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 

How Rewards Pay Out

Let's take the 'Candle Test' as constructed by the psychologist Karl Duncker (1930).

Just take a look at the materials on the left picture.

A candle, a box of thumbtacks, and a book of matches.

Here's the simple task:

Attach the candle to the wall so that it doesn't drip onto the table below.

(Please, don't read any further until you solved this challenge....)

Solution

Here's the solution:

Empty the box with thumbtacks. Place the candle in the emptied box. Fix that box to the wall using the thumbtacks. Place the candle in the box.

If you managed to find this solution (without cheating) within 4 minutes, you're still an enlightened actuary.

If not? Don't mind, things will get better after reading this blog.

To find the solution you had to overcome what is called “functional fixedness”: You had to see beyond the thumbtack box as purely a container for the thumbtacks.

Rewarding Performance
In the sixties Sam Glucksberg used the 'Candle Test' to test the impact of extrinsic motivational factors on the problem solving ability.

Glucksberg created two groups of participants. The first group was told they would be timed to establish norms for how long it would typically take people to solve this sort of puzzle. The second group of participants were offered $5 each, if the time they took to solve the problem was in the top 25% of all those tested. The fastest achievement would be rewarded with $20.

The outcome of this experiment was that it took the extrinsically incentivized second group on average three and a half minutes longer to solve the problem. Obviously the incentives narrowed the participants minds and blocked them to think literally 'out of the box'....

From this experiment it became clear that rewards fail and work contrarily in case of complex situations.

Similar experiment....
Then, Glucksberg took a similar experiment in a slightly different way.

He presented two new groups the situation on the left picture.
Can you predict the outcome this time?

This time, the rewarded group defeated the non-incentivized group by miles....

Why???? Because the tacks were OUT of the box !!!!

By placing the thumbtacks out of the box and placing the thumbtack box empty on the table, Glucksberg had changed the problem.

Instead of achieving a heuristic task (i.e. a complex task that requires analysis and experimenting with possibilities to develop a solution), the problem was reduced to a more algorithmic problem (i.e. the solution comes down to a set of simplistic steps down a single pathway to one conclusion).

Conclusion
To summarize: financial short-term rewarding of complex tasks leads to output reduction instead of a better performance.

More than actuaries, professionals like quants, investment managers and bank managers are rewarded on short-term output, while - at the same time - their professional challenges and objectives are complex like a Gordian knot.

A way out

If we want to get out of the current economic crisis, we'll have to stop rewarding short term results one way or the other. Our complete (economic) system should be rebased on rewarding long(er) sustainable results and well calculated risk. Don't wait any longer, just start today at your department.

Excuses....
The issue of "not getting the 'right' professionals if we don't pay enough" is a fable. No matter how professionals like CEOs, Bank managers or actuaries are: if they just go for the short-term money and aren't intrinsically motivated to make this world a little better with their gifts and skills, please let them leave.

Tip: Include rewarding in your risk models!

Let's conclude with an interesting video by Dan Pink who examines the puzzle of motivation, explaining that traditional rewards aren't always as effective as we think.




Related/Used sources:
- Carrots and sticks
- Functional_fixedness

Equity Returns and Mean Reversion

One of the most triggering questions - given the current crisis - is:

Will equity returns recover?

Mean Reversion
In 2009 the S&P-500 index - as most stock market indices - reached the lowest level since the turn of the century. In less than two years time world stock indices had dropped around fifty percent of their value. Since then, stock indices increased about forty percent.

It's tempting to think that this recovery could have been predicted in advance. This suspected predictable effect of recovering stock prices returning to their long-term average, is called: 'Mean Reversion'.

More explicitly: 'Mean Reversion of stock prices' is the effect that abnormal stock prices gradually return to their long-term historical average or equilibrium price.

Reversion Speed
In a 2010 working paper, the Dutch regulator DNB provides an answer to this question of recoverability.  In this paper, authors Spierdijk, Bikker and Van den Hoek analyze 'mean reversion in international stock markets' in seventeen developed countries during the period 1900-2008.

One of the outcomes of this study is not only an interesting country spread between 'mean returns' and volatility (risk, standard deviation), but also a mind boggling country difference in 'reversion speed' (rs).  Reversion speed can be defined as the 'yearly interest speed to return to the long-term average. RS differs strongly per country, as the next slide shows:

Ranked by average return (all %):

Reversion conclusions

The DNB study concludes that in the period 1900-2008:

• Average Return
  The average World Stock Return is estimated at 8.0% with a volatility of 16.7% (S.D.).
  
