through the actuarial cake?

Just three simple examples on how to cut through the complex actuarial cake. Examples that might help you to simplify complexity:

1. Think more simple

A perfect example of 'thinking more simple' is finding the solution of the next math problem (on the left), grabbed from an old high school math test.

Can you solve this problem within 10 seconds?

Found it? Now move your mouse over the picture or click it, to find the refreshing simple answer.....


Remember however not to oversimplify things. Sometimes problems need the eye of the actuarial master to identify important details...

2. Visual Results

Second example is to visualize the outcome of your models instead of power-point bullet conclusions or explaining how complex your model really is.

A nice example is the online dollar-bill-tracking project "Where's George?" from Research on Complex Systems, that measures the flow of dollars within the U.S. (over 11 millions bills, 3109 counties).
About 17 million passengers travel each week across long distances. However, including all means of transportation, 80% of all traffic occurs across distances less than 50 km.
One picture says it all and 'hides' the complex algorithms used, to get  stunning results.

On top of, George collects relevant data about 'human travel' that could be used for developing models of the spread of infectious diseases.

Just take look at the video presentation of George called Follow the Money to find out how to extract simple outcomes from complex models.

One of the simple results (by Brockmann) of this project is that the probability P(r) of traveling a distance (r, in km)  in a short period of time in days (max 14 days) can be expressed as a power law, i.e.:

P(r)= r ^-1.6

 3. Listen better

Every (actuarial) project outcome fails if there's no well defined goal at first.

Main problem is often, that the client isn't really capable of defining his goal (or problem) very precise and we - actuaries - start 'helping' the client.  In this 'helping' we are imposing our thoughts, beliefs and experiences onto others, by what we think 'is best' for the client. The outcome might often be an actuarial solution that fits the problem in our own actuarial head, but fails to meet the clients problem.

Main point is that we - as advisors - don't really listen well.
Of course that doesn't apply to you as an actuary personally, but it does apply to all other qualified actuaries, doesn't it?

Just to test if you're part of that small elite troop of 'well listening qualified actuaries' (WLQAs), just answer the next simple Client Problem:

Client: I'm confused about 'distances'. It turns out that measuring the distance between two points on earth is really complicated math, as the world is round and not flat.

But even in a 'flat world' I find measuring distance complicated. As an actuary, can you tell me:


What’s the shortest distance between two points in a flat world?

O.K. Now think for a moment.....

Have you got the answer to this complex client problem?

Now that you're ready with your answer, please click on the answer button to find out the one and only correct answer.

The answer is: the shortest distance between two points is zero

Hope you safely (without any mental damage) passed the above WLQA-test......

A Simple Application

A nice demonstration of actuarial simplicity is the well known 'compound interest doubling rule' that states that an investment with compound interest rate R, doubles itself in N≈72/R years.

So it'll take (p.e.) approximately N≈ 12 (=72/6) years to double your investment of $100 to $200 at an compound interest rate of 6% p.a.

While the precise equation of the doubling time is quite complex to handle, it's approximating equivalent, N≈72/R, is simple applicable and will do fine for small size compound interest rates.


It's our actuarial duty and challenge to develop simple rules of thumbs for board members we advice. We actuaries have to master the power of simplicity. Let's keep doing so!

Related links:
- The Complexity of Simplicity
- Where's George?: Wikipedia
- The scaling laws of human travel (2006)

What's that, an actuary? Kamikaze Investors

'Housing' is probably one of the most complex assets and also one of the most interesting.

Wake up...
At the next birthday party when somebody asks you the regular line: 'What's that, an actuary?....'  Don't answer the obligatory way, but demonstrate your actuarial risk management abilities in an interactive way....

Just ask who of your birthday friends would call himself a private - non professional - risky investor?........

After some hesitation and discussion, probably all of them will answer something like:  'No, I would not dare to risk much money, I put most of my savings in a 'safe - as possible - bank account'.

