The actuarial philosophy, concepts and techniques have been criticized over the past two decades by outsiders and especially by the top guys in the field in favor of sophisticated, exotic and "sexy" financial economics methods. The recent Great Recession dealt a great blow and exposed the methods of financial economics. Those "great" mathematical formulae like the Black-Scholes and concepts like the no-arbitrage were out-rightly declared unrealistic and misleading. As a result, actuarial methods use in an applied sense such as the Wang and Esscher Transforms need to be reassessed. My question is why are not actuarial researchers original in their own right. Right now some are now following the insinuations of behavioral economists, now the financial ones have been caught lying. Buy if you follow behavioral economics carefully you will find that the field is still a work in progress and current literature hasn't been able to fully decipher how the human mind works given economic situations.
The Black-Scholes partial differential equation
Actuaries, why not do your own thing instead of copying and pasting. Behavioral Economics is about three decades old following it's advent after Kahnmann and Tsvesky published their seminal work in Econometrica on Prospect Theory. See this, these guys were Psychologists but the field they pioneered is now dominated by economists and the bulk of the research in this field is by economists. This is not oopying and pasting. If actuaries become more original, they can return to their former glory as the wonk dudes. I might appear too harsh in my post but the state of the research in the Actuarial Profession is pathetic. the more I look at this the more I have the urge to take matters into my own hands and try to produce many seminal research in the field of Actuarial Science.
No comments:
Post a Comment