An Open Letter to Andy [Archive]

Traci

08-04-2003, 09:57 PM

I would have preferred to have this conversation privately Andy - but I want the people who've requested it to be able to read it too.

As I've said before, you and I go way back. I remember our phone conversations from 7 years ago, when you asked me, "Exactly how does a cash balance plan work?" I could tell you because I had actually administered and valued them.

Since then (and I had nothing to do with this, folks), your zealousness against and your education about them has skyrocketed. Often the former before the latter, but I've respected your right to your opinions.

Lately (I'm being kind) your zealousness is overshadowing your professionalism. You are like an old man (no offense, I owe you a round of tennis) who is still careening around town insisting that he's a perfectly safe driver. The family makes jokes - they all know he's a road hazard, but no one wants to take his keys away.

Well - Andy - I've been asked to take the keys away. I don't want to ban you. I like you - even when I disagree with you - even when I think you're a little nuts. And I think it's important that your opinions be heard here. However - I am setting some ground rules that I hope will appease your critics and be agreeable to you as well:

(Text in blue added by Mod1, to incorporate things Traci says later in the thread.)
1) This is a professional forum. If you call someone an idiot in Cyberchat, I will probably let it slide. But the actuarial forums are for professional and serious discourse. I must insist that you make an apology to Jeremy Gold, in this forum, and before you post anything else anywhere in the RF. The apology must address your implication that his testimony was influenced by conflicts of interest.

2) When you post to threads in the Professional forums that have been started by others, please limit your posts to 300 words and do not include copies of material written by others. (put the link in if necessary.)

3) When you begin a new topic in the Professional forums, you may post articles and type until your fingers cramp. But you may start no more than 2 topics per week.

I'm making these rules in an effort to foster more professional discussion in this forum and make it more enjoyable for all of us who frequent here.

:judge:

A - GoW

Traci

08-05-2003, 10:40 AM

Oops - this has been brought ot my attention, so I should clarify. The above constraints apply to the professional forums only.

Andy may rant all he wants to in Cyberchat.

American Psycho

08-05-2003, 10:59 AM

Traci, do you think it is ok in Cyberchat for an actuary to call other actuaries "idiots" using real names?

Traci

08-05-2003, 01:11 PM

No -- I don't think it's "okay". I think it's unprofessional and generally boorish.

But I grant more latitude in cyberchat than in the professional forums.

Note also that I said "probably". Someone who makes a habit of doing nothing but insulting people will likely be banned. Someone who insults another in an emphatic post, to make a point, will probably just suffer the usual cyberchat repercussions -- as Andy and others have.

SamChevre

08-07-2003, 05:24 PM

I haven't seen the apology (http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16243&highlight=) yet.

Moderator1

08-07-2003, 06:11 PM

I too think Andy owes Jeremy an apology. But I'm not sure he's in violation of this thread.
I must insist that you make an apology to Jeremy Gold, in this forum, and before you post anything else.
The above constraints apply to the professional forums only.
Taken together, those seem to allow Andy to post in Political before apologizing, and that's all he's done so far.

I'm sure if Traci's intent is that he can't post anywhere before apologizing, she'll let Andy and us know.

American Psycho

08-07-2003, 08:57 PM

and Mr. Bader and Mr. Peskin ...

Brad Gile

08-07-2003, 10:01 PM

Andy is now doing what he always does when he is challenged and gets his ears boxed. He slinks off and stays away for awhile. Andy apologize? Never happen. He'll be back, though.... :(

Brad

Il duce

08-08-2003, 02:39 AM

Brad Gile

08-08-2003, 09:18 AM

Andy is now doing what he always does when he is challenged and gets his ears boxed. He slinks off and stays away for awhile. Andy apologize? Never happen. He'll be back, though.... :(

Brad

I don't really see how this is any different than Andy calling people an idiot. Aren't you insulting Andy, by inferring he runs away when challenged. In effect are you saying he is a coward? :-? :shake:

You may draw your own inferences. What I have expressed, however, is simply my perception of long term past experience with Mr. Lang on this and other forums. If you can't see the difference between this and calling other actuaries "idiots" in a professional discussion, I cannot help you. :D
:shrug:

Brad

Il duce

08-08-2003, 10:21 AM

O.K. I just wanted to get the ground rules. So your using your perception to insult others is ok.

While it was obvious to me that Andy's post regarding Mr. Gold was totally inappropriate. I also think that your words could also be regarded as insulting. I also fail to see how just because the insult is based on your perception makes it ok. I'm sure that Andy's comment was based on his own perception and experiences.

American Psycho

08-08-2003, 10:43 AM

Civil discourse permits disagreement and also permits one party to comment on the behavior or nature of another. What makes discourse civil is somewhat subjective. A modest critique of AL's behavior and motives by Brad may "insult" AL in much the same way that a rebuke of JG's testimony may "insult" JG. The difference between those "insults" and AL's is twofold. First, AL's tone is simply rude. Second, nothing done by Peskin, Gold or Bader invited AL's rudeness. Brad is able to point to AL's own posts as the basis for his criticism. I must agree with Brad that there is little one can do to draw a sharp line between rudeness and civil criticism but most of us do not need a rulebook to make the distinction.

This reminds me of a story wherein a little wit allows the insulter to get away with what is otherwise unacceptable. I modify the characters and circumstances:

Traci: "Andy, you cannot go around calling Mr. Gold an idiot."
Andy: "Traci, I understand. Might I, however, be permitted to call any idiot I see 'Mr. Gold'?"
Traci: "Well, I suppose that would be all right."
Andy (turning to address Mr. Gold): "You, sir, are Mr. Gold."