Than, your next question is: "Who owns a house?"
Now, probably more than 60% of your friends will raise their finger......

Congratulations! Now you may congratulate this 60% of your friends with the fact that they are probably a more risk taking investor than an average pension fund, because they are most likely (by far) overfunded  in the asset category "Housing".

After grasping the point of your little quiz, most of your friends will first laugh, than think, and after a while some of them will ask you what they should do about being a Kamikaze-investor?

Now you get to the tricky part of being an actuary:

1. Never tell anyone what to do, 
2. Just show them the possible scenarios
3. Point out and quantify the risks, and 
4. Help them take their own decisions 

House-Pricing
 A lot of research has been done around House pricing and risk.

Although their seems to be a positive relationship between interest rate and housing-price growth, the housing risk is much more complicated than that.

Also housing prices differ strongly by country, as the next Economist table shows:

And because as actuaries, we're little Kamikaze-investors as well, the Economist has developed an interactive application to get sight at the housing-price development in your country relative to others.

Have fun with this House-Price Calculator

Related links:
- Economist House-Price Development Calculator 
- Housing consumption-based asset pricing and residential mortgage default risk. (2009) 
- Home Values and Household Debt Present Global Risks
- Running on funds: Complete (2007) Fitch Table

Voltaire: Diplomats, Ladies and Actuaries..

Actuaries understand the difference between 'being sure' and telling it....
Some of us are Diplomat, Lady and Actuary in One.... what a dazzling combination...
 

Diplomats, Ladies and Actuaries
When a diplomat says yes, he means ‘perhaps’;
When he says perhaps, he means ‘no’;
When he says no, he is not a diplomat.


When a lady says no, she means ‘perhaps’;
When she says perhaps, she means ‘yes’;
When she says yes, she is not a lady.

- Voltaire 1694-1778 quoted in Escandell 1993 -

When an actuary says yes, (s)he means 'probably'
When (s)he says probably, (s)he means 'sure'
When (s)he says 'sure', (s)he is not an actuary.

- Joshua Maggid Actuary Info 2010 -

Questioning Solvency II?

Every now and then, when you're in the middle of some-, any- or every-thing, it's wise to sit back and ask yourself some basic questions:

Is what I'm doing still adding value?
If so, what's that value and for who?
If not, how can I add value one way or the other?
If not, stop!

A Solvency example...

Suppose you're up to your neck in a solvency II project and you've not really seen your family for two weeks. Just sit back, relax and simply ask yourself the next questions:

1. Why are we implementing Solvency II
   (Better: What's the goal of Solvency II)
2. Are the reasons for implementing Solvency II valid and sound?
3. Is it possible and profitable to define and measure detailed risks at company level?
4. What's the RETURN on Solvency II for policyholders and shareholders?

The official (CEA) answer to question I reads in short:

We implement Solvency II because the current framework is too simple and does not direct capital accurately to where the risks are.

Key question (II) is: Are "too simple" and "more detailed directing capital" valid or sound reasons........?


Alternative
A more valid reason for implementing Solvency II would be something like:

Recent decades have shown an increase of Insurance Companies Bankrupts (or Insolvencies) to a level of x% p.a. (measured in value instead of numbers). Solvency II intents to bring down this x% risk to (x-y)% in Z years by means of a more detailed capital-risk approach.

The estimated costs of this yearly y% reduction by implementing and maintaining Solvency II, are estimated at z% p.a. .

Main challenges implementing S II at company level

1. Capital allocation
   At an individual company level, the effect of Solvency II on shareholder and client value will only be negative. More 'dead capital' has to be allocated, decreasing shareholder value and decreasing clients profit share.
   
   
2. Revenues
   Pricing Solvency II, will increase premium/contribution levels. However higher contribution levels will have a negative net impact on sales and revenues.
   
   
3. Capital Inadequacy
   On top of, the extra solvency created by Solvency II will turn out to be inadequate at an individual company level in case the deTAILed risks actually affects (hits) a company. A more (inter)national reinsurance program could bring help here. However, these kind of reinsurance programs turn out to be expensive. Moreover, take care that these deTAILed risks don't turn out to be systemic risks in the end....

Conclusion

It's clear that the Solvency II goals are not smart formulated. Nevertheless, Solvency II seems an irreversible process.

Therefore the key question is:

How can you use Solvency II to add (long term) value to your clients and shareholders?

The art of asking the right question

Now you've replaced your fuzzy feeling and foggy discussions about the goal of Solvency II, by a leading question.

Answering and discussing this question will turn out the way to create efficiency and joy in your project and time for your family.

A lot of colleague actuaries can help you on discussing and answering this question.

Start discussing this question in the company board's next meeting!


Risk management Moral
In fact Risk Management in general is more the art of asking the right question instead of giving the right answer. This is well argumented by Professor Stefan Scholtes (University of Cambridge), who states that what we need is a complementary balance between modelling and intuition; models that relate to and enforce our mental abilities, not replace them.

audio link

We actuaries can learn from that. Actuarial questioning turns out key. Next time you have to give a (Board) presentation, start by asking the right (effective) questions instead of giving answers straight away.

One last tip: Never ask 'Why questions', instead ask 'What questions'....

Related links
- CEA Why Solvency II?
- Prof. Stefan Scholtes: The art of asking the right question
- Asking the right questions

Pension Fund Humor: Ask an Actuary!

The art of Pension Fund management....

original picture source

Investment Strategy: The Price of Doubt

Most actuaries have seen it happen: A perfect designed investment strategy......., turning into a real nightmare. How could it come that far? What happened?

Life of an actuary...
Let's dive into a real life simplified actuarial case....:

As the actuary of your company, you've developed a perfect ALM study. Together with the head of the investment department, you've been able to convince your Board of the new developed 'Investment Strategy'. A consequent mix of 50% Bonds and 50% stocks, resulting in an average expected 6% return on the long term, turned out to be the best (optimal) investment mix given the risk appetite of your Board and the regulatory demands. All things are set for execution.

Now let's see how your strategic plan would develop (scenario I) and how it would probably be executed by the Board (scenario II) over the next ten years.

Although your investment strategy plan was designed on a rational basis and the execution of this plan was also intended to be a rational process, in practice they are not.....

Let's follow the discussion in the Board from year to year...

Year 1

The company's average portfolio return performs according plan (6%). Stocks: 8%, Bonds 4%, on average 6%. The Board concludes they have the right strategy. You, as an actuary, agree.

Year 2

Compliments from the Board. Stocks perform even higher (10%), leading to a 7% average return.
You sleep well that night.

Year 3

Another fabulous Stock performance year. A stock return of 20%, leading to an average return of 12%! Some Board members start to doubt and question your ALM-model. They are arguing that if stock prices are that high three years in a row, they would like to profit more from this development. They suggest to adjust the asset mix in favor of stocks. Your ALM model should me more flexible.

You are defending your Asset Liability Model to the grave, but after extensive discussions all board members agree that a slight 'temporary' adjustment to 70% stocks and 30% bonds would be 'worth the risk' to profit from this high stock return. With great reluctance, you agree....

Year 4

Although the performance of stocks is not as high as the year before, it's still relatively high (15%) and leads to an average return of 11.7%, which is 2.2% (!) higher than the 9.5% return that would have been achieved with a 50/50% mix.  The Board concludes that it took the right decision last year, to adjust the asset mix to 70/30%.

You - as the responsible actuary - warn again, but the facts are against you. Disappointed and misunderstood you return to your office as the President of the Board tries to cheer you up by thanking you for your 'constructive response' in the board meeting. You abstain from joining the festive Board Party that evening.