  
• Half-Life Reversion Period (HLRP)
  It takes 'World Stock Prices' on average about 14 years  to absorb half (!) of a shock (HLRP), with a confidence interval of [10 years -21 years]

• High Half-Life Uncertainty
  The uncertainty of the half-lives estimates is very high. This is due to the fact that the lower bounds for the corresponding median unbiased estimators are close to zero. The upper bounds of the confidence intervals for the half-lives are therefore very high.
  
  
• Mean Reversion, a Trading Strategy?
  The relative low value of the mean reversion rate, as well as its huge uncertainty, severely limits the possibilities to exploit mean reversion in a trading strategy
  

Concluding Remarks

We should keep in mind that - no matter how well investigated - historical data - as always - only have a limited predictive power.

Looking with a 'actuarial eye' at the volatile annual development of the S&P-500 returns and their moving averages, it's hard to deny some kind of visual proof of an increasing volatile yearly return and a structural declining 10- or 15-years average return.....

This 'visual proof', combined with the results of the 'DNB Mean Reversion paper',  is perhaps the best indicator that the future average long term World Stock return of 8% is probably way too optimistic and still includes too much the optimist mood and hope of the last decades of the 20th century...




S&P-500, averages annual returns and inflation 1950-2010

	Price Change	Dividend Distribution Rate	Total Return	Inflation	Real Price Change	Real Total Return
1950's	13.2%	5.4%	19.3%	2.2%	10.7%	16.7%
1960's	4.4%	3.3%	7.8%	2.5%	1.8%	5.2%
1970's	1.6%	4.3%	5.8%	7.4%	-5.4%	-1.4%
1980's	12.6%	4.6%	17.3%	5.1%	7.1%	11.6%
1990's	15.3%	2.7%	18.1%	2.9%	12.0%	14.7%
2000's	-2.7%	1.8%	-1.0%	2.5%	-5.1%	-3.4%
1950-2009	7.2%	3.6%	11.0%	3.8%	3.3%	7.0%

Key question is : What would be a save 'long-term total return of stocks' as a base for an investment strategy, without the 'Hope Bubbles' of the last two decades of the last century?

Probably a long term stock return of about 6% would turn out to be a save basis for a kind of investment reversion strategy......
However, now we know where we are going, it's absolutely necessary to know where we are now? Unfortunately.... we don't know.... ;-) 

Sources, related links:
- DNB 2010: Mean Reversion in International Stock Markets
- (Dutch) DNB-2010: Herstel aandelenmarkten is niet vanzelfsprekend
- Wikipedia: S&P-500 Annual Returns 
-  Simple Stock Investing: S&P-500 historical data

Online Murphy Risk Calculator

Risk is like quantum mechanics:

If you think you understand Risk, you don't understand Risk
Maggid after : Feynman

If you are not completely confused by Risk, you do not understand it
Maggid after : John Wheeler

Sure, risk is hard to tackle. The more you learn about risk, the more you become aware of it's sneaky characteristics (clustering, tails, etc).

This is why becoming a qualified actuary takes an incredible amount of time, hard study and many years of experience.  As masters in Risk, actuaries understand the limits in modeling and calculating Risk.

Murphy

Probably one of the more intriguing risk quotes is :

Murphy's Law

"Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong"

by the famous Edwin Murphy.

A quote that keeps an actuary mind busy....  After all, as actuaries it is our duty to quantify and explain uncertainty (as much as is possible) in board rooms and on the accounting table. Not only when decisions have to be taken, but also after things turned out wrong or different from what we thought. This is - to put it mildly - no 'easy task' and it's not getting easier in the near future.....


Just like Murphy, actuaries experienced last decades that (statistic) bad luck often collaborates with bad timing. What drives God (i.e. quantum mechanics or 'Murphy probability') to confront us - (poor) actuaries - with 'fair value volatility', 'longevity explosions', 'subprime defeats', 'imploding real estate market's and 'extraordinary solvency demands by supervisors', all at the same time time?


(Un)Luckily, help is on the way....  In 2004 British Gas commissioned some scientists to create a formula to predict Murphy's Law, also known as Sod's Law.