FWIW, Andy should be forbidden any privileges anywhere on the forum until he apologizes to Mssrs. Peskin, Gold and Bader. Further, I disagree with Traci with respect to cyberchat. Unless Mr. Gold (or another actuary) posts in cyberchat, AL should not be able to gratuitously insult him. No actuary I know of is a public figure in the sense that elected or appointed officials are (not even the President of the AAA or SOA) and thus such behavior cannot be acceptable. Of course, in Mr. Gold's case, it appears that he is likely to complain to the ABCD if AL repeats his behavior regardless of whether it is in cyberchat or elsewhere.

Traci

08-08-2003, 11:08 AM

I have further clarified:

1) applies to the entire forum
2) and 3) apply to the Pensions section.

Chuck

08-08-2003, 12:14 PM

I could be wrong, but I was wondering if it was really the "idiot" comment that caused Mr Gold to demand an apology in the first place?

We all know he's not an idiot. In fact I'd venture to say that most of us would guess that there are no idiots posting on this forum (despite the fact that we often see idiotic comments being posted which, ironically, the idiot comment is an example of).

I had thought that the really inappropriate (and what to me would be extremely offensive/slanderous) comment Andy made was the inference of dishonest or unethical motives in Mr Gold's testimony(s) because of "conflicts of interest" that Andy apparently has knowledge of.

Chuck

Traci

08-08-2003, 01:05 PM

You may well be right, Chuck. Mr. Gold did not clarify.

Having a conflict of interest isn't necessarily an evil thing - if, in fact it's even true. I don't know.

That is, I don't know if indeed there exists a conflict of interest, that Mr. Gold acknowledges but was insulted at the suggestion that it tainted his testimony. Or if Mr. Gold would deny any CoI and was insulted at the accusation of such.

I do agree that Andy's elusive apology should address this issue as well.

American Psycho

08-08-2003, 01:50 PM

See:

http://www.actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=8347

It shows that others (wonderer) have suggested a conflict of interest that does not exist. It also seems that Gold did not take issue with wonderer.

But, per Glenn's post, maybe Gold never saw wonderer's hint at conflict.

Will Durant

08-10-2003, 12:03 AM

Tracy,

http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=318215&highlight=#318215

Please note that Andy has posted to the Social Security forum without providing an apology to Mr. Gold.

I will refrain from posting my opinion on this.

Michael Davlin

08-11-2003, 11:12 AM

Actuarial conflicts of interest have existed since day one. Elizur Wright, to take one early and prominent example, had a lock on the calculation of the valuation and nonforfeiture factors he advocated be required by law, and it is no secret that he hoped to much improve his income and (then empty) retirement kitty by providing these calculations to those who'd have to have them. Still, the merits and demerits of Wright's framework are independent of his personal motivations. The same is true of the propositions of both Gold and Lange.

What most bothers me in a typical Andy posting is that he attacks the arguer far more often than their arguments. A pompous pronouncement followed by a personal attack does nothing to advance the debate. If Andy or anyone else believes equities are far superior to fixed income instruments for pension funding then I'm all ears, but I want to hear some logical or empirical arguments in support of that position. Alleging conflicts of interest does not sway me one way or the other.

Chuck

08-15-2003, 05:14 PM

Actuarial conflicts of interest have existed since day one...

Still, the merits and demerits of Wright's framework are independent of his personal motivations. The same is true of the propositions of both Gold and Lange...

Alleging conflicts of interest does not sway me one way or the other.

These alleged conflicts of interest may not sway you because you have the background to evaluate the merits and demerits of these particular positions. But I think undisclosed, unrecognized (or imagined) conflicts of interest are very important when the party involved is attempting to frame his presentation as a purely professional/scientific or academic viewpoint to people who don't have that same background.

In the past, I've gotten involved to some degree in some actuarial issues that either Academy or SOA committees were addressing (valuation, nonforfeiture, sales illustrations, etc), and one of the things that makes me uncomfortable is that committees and our professional organizations will sometimes present their "findings" as unbiased professional/scientific/actuarial positions when the committees are in fact stacked with people who are there to lobby to gain whatever advantages can be gained for their employers or clients.

I have no problem with such lobbying so long as it is recognized as such. So from my viewpoint, the accusation of conflicts of interest is much more damaging than calling somebody an idiot which is clearly just a meaningless rant.

Chuck

Dr T Non-Fan

08-15-2003, 06:22 PM

Thank you, Dr T. Now I really have no reason to be a Non-Fan!
But, it's my name, and I'm stuck with it.

Dr T Non-Fan

08-15-2003, 06:31 PM

BTW, that's DOCTOR Gold.
And whatever he writes, IMO, is valid.

Westley

08-16-2003, 01:22 AM

Thank you, Dr T. Now I really have no reason to be a Non-Fan!
But, it's my name, and I'm stuck with it.

If you changed your name to DTNF, we would all know who you are.

Andy Lang

08-18-2003, 05:56 PM

Traci and Jeremy:

I will be responding in full in a few weeks time, when I have the time and on my terms. I'm rather busy these days.

It will be in the SOA forum and also in my Yahoo forum. Look for it--it will be just chock full of facts. All about the fixed income and annuity scandals involving pensions in the 80s and some even going back to the 70s. Immunization, program trading, the related 1987 market collapse and the mass jumping out of 401(k) folks, mass purchase of annuities, insurance for asset gains that wasn't really insurance at all and failed when the plan sponsors needed it, Executive Life and it's mass selling of annuities backed by junk bonds--which failed when that whole industry collapsed; the lobbying for fixed income rates for Current Liability and for FAS 87 calculations, creating huge and unnecessary volatilty.