Year 5

Stocks are dramatically down to 0%, leading to an average mixed return of 1.2% this year.
The board meeting this year is chaotic. Some members support you as the 'responsible actuary' to readjust the asset mix to the original mix of 50/50%. Others argue that this stock dip is only temporary and that this year's average return is only 0.8% lower than would have been achieved with a 50/50% mix. On top of, most members strain that this year's 0.8% negative return is still lower than the 2.2% positive difference of last year. After two stressful board meetings, the Board decides to stick to their 70/30% investment mix.
The board president's eye fails to meet you, as you leave the board room that night.

Year 6

What was most feared, has become true.. A negative stock return of 10%, leading to an average return of -5.8% ....   When you walk into the board room that night, all eyes are on you as the 'responsible actuary'. You hold your breath, just like all other board members. After a short moment of silence the board president states that he proposes to bring back the asset mix to the original 50/50% mix. Without further discussion this proposal is accepted. There's no board party this year.

Year 7

Negative stock returns have increased to 15%, leading to an average return of -5.5% this year.
Some Board members fear that if stock prices will be down for another few years, the average 'needed' return of 6% will not be met. They doubt the current strategy.

Also the Regulator and some Rating Agencies insist on higher confidence and solvency levels with corresponding measures to be taken. Both are not positive and doubt the outlook on stock returns on the long term...

After a long meeting that night, the Board chooses for reasons of 'savety' (!) to adjust the asset mix to 30/70% in favor of the still 4% stable performing Bonds (Better something than nothing (!) ).

Again... you explain that night, that changing the asset mix following actual market performance, is the worst thing a company can do....  But again, you lose the debate.

The power of emotion is greater than the power of rationality. Now not only the Board seems against you, but the Regulator as well. Who wants to fight that! After all, 'ethical' rule number one is 'complying with the Regulator'. That evening you brainwash yourself and reprogram your attitude to 'actuarial follower' instead of 'actuarial leader'.

After two Johnnie Walkers you see the future bright again and seem ready for the new year.


Year 8
To everybody's surprise stocks performed extremely well at 25% this year. As a result the average return reaches a satisfying performance of 10.3%. With 'mixed feelings' board members take notice of the results. What nobody dears to say and everybody seems to think is: 'Had we stuck to our 70/30% asset mix, the performance would have been: 18.7% (!)......'

The Board President cautiously concludes that the Board took the right decision last year, leading to a proud 10.3% return this year. Compliments to everyone, including the actuary! Supported by your 'converted' mind, the 30/70% asset mix is continued. That evening you accept the invitation to the board party. Lots of Johnnie Walkers help you that night to cope with the decisions taken.

Year 9

Stocks perform at 20%, leading to an 8.8% average mixed return. No Board member dears to raise questions about the possibility of readjusting the asset mix to a 'more risky' (what's that?) one. After all, the overall performance is still higher than the needed 6%. So who may complain or doubt the new 'On the Fly Strategy'? Who cares or who dears? You go to bed early that night.

Year 10
Stocks returns have come down to a more 'realistic' level of 7%. As a consequence the average return is down to 4.9%, way down beneath the critical level of 6%. Board members have to strike a balance. Some of them doubt again. Continuing the 30/70% asset mix will not bring them the needed long term 6% objective return. Adjusting to a 50/50% mix probably will, but is more risky. What to do?

All eyes are on you as the 'final advising actuary'. With restrained pride you state: "Dear colleagues, what about our good friend, the original '50/50% asset mix'. Can we confirm on that?" Without anyone answering, the President takes a look around.... His gavel hits the table and the decision seems to have been taken.

AftermathEmatics.......

That night you decide to change Johnnie Walker for a well deserved glass of 'actuarial wine': a simple  'Mouton Rothschild 1945' (at the expense of the Board of course). You enjoy the moment and the pleasure of being an actuary. Even after the Rothschild you realize that the decade price of doubt was high: 0.9% p.a. ...

When you go to bed for a good night sleep, you smile...., as some little voice in your head tells you that next year this madness decade-cycle will probably start again...

What kind of actuary are you?

