only 2 threads here?....

[ww2zw]

almost no persons here....does it mean that risk management is a fresh field for actuaries?

[campbell]

I see 246 threads here.

[Elise]

Change the time period in your display options at the bottom of the page from "Last Month" to "Beginning" and you'll see the older threads. The default view is apparently showing only threads from the last month.

[Third Eye]

The OP is correct, however, that this section has surprisingly little activity, considering how important ERM is supposed to be for the future of the profession.

Triple true/false question: This is because

I. The ERM talk is all hype, and no action

II. Risk Management work is company-specific and often confidential, so public discussion is not helpful

III. Actuaries actually doing risk management work aren't active on the AO

A) I only

B) II and III only

C) All of the above

D) None of the above

E) All of the above

[California]

A) I only

B) II and III only

C) All of the above

D) None of the above

E) All of the above

If I guess c) and it turns out the correct answer is E), will I lose a point?

[Omikron]

I'm going with "I." until I've seen membership statistics that clearly indicate otherwise.

[DanielSong39]

In my experience, risk management involves a lot of intuition, experience, vigilance and opportunism. The math rarely comes into play.

Math can sometimes guide you towards the right decisions and point out blatantly wrong ones. But effective risk management is mostly about having a good understanding of the human element.

That's just my experience, though. If your experience is different, feel free to share.

[JMO]

In my experience, risk management involves a lot of intuition, experience, vigilance and opportunism. The math rarely comes into play.

Math can sometimes guide you towards the right decisions and point out blatantly wrong ones. But effective risk management is mostly about having a good understanding of the human element.

That's just my experience, though. If your experience is different, feel free to share.
:iatp:

Here are some articles that explore this theme.

This from an SOA newsletter.
See page 16 (http://www.soa.org/library/newsletters/the-actuary-magazine/2010/december/act-2010-vol7-iss6.pdf)

And this from CAS.
See page 26 (http://www.casact.org/newsletter/pdfUpload/ar/AR_Nov2010_1.pdf)

[limabeanactuary]

Of course, it's not just a matter of trying to take human behavior as it actually is in one's evaluation of risks, but also knowing how to influence management to take appropriate action.

Because once the good times roll....in many companies, risk management goes by the wayside.

Not the best of signs when the CRO gets fired or resigns.

[mxpx=1/2]

C) All of the above

D) None of the above

E) All of the above

You must write exams for the CAS.

[mxpx=1/2]

In seriousness, my answer from the three given options would be "I and III only", but in my experience DanielSong's response is much closer to the truth.

[Third Eye]

You must write exams for the CAS.

Yes, I used to. (Where's the graybeard smilie?)

I'm glad I got a few serious replies. I admit I still don't get the whole ERM fad. Yes, a global view of risk management is important and becoming more visible, and we don't want to be left out, but I sometimes think the leadership is getting scared, looking for growth opportunities, and then "getting on their horse and galloping off in all directions." (Where's the graybeard smilie?)

[campbell]

Let me help you with that: :heynow:

[Mojo]

In my experience, risk management involves a lot of intuition, experience, vigilance and opportunism. The math rarely comes into play.

Math can sometimes guide you towards the right decisions and point out blatantly wrong ones. But effective risk management is mostly about having a good understanding of the human element.

That's just my experience, though. If your experience is different, feel free to share.

Sounds like ERM is a perfect hat to hide incompetency and lack of technical rigorous while charging a hefty fee. Time to switch field.

Quick question: so what happens when a thorough ERM analysis based on "intuition, experience, vigilance and opportunism" with a dash of math and sensitivity to human elements concludes that the person at the top who sponsored the analysis is the biggest risk factor? What do we do? How can we humanize and euphemize the conclusion?

oh and to the 3rd eye: My answer is A. if that is not already obvious. :)

[DanielSong39]

You already answered your question.

The person at the top who sponsored the analysis IS the biggest risk factor, and your job is to humanize and euphemize his conclusion.

The objective is to use the math you learned to rationalize whatever your sponsor is planning to do. If you have a Harvard degree, MBA, and a few more letter designations along with a few incomprehensible papers and complicated math, they'll buy whatever you say.

Good luck.