The only time that matching bond maturities and coupons with payments dates, or using the T-bond yield curves makes sense for calculating pension liabilities and backing this with these types of investments is when the plan is about to terminate and the time horizon of the payments is much shorter than an ongoing DB plan. WE HAVE KNOWN THIS FOR 50 YEARS!

***

A small sample:

Bader and Peskin have never been EAs.

Bader worked for Salomon Brothers, a bond trading firm that has been in big trouble for two decades and just got bought out by Buffet, when it's stock collapsed as a result of getting caught in a major T-bill treasury bill auction--but way back in the 80s they were pushing bond immunization for all of the ills of the DB pension industry.

For an excellent book on Saloman in the 80s read Liar's Poker, by Michael Lewis. For aother book on Milken and related scandals involving junk bonds, read James Stewert's books, Predator's Ball and Den of Thieves. A related book that shows how the collapse of the S&L industry was related to junk bonds, Trust Me: Charles Keating and the missing Billions, by Michael Binstein and Charkes Bowden.

And much of this was tied in to insurance companies and to scandals in the DB pension industry.

And Bader has wriiten many papers trying to convince the DB world of the same thing that his and Gold's paper are once again trying to do.

For a half century, large DB plans have been investing in stocks and very successfully I hasten to add, and one of the early on folks who knew it was the right thing to do was the chief actuary for the Pru in the late 50s, Meyer Melnikoff, a friend of mine.

The 100% bond thing was promoted then and is now by firms that stand to make a ton of money by bond trading through various devices.

***

But now it is deja vu all over again.

I will not post here any more.

And Jeremy--go right ahead and turn my name in to the ABCD. Go ahead. Make my day.

It would seem that they might have a few other problems these days, what with the recent IBM court decision and them being called on the carpet by more than 100 Congresspersons a few years ago for cash balance plans (now there is even twice as many, and quitea few of them are RepublicansBTW), the outragious executive pensions, executive whole life insurance and quite a few more.

Even with those, the public officials don't know the half of it. But they are going to. I'm writing a book.

See you, Traci--and good luck. I hope there are some DB pensions around when you become an actuary.

Once upon a time it was a great industry and had some great people in it. Many of them were actuaries.

DB pension plans when they are done right are the single greatest invention of mankind.

And the failure of retirement systems globally is the single largest problem in the world today--save only for the mass use of WMDs--an extremely unlikely event. If they become privatized as Wharton profs like Jeremy's professor Kent Smetters wants, all is lost. If 5hey become true DB plans, amzingly good things will happen.

But then you all know that.

Bye bye--but check into those two forums on occasion and by all means when my book comes out, buy it. Traci you will get a feeebie.

Michael Davlin

08-18-2003, 06:05 PM

Traci and Jeremy:
I will not post here any more.Bye bye--
Other than that snippet, Andy's final, sucker punch and run, posting ought to be expunged.

Traci

08-18-2003, 08:14 PM

See you, Traci--and good luck. I hope there are some DB pensions around when you become an actuary.

Thanks Andy - as it stands, I'm awaiting formal approval of my EA application - and I'm so busy doing (yes - that's DOING) pension work that I can barely see straight.

I'm disappointed that you're choosing this route - I had hoped you might be able to suck it up and do the professional thing - but I can't say I'm terribly surprised. I won't be holding my breath for much substantiation in any other forum - your history would not suggest that it's forthcoming.

I will allow your farewell post to stand - even though it breaks my rule in and of itself. So long as it's really your last one here.

FWIW,
One thing I've learned thus far in my short career: Having integrity is more important than being right. Errors can be corrected - DB work isn't brain surgery - if I make a mistake no one dies. But if I lose the respect of my colleagues and clients - no amount of pension knowlege will make up for that - and I will have nothing of value to contribute anymore.

Will Durant

08-18-2003, 08:19 PM

One thing I've learned thus far in my short career: Having integrity is more important than being right. Errors can be corrected - DB work isn't brain surgery - if I make a mistake no one dies. But if I lose the respect of my colleagues and clients - no amount of pension knowlege will make up for that - and I will have nothing of value to contribute anymore.
Hear, hear!

Dr T Non-Fan

08-18-2003, 08:21 PM

I agree with Michael completely. T, your integrity is at stake.

So, when's the party?

Westley

08-18-2003, 08:21 PM

I will allow your farewell post to stand - even though it breaks my rule in and of itself.

Why would you do that?

when my book comes out, buy it. Traci you will get a feeebie.

Oh! Oh! Oh! I smell conflict of interest! Bribe! Bribe!

(just kidding, in case that wasn't obvious :wink: )

glenn

08-18-2003, 08:49 PM

Dr T Non-Fan

08-18-2003, 09:16 PM

I agree with glenn. That was a great trashing.

E. Blackadder

08-19-2003, 12:56 AM

Not that being right isn't important...

SamChevre

08-19-2003, 07:41 AM

Traci and Jeremy:
I will not post here any more.Bye bye--
Other than that snippet, Andy's final, sucker punch and run, posting ought to be expunged.

I second Mr. Davlin.

Gandalf

08-19-2003, 08:34 AM

Traci and Jeremy:
I will not post here any more.Bye bye--
Other than that snippet, Andy's final, sucker punch and run, posting ought to be expunged.

I second Mr. Davlin.
I concur with Traci's decision to leave it, a testimony that Andy can throw his best punch and not connect, and that she objected to his style and personal attacks rather than wished to stifle open professional debate.