We all know plain actuarial skills are not enough to be(come) a successful professional actuary.

Time and time again we have to conclude that it takes more than average communication skills to overcome the persistent communication gap between actuaries and their audience.

In a 2008 workshop Matthias Bonikowski (Senior Manager at Milliman) presented the outcome of a German survey.

Here are the stunning results:

Proposition		Actuaries' opinion	Non-Actuaries' opinion
1.	Actuaries are pessimists	85%	85%
2.	Actuaries are not opportunists	70%	70%
3.	Actuaries communicate clearly and transparently	15%	5%
4.	Actuaries think out of the box	50%	15%
5.	Actuaries live in an ivory tower	10%	50%

The Copy Paste Actuary

From the Bonikowski survey it's clear that non-actuaries (including: board managers, sales directors, product managers, coaches and headhunters) don't speak highly of actuaries.

It looks like most of the 'actuary species' are perceived as a kind of 'Copy Paste Actuary'. One who's not able to think out of the box.

We are congenital pessimists, trained to do a sort of one trick pony act. An act we can't explain or communicate, like 'normal' people seem to be able to do. 

On top of this  - just like the famous Baron Münchhausen who was unable to escape from a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair - we actuarial poor devils seem unable to lift ourselves to the next level.

We're obviously trapped in our 'non-communication' addiction, smoke gets in our eyes and nobody around us seems capable of helping us to move from our alien planet to the world of real people, business and social life.

The non-actuaries' view in Bonikowski's survey emphasizes this image...

The non-actuaries' view
The non actuaries' view on actuaries comes down to::
- They explain complex terms as complex as possible
- Inability to make actuarial things clear to non-actuaries
- They are not able to take a bird‘s eye view
- They are missing empathy for non-actuaries

As possible reasons for this view, non-actuaries notice:
- They are isolated from decision processes…
- High expectations about actuarial knowledge – deep and broad
- Communication skills are not a part of actuarial education

As a 'solution', 7 suggestions for successful communication are developed:

1. Point out key messages
2. Leave out details
3. Use more pictures and examples
4. Explain more in “black and white”
5. Avoid academic language/technical jargon
6. Pick up non-actuaries earlier
7. Define target-group specific communication rules

As we all know, these issues and solutions are not really new or surprising. Why is this issue of non-communication and 'Ivory Tower Effect' so hard to solve?

Actuaries are invisible

In 'My Opinion' of the Actuarial Review 2010, Grover Edie shows that we 'actuaries' are not in any way involved in important (political) decisions.

Important decisions that society has to take in coping with challenges as aging, longevity, health, etc.  Grover Edie explicates: 'they don’t ask us (actuaries) because we are not visible'.

My view is that the 'invisibility of  actuaries' is more or less a global issue.

Undoubtedly this theme of invisibility finds his roots in the actuary's attitude. This is well illustrated by Grover Edie's summarized reactions of actuaries on the issue:

• “If I do good work, others will ask me for more of it.”
• “I don’t need to advertise or to sell my work: My work speaks for itself.”
• “I certainly don’t need to sell others on the value of my work, and if they are too stupid to know the value of what I do, that’s their problem.”

Supply and Demand
Grover Edie thinks that this underlying 'laissez-faire  attitude' is the basic problem. A problem that - in his view - can be solved with a simple sales training approach.  With all due respect...., the invisibility of actuaries has probably a deeper cause than this superficial laissez faire attitude only, that is mainly the effect of the Law of Supply and Demand.

Most actuaries had to study hard to achieve their goal of becoming a qualified actuary. Once they'd become an actuary, there was, still is and will be, more than enough well paid work. In other words: The Demand side of the market market exceeds (by far) the Supply side of the market. Why should actuaries develop a commercial sales attitude if they don't need it?

In this situation the risk that an actuary eventually becomes a 'Mirror Actuary', is not inconceivable.

A mirror actuary, one who just reflects and gives back what the environment offers him.