Murphy's Formula
In a 2005 study, based on a survey of 1,023 adults, Murphy’s Law was shown 'statistically significant'. The final report also supplied a formula for predicting occurrences of Murphy’s Law. Here it is....


Let U, C, I, S, and F be integers between 1 and 9, reflecting respectively comparative levels of Urgency, Complexity, Importance, Skills, and Frequency in a given set of circumstances. Let A, which stands for Aggravation, equal 0.7 (Please, don’t ask why). The likelihood (L) of Murphy’s Law obtaining under those circumstances, on a scale of 0 to 8.6, turns out to be:

L = [((U + C + I) x (10 - S)) / 20] x A x 1 / (1 - sin (F / 10))

Murphy's Formula strikes itself
Unfortunately, Murphy's law suffered from self reference, as one of the  authors, the mathematician Phil Obayda, commented on a 2004 blog that this formula is wrong.

The correct formula according to Phil is:

 P= (((U+C+I) * (1-S))/2) * A * (1/(1-Sin F))

with P = probability of Sod's Law Occuring and U, C, I, S and F values greater than 0 and less than 1, keeping the mysterious A = 0.7.

Murphy's formula simplified
Simplifying this last formula leads to Maggid's formula for the probability (%) of Murphy hitting you, whenever you perform a task:

Although application of this formula is not (yet) an obligated part of the actuary's Code of Professional Conduct, please check this equation anytime you're about to defend an actuarial advice on a Board's table.

How to use Murphy's formula: an Actuarial Example
Let's do a simple exercise to demonstrate the power of Murphy's formula:

You've developed a risk model of the Stock market. In a meeting the Chair of the board asks you how certain you are of your model being right. You know the difference between risk and uncertainty, so you say "one moment please" and pick up your pocket calculator while reflecting: This is a ´U=3, I=9,C=10,F=3´ situation, and I'm a S=9 actuary. That calculates as P=10.4% of Murphy hitting me. Within 20 seconds you (over)confidently answer: I`m about 90% sure of my model!

The Chair of the Board looks desperate... His eyes reflect: ´Is 90% good or bad?` You didn't realize your model was that important to the board.  But.. if that's so, 'Importance' should not be rated at I=9 but at I=10, raising the failure probability to almost 11%. Now you start doubting yourself : What if you overestimated yourself? What if you're only a AA-Actuary (level S=7) instead of a AAA (level S=9)? This would increase the probability of failing to 31.3%. Suddenly you realize you're only one step away from a major personal actuarial meltdown.
You get yourself together, regain your self confidence, realize you're one of the best actuaries in the world (S=10) and full of confidence you reply the questioning eyes of the Chair with: "Sir, I'm almost 100% certain my model is right.

The Board is relieved and content. You're an actuary they can trust. Now they can decide without hesitation.

So next time you want to know the failure probability of a task, use the next Online Murphy Calculater.

Good Luck with Murphy's calculator!

Used sources/Links:
- Sod’s Law: A Proof
- Newyorker: Murphy At the Bat
- The Engineering of Murphy's Law?
- Legend, Inc. Murphy's Laws
- The Stock Market: Risk vs. Uncertainty
- Murphy's Online Calculator

Isle of Risk

Last decades, our perceptions of Financial Risk haven been constantly changing and - for sure - they will continue to do so in the future.

In the sixties and seventies of the 20th century 'risk' was mainly plain 'technical risk'. Risk Management was mainly used to support current strategies, as a defensive instrument.

More de-Tailed studies of risk in the nineties, created new instruments and models to manage (investment) risks. This led to the understanding that it was possible to take more risk because we could understand and manage it in a better way.

Next, at the beginning of the 21th century, these new risk models were expanded and transformed from passive to active instruments. New products and markets were developed by combining, cutting and mixing traditional asset products (stock, bonds, mortgages) with derivates. And just like in chemistry, where mixing innocent individual molecules could lead to an explosive new molecule, the asset markets got flooded with toxic, unknown risk-correlated products.

For most of us it became clear that it was not the risk ingredients (bonds, stocks, derivatives, etc) themselves that caused this turmoil, but our own (irresponsible) behavior, e.g. the way we ourselves were managing the asset products and models. Behavioral Finance was born.

After we poisoned the investment market landscape in the second half of this last decade, things turned for the worse. Instead of looking what we had done, where we were on the risk map and how we could clean up this mess, we kept on building debt and - except for sub prime mortgages - refused to restructure the market 0r to restrict the use of derivatives.
No restrictions nor ethical guidelines on making money just from money (who pays for making money of money?).