Gandalf

08-19-2003, 08:35 AM

Now that Andy confirms having seen it, is there any reason to keep this a sticky?

glenn

08-19-2003, 09:57 AM

Traci and Jeremy:
I will not post here any more.Bye bye--
Other than that snippet, Andy's final, sucker punch and run, posting ought to be expunged.

I second Mr. Davlin.
Partially editing posts is a slippery slope.

Michael Davlin

08-19-2003, 10:09 AM

Glenn raises a valid concern. Perhaps it is best to leave it, as is, as a testament to Mr. Lange's nature.

I do have a question for Traci. Will Andy retain the right to post elsewhere in this forum?

Traci

08-19-2003, 10:32 AM

No -- Andy is currently not allowed to post anywhere in this forum.

He is in voluntary exile.

Should he choose to return, his next post must be in the Pensions Section and must address the charges of unprofessional conduct.

Ms. Re

12-11-2003, 02:18 PM

since when is telling the truth unprofessional conduct?

Traci

12-11-2003, 02:44 PM

Ah -- Ms. Re -- I do believe we've met before ... :roll:

Michael Davlin

12-11-2003, 05:05 PM

since when is telling the truth unprofessional conduct?
Should we infer, then, that you too are asserting that Jeremy Gold is, in fact, an idiot? :shake:

wonderer

12-12-2003, 10:55 AM

intransigence is rarely the result of going down a one way street

wonderer

01-08-2004, 07:49 AM

"I hate to be totally blunt about this, but I still have to get used to the `gotcha' style of politics here," Dr. Dean said. "National politics is a lot different than local politics, and there's a lot of gotcha about it."

Wag, the Dog

01-08-2004, 08:01 AM

intransigence is rarely the result of going down a one way street
"I hate to be totally blunt about this, but I still have to get used to the `gotcha' style of politics here," Dr. Dean said. "National politics is a lot different than local politics, and there's a lot of gotcha about it."

OK, I give up. What are you trying to say?

wonderer

01-08-2004, 09:03 AM

imo, the character of Andy on this forum included a certain bravado which I always saw as crankiness linked to overwork, like a chemical reaction whereby negative stuff is flushed out along with some really important insights.

However, this very aspect, imo, was focused on and used against him when it became clear that the philosophical argument was becoming a standstill ... to me, this degenerated into a personal attack under the theory "win every battle" ....

it was like pitbulls in a death grip whereby professional courtesy on many fronts was lost and those more politically adept retrenched under cover of management, and this forum in the process lost a lot of its originality ...

to me, this was put in perspective by Glenn making the comment about people coming and going, being interested for a time and then moving on ...

or, as the beautiful song stated, "everything must change"

To me, the whole train of thoughts bouncing around in here helped create enough focus for the topic to be considered on the national stage and it is a darn shame that part of the cost is the very dissolution of the creative dynamic which nurtured the concepts in the first place.

Westley

01-08-2004, 09:15 AM

along with some really important insights.

I give up. where were these?

wonderer

01-08-2004, 09:55 AM

I know it was a joke.

Imo, however, the term "ReInventing" finds its seed in a generalization of the recidivist call to return to EAN.

exactuary

01-08-2004, 12:58 PM

Wanderer, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Andy and somebody else came to an intellectual stalemate (philosophical standstill?) and that this other party then took Andy's style into the trenches in order to win despite the stalemate.

Have I understood you correctly?

If yes, will you identify or characterize the stalemate and provide some example of how (and maybe who) used Andy's style as a weapon against Andy?

Wag, the Dog

01-08-2004, 01:06 PM

Imo, however, the term "ReInventing" finds its seed in a generalization of the recidivist call to return to EAN.

Actuarial exam type question:

I) Wonderer is too cryptic to be understood

II) WtDog is too dense to grasp Wonderer's meaning

III) Wonderer is saying nothing

IV) WtDog grasps nothing

A) All but III
B) All but I
C) All but IV
D) I and II only
E) A.O.T.A.

wonderer

01-08-2004, 01:26 PM

exacticklly

Weilin

10-25-2006, 09:47 AM

:bump:

Andy Bert

10-25-2006, 12:35 PM

As I said before, Jeremy and I have kissed and made up at the Chicago SOA meeting. (ugh!) He needs a close shave!

In fact, he and Tom Terry invited me to become a member of the Conference of Actuaries in Public Practice and I am considering it, although I no longer do that work, only pro bono work and talks and seminars and much writing.

So have Traci call me and we can arrange for her to kiss me and make up and I will promise to be good little boy and no longer call any actuary an idiot and she may even spank me a little. Hey, I like being spanked which is why I am here.

It will be so much nicer than all those men kissing me in Chicago--but maybe not so nice as several of the women. Ahh--to be loved by millions, even actuaries, is pretty good.

BTW, that word 'idiot' is a good Greek word and believe it or not, the day after Traci threw me off, I got in the mail an article written by a man named Benjamin Frankin (his correct name too) in which he gave the derrivation for it--naturally talking about some of the Bush Administration's policies---and golly gee, it fit so beatifully that I wanted to post it here but they woudn't let me.

Maybe if you are nice to me I can post it so you know that it is an excellent word and I will promise not to apply it to any single person, but maybe only collectively.

For example, on the matter of why we have never used actuarial advance funding for Social Security, a Pay-as-You-Go Defined Benefit pension system, when there is no such thing if you want it to work correctly and be very affordable--and how come no actuary, save for yours truly, has ever said it?