He looks a bit like the invisible actuary. Without a real own opinion,  the mirror actuary just reflects the financial impact and consequences of decisions taken by others.  He  acts without sincere social engagement or conviction. Hence he's unable to generate a critical positive feedback viewpoint, necessary to make what its takes, the difference.

What does it takes?
Convincing actuaries to become more visible and socially or publically involved, takes more than a professional sales approach. Actuaries have to be made conscious of why and where they are and what they really want to achieve in life.
In other words:

What kind of actuary would you (really) like to be?

In this case the answer is not a traditional one like 'Pricing Actuary', 'Pension Actuary', 'Health Actuary; or the humorous answer 'very kind'. No, the answer to this question hits our actuarial soul....

The good old actuarial horse
Would you like to be the well paid 'actuarial horse' in front of the wagon, that gets his orders from the coachman and does his calculation work every time he's being asked to do deliver some?

Or do you want to sit on the wagon, next to the coachman, discussing and advising on the best route of the wagon?


Answering these simple questions is key in solving the persisting actuarial mind setting issue.

Visibility? Select at the gate!
This invisibility issue deals with the fundamental structure of an actuary's personality.  It's not something that can be easily learned or changed during or after achieving a (long term) study. If we want visible actuaries who are socially and publically involved, we'll have to select them on that attitude at the gate, before they undertake an actuarial study. Just like we test their arithmetic talent and other mental capacities, before actuaries start their study.

The Dancing Actuary

If we don't act upon this new 'visibility insight' and keep trying to beat the famous dead horse, things will never change.

In this situation there's a tricky risk that we enjoy our salary and comfortable position so much that we suppress our critical view and potential power to change things. In which case we become totally dependable on our monthly paycheck and the opinion of our boss or manager.

In doing so, we might gradually become implicitly susceptible to extortion and eventually things will escalate.

Ultimately in this situation, we could even develop to a kind of 'dancing bear', in this case a 'Dancing Actuary'.

Try to keep your eyes open. If you feel completely 'chained' or if our environment constantly forces you to support actions or decisions you can not really account for, seek help or step out before it's too late.

The Wise Actuary

Wrapping up this warning blog about invisibility, you could get the wrong impression that black swan actuaries doe not exist at all.

Of course we know better. There are lots of wise and visible actuaries around the world and as you've made your way to the end of this blog, you'll be probably one of them....

Wise actuarial owls that want to make the difference in life and society. Actuaries who are not for sale and who know their personal limits. Actuaries that know when and where to say 'no' or 'yes'.

Actuaries that don't just want to talk about a better world, but want to act(uary) on it.

Are you that 'wise actuary', who's visible, socially active and leading society to the next level?

Test

If you want to find out if you're a wise, invisible, mirror or dancing actuary, take the next 5 minutes 15 questions test called:

What kind of actuary are you?

Good luck with this 'actuary stress test'!


Related links/ Resources:
- Workshop Actuarial Communication (2008) Presentation (pdf)
- Article: They Don’t Ask Us Because We Are Not Visible
- Test:What kind of actuary are you?

Actuarial Limit 100m Sprint

In June 2009 Professor of Statistics John Einmahl and (junior) actuary Sander Smeets, calculated the ultimate record for the 100-meter sprint. The actual World record - at that time - was set by Usain Bolt at 9.69 seconds (August 16, 2008, Beijing, China).

With help of the extreme-value theory and based on 'doping free' World Record data (observation period:1991 to June,19 2008) Smeets and Einmahl calculated the fastest time that a man would be ultimately capable of sprinting at: Limit = 9.51 seconds.

However....
As often in actuarial calculation, once your model is finally set, tested and implemented, the world changes...

Or, as a former colleague once friendly answered when I asked him if his ship (project) was still on course:

My ship's on course......
But the port moves !

In this case, the 'model shifting event' took place in Beijing, exactly one year later, on August 16, 2009: Usain Bolt sets a new astonishing 100m World Record in 9.58 seconds !

