Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • August 2017
08

Erratic expectations

Open-access content Tuesday 8th August 2017

I was interested to learn from Alex Waite’s July article (bit.ly/AnimalSpiritsAW) there is an Economic Modelling Group aiming at improving forecasting of economic outcomes. I wish this the best of luck, but would not be surprised if the results prove inconclusive. Honorary fellows are eminent individuals in business, academia and government.


I was interested to learn from Alex Waite's July article (bit.ly/AnimalSpiritsAW) there is an Economic Modelling Group aiming at improving forecasting of economic outcomes. I wish this the best of luck, but would not be surprised if the results prove inconclusive.

There is a major problem with the theory underlying financial and economic modelling, in that conventional thinking is based on linear behaviour, normal distributions, and rational expectations, leading to orderly outcomes. As pointed out over 50 years ago by the late Benoit Mandelbrot, economic and market outcomes tend much more to reflect non-linear behaviour, fat-tailed distributions and erratic expectations. It may therefore be necessary to go back to the most basic principles in search of a sounder basis for modelling.

The risk is that this could merely lead to a conclusion that the uncertainties are greater than most previously understood or appreciated, but that there is insufficient stable ground on which to base erection of better alternatives. Still, it may be worth a try.


W John Bishop 

14 July 2017

This article appeared in our August 2017 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in:
08

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Part Qualified Pensions Actuary

Manchester
Up to £45,000
Reference
121150

Aggregation Analyst - London Market

London, England
£40000 - £50000 per annum + + Bonus
Reference
121149

Senior Capital Modelling Analyst

London (Central)
Up to £65000 per annum + package
Reference
121148
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2021 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited, Level 5, 78 Chamber Street, London, E1 8BL. Tel: 020 7880 6200