Do not pension consulting actuaries do annual actuarial valuations and get paid big bucks for doing them in private industry per ERISA (and even long before that going back to 1923 when George Bush became the very first independent pension consulting actuary for the NY State Employees Pension Plan), and increasingly these days for public plans? (maybe I should say used to get paid big bucks!)

Next time you do a pension valuation do one using a 0% interest assumption--tantamount to a pure 100% PayGo system--and see what kind of required contribution you get and pension expense.

Partial PayGo, which is what we really have, is as close to AAF as the tiny pond outside my community is to the Atlantic ocean.

Also try one using the expected long term total return on high quality corporate bonds and see if these same numbers are even close to being afffordable--and then compare to using 8%-8 1/2%, which you get from using around 50-60% in stocks, and watch the numbers become very low.

Make sure you compare the EANC's as this is the only worthwhile comparison to make, since it represents what the cost is after the Initial Unfunded Past Service Liability has been amortized.

How does any actuary, not into investing in stocks, and using the appropriate interest rate, ever determine how much to fund to have a decent retirement?

I don't get it. Are you all so young that retirement is not on your map yet--or are you all so rich that it doesn't matter?

Don't you ever look online and check out all the software readily available online that clearly links the amount to advance fund with asset allocation and how much you invest in stocks?

Don't you ever use compound interest functions for yourself--on say an HP12calculator or if you prefer, an elecronic spreadsheet?

All I can think of is that they don't teach this stuff well any more.

:toth:

DW Simpson

10-25-2006, 12:53 PM

Dr T Non-Fan

10-25-2006, 01:15 PM

So I would not call that kissing and making up. After much deliberation by Tom & the mods (and I offered my opinion to them as well), you're gone until this is resolved, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's point of view).

Do we even need a poll for this?

Jeremy Gold

10-26-2006, 09:07 AM

As I said before, Jeremy and I have kissed and made up at the Chicago SOA meeting.

I spoke briefly with Jeremy at the meeting. His version of events there consisted of him asking you for an apology and you chuckling about it.

So I would not call that kissing and making up. After much deliberation by Tom & the mods (and I offered my opinion to them as well), you're gone until this is resolved, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's point of view).

Personally, I have enough headaches.I met Andy in front of the Conference of Consulting Actuaries booth where Tom Terry (President of CCA) was handing out info about CCA to all visitors and encouraging them to consider applying for CCA membership. I am sure that I told several people that the CCA sponsored great meetings. I am a member. I cannot, in any meaningful sense, invite someone to join the CCA.

Andy is far more pleasant in person than he is on line.

His comments on how to fix the world, however, are just as monomaniacal as they are here. He offers them at every opportunity including a general session. Here is my rough take on that (my quote marks are not to be taken literally, they are approximate). We had just heard about a one hour lecture on pensions (mostly social security type programs) around the world from a form World Bank (I think) economist. She had many slides and many graphs and facts.

The moderator invited Q&A in an enormous room. He then said "I see we have a gentleman at microphone number four. Sir"

"My name is Andy Lang and I am here to save Social Security and Medicare and capitalism. I am (may be?, was? will be recognized as?) the world's greatest actuary. I have advised Congressmen and Presidents."

As I exited the room, the last words to reach me were "And one of my disciples, a man named Bill Clinton, ..."

The next day, at the Pension Section breakfast, Andy pithily summed up his Save-The-World message in about two minutes. Really. He did. I later complimented him on his terse and lucid presentation.

I did ask him about his long overdue apology and he brushed me off. He said he was able to post here (I assumed he meant pseudonymonously) already.

FWIW, despite my view that his human personna is more pleasant than his on-line one, I think it is in the interest of the Forum to continue to require an apology (not only to me, but others, certainly including Bader and Peskin) as a ticket of admission.

BTW, Carol Marler also met Andy. I hope she will offer her appraisal as well.

Westley

10-26-2006, 09:48 AM

So, are you saying that Andy Lang's version of events is not 100% complete and clear truth? Then how am I supposed to be confident of the veracity of his "loved by millions" comment? And, now I'm wondering if I should take him at his word that George Bush was the first independent pension consulting actuary? My whole world is falling apart like a house of cards!

SirVLCIV

10-26-2006, 11:31 AM

So THIS is how the SOA boards became his personal blog.

GosuJohn

10-27-2006, 11:01 AM

I spoke briefly with Jeremy at the meeting. His version of events there consisted of him asking you for an apology and you chuckling about it.

So I would not call that kissing and making up. After much deliberation by Tom & the mods (and I offered my opinion to them as well), you're gone until this is resolved, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's point of view).

Personally, I have enough headaches.I met Andy in front of the Conference of Consulting Actuaries booth where Tom Terry (President of CCA) was handing out info about CCA to all visitors and encouraging them to consider applying for CCA membership. I am sure that I told several people that the CCA sponsored great meetings. I am a member. I cannot, in any meaningful sense, invite someone to join the CCA.

Andy is far more pleasant in person than he is on line.

His comments on how to fix the world, however, are just as monomaniacal as they are here. He offers them at every opportunity including a general session. Here is my rough take on that (my quote marks are not to be taken literally, they are approximate). We had just heard about a one hour lecture on pensions (mostly social security type programs) around the world from a form World Bank (I think) economist. She had many slides and many graphs and facts.

The moderator invited Q&A in an enormous room. He then said "I see we have a gentleman at microphone number four. Sir"

"My name is Andy Lang and I am here to save Social Security and Medicare and capitalism. I am (may be?, was? will be recognized as?) the world's greatest actuary. I have advised Congressmen and Presidents."

