Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Morality of Risk Modeling

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article applies the concept of prudence to develop the characteristics of responsible risk-modeling practices in the insurance industry. A critical evaluation of the risk-modeling process suggests that ethical judgments are emergent rather than static, vague rather than clear, particular rather than universal, and still defensible according to the discipline’s established theory, which will support a range of judgments. Thus, positive moral guides for responsible behavior are of limited practical value. Instead, by being prudent, modelers can improve their ability to deal with the ethical and technical complexity of the risk-modeling process. While the application of prudence to resolve ethical challenges in risk modeling, an issue of practical importance to managers, is a first in the literature, the practice of applying an ethical lens to issues of pragmatic importance for managers is well established in Maak and Pless (J Bus Ethics 66:99–115, 2006a; Responsible leadership, 2006b) among others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J., & Heath, D. (1999). Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance, 9, 203–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, G., & Guthrie, G. (2003). Investment, uncertainty and liquidity. Journal of Finance, 58, 2143–2166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bricker, P. (1980). Prudence. Journal of Philosophy, 77, 381–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J., Lo, A., & MacKinlay, C. (1997). The econometrics of financial markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christoffersen, P., Diebold, F., & Schuermann, T. (1998). Horizon problems and extreme events in financial risk management. Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 4, 109–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, J. (2001). Asset pricing. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, N. (2009, Feb. 14). Financial meltdown blamed on risk models. Financial Times, p. 2.

  • Cooper, E. (1987). What are the cardinal virtues?. Blackrock: Mercier Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csoka, P., Herings, P., & Koczy, L. (2007). Coherent measures of risk from a general equilibrium perspective. Journal of Banking & Finance, 31, 2517–2534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daníelsson, J. (2002). The emperor has no clothes: Limits to risk modeling. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26, 1273–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derman, E., & Wilmott, P. (2009). The financial modelers’ manifesto. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1324878. Accessed 30 Jan 2012.

  • Doherty, N., & Schlesinger, H. (1983). Optimal insurance in incomplete markets. Journal of Political Economy, 91, 1045–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowd, K. (2009). Moral hazard and the financial crisis. Cato Journal, 29, 141–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhoudt, L., & Gollier, C. (2005). The impact of prudence on optimal prevention. Economic Theory, 26, 989–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericson, R., & Doyle, A. (Eds.). (2003). Risk and morality. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericson, R., & Doyle, A. (2004). Uncertain business: Risk, insurance and the limits of knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estrada, J. (2008). Mean-semivariance optimization: A heuristic approach. Journal of Applied Finance, 18, 57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, C. (2009). Politics for the greatest good: The case for prudence in the public square. Nottingham: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowers, B. (2003). Reason and human finitude. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 415–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, G., Schlesinger, H., & Stapleton, R. (2006). Multiplicative background risk. Management Science, 52, 146–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, G., Schlesinger, H., & Stapleton, R. (2011). Risk taking with additive and multiplicative background risks. Journal of Economic Theory, 146, 1547–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graafland, J. (2008). Christian perspectives on the market. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts und Unternehmensethik, 9, 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gründl, H., & Schmeiser, H. (2007). Capital allocation for insurance—what good is it? Journal of Risk and Insurance, 74, 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (2003). Risk and dirt. In R. Ericson & A. Doyle (Eds.), Risk and morality. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. (2007). Risk and ethics: Three approaches. In T. Lewens (Ed.), Risk: Philosophical perspectives. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helin, S., & Sandstrom, J. (2007). An inquiry into the study of corporate codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 253–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isik, M. (2006). Implications of alternative stochastic processes for investment in agricultural technologies. Applied Economics Letters, 13, 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J. (1906). Sur les Fonctions Convexes et les Inégalités Entre les Valeurs Moyennes. Acta Mathematica, 30, 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor, N. (1972). The irrelevance of equilibrium economics. Economic Journal, 82, 1237–1255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, J. (2002). The virtue of prudence. In S. Pope (Ed.), The ethics of Aquinas. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: Macmillan Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, M. (1990). Precautionary savings in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 58, 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebwein, P., Niering, R., Lehweb-Litzmann, I., Kriesch, S., & Grossenbacher, T. (2005). Risk and capital: Some thought on risk modeling in insurance companies. Zurich: Swiss Reinsurance Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T. (2006). Undivided corporate responsibility: Towards a theory of corporate integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 353–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T., & Pless, N. (2006a). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society—a relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T., & Pless, N. (2006b). Responsible leadership. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory (3rd ed.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7, 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. (1959). Portfolio selection: Efficient diversification of investments. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, J. (2007). Dynamics of markets: Econophysics and finance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, J. (2009). Dynamics of markets: The new financial economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mcdonald, G. (2008). An anthology of codes of ethics. European Business Review, 21, 344–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R., & Bodie, Z. (2005). Design of financial systems: Towards a synthesis of function and structure. Journal of Investment Management, 3, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf, G., & Hassett, K. (1995). Investment under alternative return assumptions: Comparing random walk and mean reversion. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 19, 1471–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metropolis, N., & Ulam, S. (1949). The Monte Carlo method. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44(247), 335–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikosch, T. (2006). Copulas: Tales and facts. Extremes, 9, 3–62 (commentary 3–20; comments 21–54, rejoinder 55–62).

  • Miller, M., & Modigliani, F. (1961). Dividend policy, growth and the valuation of shares. Journal of Business, 34, 411–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyberg, D. (2008). The morality of everyday activities: Not the right, but the good thing to do. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 587–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, M. (1980). The extreme value method for estimating the variance of the rate of return. Journal of Business, 53, 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pender, S. (2005). The open use of living: Prudence, decorum and the square man. Rhetorica, 23, 363–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pointer-Morland, M. (2010). Questioning corporate codes of ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19, 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebonato, R. (2007). Plight of the fortune tellers. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebonato, R., & Jackel, P. (1999/2000). The most general methodology to create valid correlation matrix for risk management and option pricing purposes. Journal of Risk, 2, 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockafellar, T., & Uryasev, S. (2002). Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26, 1443–1471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. (2004). Neoclassical finance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharfstein, D., & Stein, J. (1990). Herd behavior and investment. American Economic Review, 80, 465–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scordis, N., Barrese, J., & Wang, P. (2008). Impact of cash flow volatility on systematic risk. Journal of Insurance Issues, 31, 43–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonia, J. (2010). The most simple methodology to create a valid correlation matrix for risk management and option pricing purposes. Applied Economic Letters, 17, 1767–1768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slote, M. (2001). Morals from motives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sortino, F., & Satchell, S. (Eds.). (2001). Managing downside risk in financial markets. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spicker, P. (2010). Generalisation and pronesis: Rethinking the methodology of social policy. Journal of Social Policy, 40, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsetlin, I., & Winkler, R. (2005). Risky choices and correlated background risk. Management Science, 51, 1336–1345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tullberg, J. (2009). Moral compliance and the concealed charm of prudence. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 599–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vose, D. (2009). Risk analysis: A quantitative guide. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, G., & Zhu, Y. (2010). Is the recent financial crisis really a “once-in-a-century” event? Financial Analysts Journal, 66, 24–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Risk Management, Insurance and Actuarial Science—BUS, St. John’s University, 101 Murray Street, Room 506, Manhattan, NY, 10007, USA

    Nicos A. Scordis

Authors
  1. Nicos A. Scordis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicos A. Scordis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scordis, N.A. The Morality of Risk Modeling. J Bus Ethics 103 (Suppl 1), 7–16 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1220-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1220-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation