Entanglements, Aporia and Play in Financial and Actuarial Practices
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Coping with Uncertainty: Aporia and Play in Actuarial and Financial Practices Charalampos Fytros A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Work, Organisation and Technology Lancaster University, UK August 2018 To the memory of my mother (1945-2015) Page 1 Abstract This thesis aims to bring into sharp focus a contradiction that seems to persist in actuarial and financial practice. Specifically, how efforts to manage the uncertain and potentially catastrophic future, via actuarial and financial calculative modeling, fail precisely where they succeed. The purpose is to disclose that the problem with such efforts is not that they are not yet scientifically sophisticated enough, nor that they frequently lack the intuitive judgement which experienced practitioners can bring. Rather, it is that our certainties, which may have either a technical or judgmental origin, are always and already permeated by uncertainties, and vice versa. Thus, what this thesis aims to show is the radical and inescapable entanglement of certainty with uncertainty, or of the technical with the social, which is not simply complementary or oppositional, but in a more fundamental way, aporetic. This aporetic entanglement is conceptualized within the thesis as an ongoing play of difference. Specifically, a play that is ontological and central to what sustains actuarial practice exactly as that. The thesis consists of three papers. The first one focuses on the financial markets and aims to disclose, following a Heideggerian analysis, how investing is ontologically dependent on a prior understanding that dictates what counts as significant, or not. In this respect, financial markets are conditioned not just by the social/technical entanglement, but also by a further entanglement among different styles of understanding. The second paper focuses on the liability side of insurance companies and argues that the so-called financialization of insurance liabilities (i.e., the requirement for a market- consistent valuation of them) does not uncritically expand financial economics (i.e., practices oriented towards the market with a dominant technicalizing aspect) at the Page 2 expense of actuarial logics (i.e., practices oriented towards the underlying liabilities with an effective contextualizing aspect). Rather, a Derridean autoimmunity process is revealed – one that “auto-deconstructs” the financial sovereign of the market-consistent valuation into its actuarial “other”. The third paper focuses on Solvency II, the new regulatory framework for EU insurers since 2016. By taking a close look at the quantitative and qualitative requirements of the new framework, the paper claims that the regulatory text and its accompanying algorithm can never be made unambiguous, or free from fundamental paradoxes. However, instead of adding confusion, this paradoxical quasi-structure ultimately increases the possibilities for understanding the subtleties of the insurance business and its solvency issues. In this context, the paper reconsiders performativity as a play of differences – a rethinking that focuses more decisively on not knowing, rather than on what can be rendered knowable. Page 3 Declaration of Authorship and Publication Status of Papers This thesis is presented in the alternative format. As such I make the following declaration about authorship and publication status of the three papers which make up the body of the thesis. Paper 1 (chapter 2 in thesis) – Heidegger and Modern Finance. This paper was authored by me alone and was published in Critical Perspectives on Accounting. Fytros, C. (2018). Heidegger and Modern Finance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 52 (2018): 17-34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2016.08.001 Paper 2 (chapter 3 in thesis) – Folding the Actuarial: The Aporetic Financialization of Risk Liabilities. This paper was authored by me alone and is now ‘revise and resubmit’ with Finance and Society. This is a minor revision and the editors indicated that they will not send it out for review again. Paper 3 (chapter 4 in thesis) – Pricing (In)Solvency: Performativity as a Play of Differences. This paper was authored by me alone and is submitted to Critical Perspectives on Accounting. Charalampos Fytros, CFA, FHAS July 2018 Lancaster University Page 4 Acknowledgments What is usually asserted in philosophy is how conditions of possibility tend to withdraw from view. The conditions of possibility for this thesis are, on the contrary, very clear to me: they rest with Professor Lucas Introna. I have been extraordinarily fortunate to have worked with Lucas; his influence goes well beyond mere theoretical ideas expressed in this thesis. His ability to distil subtle nuances that underlie the field of risk management and actuarial practices had a lasting impact on my sense of the effects of the politics of such practices. His generosity, which was reflected in so many ways, from commenting on my papers to hosting me in Lancaster, is deeply appreciated. I am profoundly grateful to Lucas for having believed in me, in the first place, and supported, in more ways than I could name, each of the three papers presented in this thesis. I also owe debts to Kostas Amiridis, who not only introduced me to the performativity literature, but also to Lancaster and its university. Since the course of this research has been interdisciplinary, I would also like to thank Professor Laurence Hemming for his guidance and instructive comments on the first paper. I am also immensely grateful to Ioannis Chatzivassiloglou, a friend and fellow actuary in the Bank of Greece, for our endless discussions about Solvency II which greatly informed and shaped my views. Ioannis did not only share information about the development process of Solvency II, but also readily oriented me within the maze of actuarial and financial literature. It is a blessing indeed to have received this support by such a friend. I would also like to thank my boys, Orestis and Jason, for their good humour in letting me spend time on this project. Finally, my most heartfelt thanks go to my wife, Alexia, Page 5 for her patience and support which are beyond words. Her kindness never ceases to amaze me. Page 6 Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Declaration of Authorship and Publication Status of Papers ..................................................... 4 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 8 1.1. Heidegger and Modern Finance ............................................................................... 18 1.2. Folding the Actuarial: The Aporetic Financialization of Risk Liabilities ................ 27 1.3. Pricing (In)Solvency: Performativity as a Play of Differences ................................ 37 2. Heidegger And Modern Finance ...................................................................................... 49 2.1. EMH, Behavioral Finance and Heidegger ............................................................... 58 2.2. Social Studies of Finance and Heidegger ................................................................. 68 2.3. Bulls and Bears ........................................................................................................ 82 2.4. Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................ 91 3. Folding the Actuarial: The Aporetic Financialization of Risk Liabilities ...................... 100 3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 100 3.2. Actuarial and Fair Values ...................................................................................... 108 3.3. Reserve and Capital Levers .................................................................................... 115 3.4. (De)leveraging the Capital Lever ........................................................................... 121 3.5. Conclusion: Folding the Actuarial ......................................................................... 127 4. Pricing (In)Solvency: Performativity as a Play of Differences ...................................... 134 4.1. Introduction and Background ................................................................................. 134 4.2. The Opening Up of New Possibilities .................................................................... 146 4.3. Counter-Performativity .......................................................................................... 154 (a) Procyclicality ..................................................................................................... 156 (b) Gaming the model .............................................................................................. 161 4.4. The Aporia ............................................................................................................. 163 4.5. The Play ................................................................................................................. 170 5. Concluding comments.................................................................................................... 176 5.1. Contributions and