As I exited the room, the last words to reach me were "And one of my disciples, a man named Bill Clinton, ..."

The next day, at the Pension Section breakfast, Andy pithily summed up his Save-The-World message in about two minutes. Really. He did. I later complimented him on his terse and lucid presentation.

I did ask him about his long overdue apology and he brushed me off. He said he was able to post here (I assumed he meant pseudonymonously) already.

FWIW, despite my view that his human personna is more pleasant than his on-line one, I think it is in the interest of the Forum to continue to require an apology (not only to me, but others, certainly including Bader and Peskin) as a ticket of admission.

BTW, Carol Marler also met Andy. I hope she will offer her appraisal as well.

Impressive vocabulary.

Sonny

10-27-2006, 12:18 PM

Dr T Non-Fan

10-27-2006, 01:28 PM

You gotta at least give him some props for being so passionate about what he believes in. ;>

No, I don't.

Samantha

10-27-2006, 01:36 PM

Although he would never admit it, I suspect that the ability to post on this bb means a lot to AndyBert.

Let's not forget: Andy was never banned from this forum. Andy has had and continues to have the ability to post here. There was a simple condition with which he was asked to comply and so far he has chosen to not to. :shrug:

MetsMan

10-27-2006, 03:20 PM

I have tons of respect for Jeremy Gold; he's a great actuary, author, and person. But IMHO, the whole Andy controversy was a little overblown.

The "conflict of interest" comment wasn't exactly tantamount to committing murder. e.g. let's say that I am a medical researcher and I write a paper that concludes that Clearisil is a better zit-killer than Oxyclear. But some other medical researcher points out that I have a consulting relationship w/ the folks at Clearisil, and he accuses me of conflict of interest. Then I object, but he calls me an idiot. Yeah, that's a little tacky, but it's not a capital crime.

Andy did welcome anyone turning him into the ABCD. Not sure if this ever got done, but I seriously doubt that the ABCD cares what happens on this message board.

Although he would never admit it, I suspect that the ability to post on this bb means a lot to AndyBert. And he's sort of an old dude, and overall he's pretty harmless. You gotta at least give him some props for being so passionate about what he believes in. ;>

So I say to everyone, let's just forgive the guy and give him another chance. :tup:

I know none of the parties involved (and it would be rare for me to actually read an entire post by Andy), but I tend to agree with Sonny. Andy has been effectively banned for three years (...likely less than he'd get for using steroids in the Olympics). If he committed a profesional transgression probably it should have been referred to the ABCD, but who can say if it rose to that level.

I don't know if a public or private apology was in order, but maybe it is time to just move on.

Weilin

10-27-2006, 03:27 PM

I think he can move on as long as he says he's sorry.

I know I'm sorry, not that anyone would let me move on, but that's a horse of a different color.

James Joel

10-27-2006, 04:06 PM

Put me in the "Free Andy Lang" camp.

Shall we gig him for calling someone an idiot rather than for calling a person's comments idiotic? How about characterizing someones comments as monomanaical instead of calling them a monomaniac?

Can't we all be friends?

Weilin

10-27-2006, 04:15 PM

Can't we all be friends?

Let me guess, were you born yesterday? Look I try to be friendly to everyone, but some people don't understand friendliness from a different culture or from a unique perspective.

After a while you realize that you can't please everyone all of the time, and you try to avoid confrontation or the people who feel uncomfortable by your presence (I said try - not always succesfully ;-) ).

Andy has his corner of the internet where he can blog away. And like Samantha said, he's free to post here to, I don't think saying sorry is so big a deal. We should all be so lucky to have a deal like that.

Sonny

10-27-2006, 04:38 PM

Weilin

10-27-2006, 04:47 PM

Come on guys, let AndyBert back on. This stuff is really important to him.

If it is so important to him then let him apologize. If it isn't worth apologizing for than it must not be that important.

I don't think you should attack people personally which is where I think Andy crossed over the line. Attack the ideas all you want, don't impugn their motives because you don't know what their motives are. It isn't professional, and it isn't anyone's place to judge people here.

I think it is one thing to make obnoxious statements about anonymous login id's, but it is quite another thing to carry that over into the real world of the professional forums.

If Andy Bert wants to make obnoxious statements, then he should go to the reef or political or sports and keep things impersonal about fictitious personas, and compartmentalize his obnoxious side and keep it out of the professional realm.

Anyway, that's my two cents, which isn't worth much given my influence here.

Westley

10-27-2006, 05:34 PM

What sort of apology is required here? I believe that Andy could, and would, say to Jeremy "I'm sorry I called you an idiot; I got a little carried away in the heat of the debate." No chance.

Sonny

10-27-2006, 07:29 PM

Dr T Non-Fan

10-27-2006, 07:47 PM

C'mon now. The guy called someone an idiot on an internet message board. Three years ago. Let's stone him for it ... and he who is w/o sin can cast the first stone.

I think it's a little strange (and petty) that so many people are still demanding an apology.

Let's just forget it and give him another chance. It's not like anybody actually reads his posts, anyway.
1. People here respect Dr Gold's work. They understand it and think it provides important insight into the pension world.
2. Not so for that other person.
3. I think calling someone an idiot for the contents of his doctoral thesis is a bit worse than, say, a random idiot-calling over a difference of political opinion or a sports team preference. Maybe you think differently. Maybe in a professional forum ( as opposed to the lack of professionalism fora in Non-Actuarial), professional decorum should take precedence over someone's monomania.

Danny Boy

10-27-2006, 09:05 PM

Andy sure does receive his fair share of insults from AO. I guess it's not as professional of a forum as we hoped for.