Of course 9.58 secs is still within the scope of Smeets' and Einmahl's model limit of 9.51 seconds...

Nevertheless, as a common sense actuary, you can see coming a mile away, that this 9.51 secs-limit will not hold as a final future limit.

As is visual clear, one can at least question the validity of the 'extreme-value theory approach' in this 100m sprint case.

Math-Only Models
In this kind of projections (e.g. 100m world records) it's not enough to base estimations only on historical data. No matter how well historical data are projected into future data, things will mesh up!
Why? Because these kind of 'math-only models' fail to incorporate the changes in what's behind and what causes new 100m World Records. To develop more sensible estimates, we'll have to dive into the world of Biomechanics.

To demonstrate this, let's have a quick -amateur - look at some biomechanical data with respect to Usain Bolt's last World Record:

Let's draw a simple conclusion from this chart:

Hitting 9.50 secs seems possible

Just like Bolt stated in an interview: "I think I can go 9.50-something", appears to be realistic:

• 0.026 secs faster by improving his reaction time to the level of his best competitors: 0.12secs, instead of  0.146secs
• 0.060 secs faster by reaching his maximum speed (12.35 m/s) at V50 and maintaining this speed for the remaining 50 meters. 

Biomechanical explanations
On top of this, Bolt outperforms his competitors on having a higher step length and a lower step frequency. This implies there must be deeper biomechanical factors like body weight, leg strength, leg length & stiffness (etc), that need to be included in a model to develop more realistic outcomes.

Newest biomechanical research ("The biological limits to running speed are imposed from the ground up" ) shows maximum (theoretical?) speeds of 14 m/s are within reach, leading to potential World Records of around 9 secs on the long run.....

Based on this new biomechanical information output in combination with an appropriate chosen corresponding logistic model, we can now predict a more realistic ultimate World Record Estimation (WRE) in time.

Curvefitting at ZunZun with the 1968-2009 data (including Bolt's 9.58 secs record) on basis of a Weibull CDF With Offset (c), led to the next, best fit equation:

 
With: y=WRE in seconds, x=Excel date number, and:
a =  -3.81253229860548
b =  41926.0524625578
c =  8.97894916004274 (=final limit)

As we may learn more about biometrics in the near future, perhaps the ultimate 9 seconds (8.9789 seconds, more exactly) can possibly be reached faster than we currently estimate (year 2200).


Playtime
Now, just play around with (estimate) world records in this Google time series plotter:

WRE Plotter

Finally

As actuaries, what can we learn from this 'sprinting example'?
 

Well... Take a look at estimating future (2030 a.f.) mortality rates.

Just like with estimating World Records, it seems almost impossible to estimate future mortality rates just on basis of extrapolating history.

No matter the quality of the data or your model, without additional information what's behind this mortality development, future estimations seem worthless and risky.

Although more and more factors affecting retirement mortality are being analysed, (bio)genetic and medical information should be studied by actuaries and translated into output that strengthens the devlopment of new mortality estimate models.

Actuaries, leave your comfortable Qx-houses and get started!

Related links and sources:
- Ultimate 100m world records through extreme-value theory
- 90 years of records
- Usain Bolt: The Science of Running Really Fast
- Biomechanics Report WC Berlin 2009 Sprint Men
- BP WC Berlin 2009 - Analysis of Bolt: average speed 
- The biological limits to running speed (2010)
- Limits to running speed in dogs, horses and humans (2008)
- Improving running economy and efficiency
- Factors Affecting Retirement Mortality and Their Impact ... 
- Cheetah Sets New World Record 100 meter sprint2009 (6.130 sec)
- 100m World record data and WRE (xls spreadsheet)

Actuary Professional Test

So you think, because you're an actuary, you must be a top professional....

Well.... Put yourself to the test by taking the next two minute IQ-test.
Remember: Don't cheat!

2 Minute Intelligence Test