Instead, with the latest development High Frequency Trading (1,000 orders per second ! ), covering about 60% of all U.S. equity trading and nearly half of U.S. futures trading, we finally lost our site on what is ethical or not.
Main question is: Who has the guts and the power to stop this development?

Anyway, it's clear that our 'behavior' and a 'map of the risk landscape' are critical in understanding where we are heading with Risk......
Let's start with behavioral finance

Behavioral Finance
One of the world’s best experts in the field of behavioral finance is James Montier.
His book Behavioural Finance is a classical must-read.

In a 2002 classic report titled 'Part Man, Part Monkey', Montier gives a number of common mental investment pitfalls. Here's a sum up of those pitfalls that might apply to actuaries just as well:

• You know less than you think you do
• Be less certain in your views, aim for timid forecasts and bold choices
• Don't get hung up on one technique, tool, approach or view - flexibility and pragmatism are the order of the day
• Listen to those who don't agree with you
• You didn't know it all along, you just think you did
• Forget relative valuation, forget market price, work out what the stock is worth (use reverse DCFs)
• Don't take information at face value, think carefully about how it was presented to you
  

Trinity of Risk
According to Montier the word 'Risk' is perhaps the most misunderstood concept in finance. In classical finance, risk is identified as the relative price volatility (beta). However that's not what risk really is about. 'Downside risk' (ie loss) is what really matters when it comes down to performance measurement. From an investment point of view, risk can be split up into three interrelated elements, the so called 'trinity of risk':

• Business Risk (risk of business going broke)
  
• Financial Risk (risk of using leverage)
  
• Valuation risk (the margin of safety)
  

Valuation risk is the most tricky type of risk, as is explained in an excellent article 'The Biggest Mistakes in Valuation...' by Donald R. van Deventer from Kamakura Corporation. Here's the wrap up of the top 7 valuation mistakes in a humorous "daily life analogy"

1. The Fake Rolex Watch Mistake
   Ask the investment bank which sold you a fake Rolex what the Watch is worth
2. The Poker Game Mistake
   Ask someone else playing in the same game how you should bet
3. The War of the Worlds Mistake
   Believe in a valuation technique Because everyone else thinks it's true
4. The Cash Card Mistake
   Tell an investment banker exactly how your firm evaluates complex securities
5. The Carton of Eggs Mistake
   Don't check to see if the eggs are broken, just look at the egg carton before buying
6. The "My Brother-In-Law Told Me It Was a Good Investment" Mistake
   Bernie Madoff and the rating agencies
7. The 2+2=5 Mistake
   Technical errors in valuation

Financial Crisis 2008-201x
Back to Montier, who's very clear about the role of Bernanke with regard to the role of the FD in the current

• Ben Bernanke, Washington Post, October 27, 2005
  “There is no housing bubble to go bust.”
• Speech Bernanke FED May 17, 2007
  “We believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector on the broader housing market will be limited, and we do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system.”

Montier believes Bernanke missed the boat, had poor ideas on how to recover and on top of this, failed to learn from his mistakes. Montier guesses: There are none so blind as those who will not see!

Happy Investor
For those of you who -after all this - don't succeed in becoming a happy investor, Montier has a simple advice on improving (plain) happiness. Here's the wrap up:

• Don’t equate happiness with money.
• Exercise regularly.
• Devote time and effort to close relationships.
• Pause for reflection, meditate on the good things in life.
• Seek work that engages your skills, look to enjoy your job.
• Give your body the sleep it needs.
• Don’t pursue happiness for its own sake, enjoy the moment.
• Take control of your life, set yourself achievable goals.

Map of Risk
Risk is an interesting and never ending subject of discussion and development. Drawing a map of Risk, literally helps you to oversee the Risk battlefield. Draw your own map of risk in life to remember where you are, where you've been and where you'll be heading.....

To help you get on the way, take a look at my Isle of Risk

(click the image for a larger image)

James Montier's Links
- Google Book Behavioural investing
- Was It All Just A Bad Dream? (febr. 2010)
- The Little Book of Behavioral Investing
- Applied behavioural Finance (pdf presentation)

Other links:
- High Frequency Trading Is A Scam
- High Frequency Trading Youtube
- FT: Markets: Ghosts in the machine
- High Frequency Trading -- Results from Simulation

Risk IQ Test

What's your Risk IQ?