Now where's the link to the fair?

Happy Extinction

10-27-2006, 09:28 PM

Let's have a little respect for this forum and it's history.

Ban this Andy fool

DW Simpson

10-27-2006, 09:43 PM

I publicly admit that I'm not sure what the right answer is here.

A problem is that not only is this situation hanging out there, but also I'm not entirely familiar with what cumulative transgressions led the prior management down this road. I never read Andy's posts, they were horrible to get through. So, at least from my perspective, we're forced to punt and rely on where things were left because I never really paid any attention to it.

Sonny

10-27-2006, 10:10 PM

It's been 3 years. Give the guy another chance. He's harmless. I'll tell you what will likely happen: He'll post a few rambling, verbose rants every week that no one will read, and that will be the end of it.

Plus, you gotta at least respect someone who is so passionate about their little corner of actu-squarial science. That story about him standing up at the general session and proclaiming himself the greatest actuarial of all time is hysterical. I mean, everyone in the joint must have thought he was batshit crazy. And either he didn't realize it, or he just plain doesn't care.

But the ability to make these little rants on a widely-viewed, popular actuarial message board means a lot to the old guy. 3 years is long enough for what he did, let's give him another go.

C'mon, Claude. I'll buy you a beer for it! And, Jeremy, drop your demands for an apology that's never gonna come. It's time to move on. :toast:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's,
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

Sonny

10-28-2006, 09:06 AM

Also, it may be true that the ole timer called Dr. G an idiot. However, y'all got to admit that Andy takes more abuse on this bb than anyone here. I'm sure he's been called much worse than an idiot. Here's a post that Sgt. Frank Sloan sent Andy's direction a few years ago:

worse than waterboarding (http://www.actuary.ca/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=1364)

I also used to have some crazy schtick asking for advice about this "awesome" job offer that I got. I was gonna get paid $4 billion per second, with 50 weeks of vacation and 2 weeks of unpaid leave, and a gigantic yacht, and 72 gorgeous naked secretaries at my beck and call, etc. etc. The only drawback is that I would be permanently handcuffed to Andy Lang.

Man, Andy hated that schtick.

Swan

10-28-2006, 12:13 PM

What sort of apology is required here? I believe that Andy could, and would, say to Jeremy "I'm sorry I called you an idiot; I got a little carried away in the heat of the debate."

But what he won't do is say "I'm sorry that I broached the subject of conflict of interest regarding your testimony and/or your research." I think Andy thinks that this type of comment is fair game. And maybe he is right; I don't know. Is it OK to question whether a researcher has any financial ties to a certain industry that he is advocating?

Anyway, I personally think this whole forced apology thing is a little silly.

"You can come back in our force-square game on the playground if you just say you're sorry."

"OK, I'm sorry."

"Too bad. Sometimes sorry isn't good enough. Nah-nah, nah-nah, boo-boo."

Who really cares what happened on an internet message board several years ago anyway? (Unless, of course, it is related to the Thanksgiving Morning Spew and Pird Boop's victory over the WC. That's different. ;>)

Come on guys, let AndyBert back on. This stuff is really important to him.
Three pages -- and three years -- later, a voice of reason finally emerges from the woodwork. :notworth:

Come on guys, let AndyBert back on. This stuff is really important to him.
If it is so important to him then let him apologize. If it isn't worth apologizing for than it must not be that important.
You're missing the point. Any apology that comes out of Andy now will be a forced apology. He doesn't want to stoop to that level -- reduce himself to the rank of a hypocrite.

Andy Lang may be a lot of things (I never met the guy in real life) but the fact that this saga has dragged on for so long, with no end in sight, proves only one thing: that he isn't a hypocrite... or, at the very least, that he just doesn't want to go along with this childish "apologize and we'll let you back on the school playgrounds" demand by Traci.

When I first stumbled upon this forum nearly three years ago, I thought it was the coolest place in the world (wide web). Yeah, I suppose that tells you something about me. :geek:

But then one day I waltzed into this part of the forum, and when I read this thread, the "coolness" factor of this place dropped a couple of notches. :shake2:

Danny Boy

10-28-2006, 12:48 PM

I agree with Sonny and Swan.

The amount of ridicule AL has taken on this board from various posters, who are still allowed to post, has done much more damage to AL's reputation than AL ever did to Jeremy Gold. The argument used to be that since Jeremy Gold is a real person, not an avatar/handle, he should be protected from being called an idiot. Andy Lang is a real person and yet he is not afforded the same protection.

All of this seems juvenile to me. If Jeremy Gold is/was that offended then he should have referred it to ABCD.

Samantha

10-28-2006, 05:39 PM

Westley

10-28-2006, 05:54 PM

I'm pretty certain there was years worth of history there, countless warnings and pleas from prior management to Andy to comply with forum rules.That's really it. I can't say that I've never once done anything worse than the one specific incident being discussed. I don't really care if Andy's on here or not (I guess I'd rather he not, if I have to make a call, since he offers no intelligent discussion and mucks up the rest of people trying to post, but it's no big deal either way), but all the people complaining that they should let him back :roll: There's people running this board who have jobs and then spend some extra time on this board as a resource to actuaries, both for fun and for serious discussion. Most of those people's job descriptions don't include "spend a lot of time worrying about Andy Lang's latest misadventures". Just the fact that they have to spend time reading this thread is extra headache that they'd be pretty happy to just have go away.

If you want to post here, don't be a PITA for Claude et al.