In a few minutes you'll know by taking this RISK IQ Test.

Actuaries are often born CROs (Chief Risk Officers), so this test will probabely be a peace of cake for any actuary with CRO aspirations.....

Simply scroll through the next Powerpoint presentation from Fintools.

Each slide contains a multiple choice question.
Think about the answer and then scroll (click on the right part of the presentation) to the next slide for the final answer...
RiskIQ

Hope you succeeded....

If not... get some training at Fintools

Original Source: Fintools

Hypegiaphobia

What's that spell? Hypegiaphobia?

Yes, Hypegiaphobia is the unpronounceable 'short' for:

A fear of responsibility

In a 2008 white paper, called Hypegiaphobia, KPMG stresses the importance that organizations want to be and must be 'in control' of a multitude of risks and therefore make enormous sacrifices to achieve this goal.

CEO, management and employees have to comply to so many simultaneous goals, and the consequences of not being compliant on a single issue are that high, that people fear to take individual responsibility in a organization.

In search of the balance between rules and trust, KPMG calls upon the parties involved to provide more space for individual responsibilities. In the mentioned white paper KPMG answers two key questions:

• Are the high investments in risk management effective and do they really lead to a lower risk profile?
  
  
• Does risk management overshoot its goal and produce undesirable effects, such as reduced entrepreneurial spirit, increasing litigation, a culture of fear and a potentially adverse effect on the competitive position?

Trust Rules
Moreover, in 2009 KPMG extended their view on Hypegiaphobia by publishing a document called 'Trust Rules'.

Guts, vision and trust go hand in hand in a time of increasing litigation.

Unplug
Lately, numerous persons and organizations in the Netherlands have had the guts to “unplug”. Unplug is a new work style by which numerous (compliance) issues are handled in unconventional ways :

• Getting rid of unnecessary rules, of fixed places and times
• Dealing better with knowledge
• Collaborating more
• Taking more personal responsibility

All this with a a single focus: The client.

Principles
To organize trust and to be able to trust, KPMG has formulated (on basis of client interviews) nine principles they call trust rules (mark: the noun has turned into a verb) :

1. Make contact personal
2. Define common goals
3. Set the right example
4. Build trust with sensible rules
5. Share responsibility and trust
6. Stay on course and keep calm, even when things go wrong
7. Rely on informed trust, not on blind trust
8. Be mild on misunderstanding but crush abuse
9. Dare to experiment and learn from experience

Risk
In a document called Signs of Safety, risk is defined as an increasingly defining motif of the social life of western countries.

However, risk is almost always seen as negative, as something that must be avoided.

Killing Black Swans
To put it simply: everyone is worried about been blamed and sued for something. Thus organizations have become increasingly risk-averse to the point of risk-phobia. Elimination of every Black Swan risk at any price, seems the unrealistic and never ending target.

New solutions
The challenge for management, actuaries and accountants is to see and define Risk in terms of a potential big win and investment instead of only a potential big loss. This also means that - as a society - we have to reformulate rules and laws in a way that risks can be taken in such a way that failure, bankruptcy are or catastrophes are not (nearly) completely excluded anymore.

Often economies of scale lead to the rise of international (financial) companies that overshadow individual countries in terms of VAR.
If country governments of such 'inhabited' international enterprises are convinced that an eventual bankruptcy of such a company would create great collateral damage and therefore is not an realistic option, things will have to change. In these cases governments have no other choice than to order by law:

• a limitation of (international) company size
• a limitation of reciprocal contracts between big companies
  

or...

• to demand and allow companies to restructure themselves in such a way that, in case of a catastrophe, only a part of the company goes bankrupt and not the company as a whole
  

In these cases state (re)insurance is not a preferable solution. Pricing this risk would be too expensive or - even worse - not charging for this risk would lead to a situation where management can take every risk they want, because in case of a bankruptcy, the government would back up anyhow.

Risk-Phobia Virus
As actuaries we're extremely vulnerable to the 'risk-phobia virus'.
Let's not get caught by this virus or hide in the bush, but take a calculated risk and go out to present our new solutions that make the difference in tomorrows risky world. Risk..., a never ending issue....

Links: Hypegiaphobia Video , List of phobia's, Dutch nine trust rules
Sources: Signs of Safety