Westley

10-28-2006, 06:16 PM

There you go again -- playing up the amount of work that is involved in running this bulletin board. Anybody who chooses to run this bulletin board is a trooper, what with having to deal with all these whiny children on a daily basis, yada yada yada...
If you think it's so easy, and this one is so fair, feel free to go start your own "cooler" board.

And, Fact: Traci's other reasons aren't "immaterial" even if you want to pretend they are.

Swan

10-28-2006, 06:17 PM

C'mon now. The guy called someone an idiot on an internet message board. Three years ago.
If I remember correctly, there was much more to the story than one incident.

I'm pretty certain there was years worth of history there, countless warnings and pleas from prior management to Andy to comply with forum rules.

If I remember correctly, the incident with Jeremy Gold was the last straw, not the first.
Fact: It was Andy calling Jeremy an idiot that prompted "Traci" to demand an apology from him in exchange for reinstating his posting privileges. Don't go mentioning any prior "years worth of history" on the matter; that's immaterial at this stage. :roll:

Perhaps current management will decide that the statue of limitations has expired and that an apology is no longer necessary on Andy's part. There are many factors to consider, and continuing to harp on the subject here is not likely to have any impact. Tom will have my support either way, I don't envy his position.
There you go again -- playing up the amount of work that is involved in running this bulletin board. Anybody who chooses to run this bulletin board is a trooper, what with having to deal with all these whiny children on a daily basis, yada yada yada...

Edit: Deleted and then resubmitted after Westley's reply.

James Joel

10-28-2006, 06:18 PM

Where is this post wherein Jeremy was called an "idiot" and had his honor impuned.

p.s. Where can I purchase a "statue of limitations"? How much would one in brass run? ;-)

Westley

10-28-2006, 06:19 PM

Edit: Deleted and then resubmitted after Westley's reply.
My actuarial ability to predict future outcomes would have looked a lot more impressive if you had left this out.

Swan

10-28-2006, 06:22 PM

There you go again -- playing up the amount of work that is involved in running this bulletin board. Anybody who chooses to run this bulletin board is a trooper, what with having to deal with all these whiny children on a daily basis, yada yada yada...
If you think it's so easy, and this one is so fair, feel free to go start your own "cooler" board.
I never said it was easy. All I'm saying is, don't willingly take on a task, and all the responsibilities that come with it, and then make yourself out to be Superwoman -- over and over and over again -- for doing so.

bdschobel

10-28-2006, 07:19 PM

If I remember correctly, there was much more to the story than one incident.

I'm pretty certain there was years worth of history there, countless warnings and pleas from prior management to Andy to comply with forum rules.

If I remember correctly, the incident with Jeremy Gold was the last straw, not the first.
Fact: It was Andy calling Jeremy an idiot that prompted "Traci" to demand an apology from him in exchange for reinstating his posting privileges. Don't go mentioning any prior "years worth of history" on the matter; that's immaterial at this stage. :roll: This description, which several people have repeated, is materially inaccurate. Andy Lang accused Jeremy Gold of being motivated by conflicts of interest. He has accused me of the same. In fact, in his grandiose way, Andy has accused all of the leadership of the actuarial profession of having conflicts of interest. He hijacked this board -- and then the SOA discussion forum -- with endless rants against everything from other actuaries to President Bush to the Catholic Church. It got so bad that the SOA decided to shut down its discussion forum rather than allow Andy to use it as his personal blog.

Andy is a pleasant fellow, especially in person. I have had numerous conversations with him, without any animosity. But I would strongly advise the administrators of this board to maintain the status quo. Until Andy apologizes for his unjustified accusations against Jeremy (and others) and agrees not to engage in such personal attacks in the future, he should be kept off of this board, in everybody else's best interests.

Bruce

Samantha

10-28-2006, 08:26 PM

p.s. Where can I purchase a "statue of limitations"? How much would one in brass run? ;-)

:oops: Oops! I'm a little short of t's today! :)

Happy Skunk

10-28-2006, 08:34 PM

If I call Andy an idiot will I be banned?

Just askin'...

E. Blackadder

10-28-2006, 09:56 PM

If I call Andy an idiot will I be banned?

Just askin'...

It's not his fault. Too much DHMO (http://www.dhmo.org/) while studying.

Roto

10-28-2006, 11:01 PM

But then one day I waltzed into this part of the forum, and when I read this thread, the "coolness" factor of this place dropped a couple of notches. :shake2:

How's your mom ?

Gandalf

10-28-2006, 11:19 PM

FWIW, here is the single post (others may have contributed to the situation) (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?p=293163#post293163) that triggered Jeremy's demand for an apology, and this in particular was the key paragraph:Note how idiots like Peskin and Gold and Bader--all who have major conflicts of interest BTW--are now pushing exactly the wrong 'solution'--something that would not only cost far more, but create huge and unnecessary volalitity and lead to another different kind of momentum based explosion. I'm referring to the fact that their proposals to work in an ever-changing environment means that bonds must be continually traded--that means guessing the direction of interest rates, something that few can undertake successfully, and carries with it huge risk. The huge transaction costs of this trading is of course ignored by these folks, which is the whole idea and the source of the aforementioned conflicts.

Sonny

10-28-2006, 11:35 PM

This description, which several people have repeated, is materially inaccurate. Andy Lang accused Jeremy Gold of being motivated by conflicts of interest. He has accused me of the same. In fact, in his grandiose way, Andy has accused all of the leadership of the actuarial profession of having conflicts of interest.

IMO, this "attack" against Jeremy is a like a real good fishing story -- that fish just keeps getting bigger every year. But can anybody actually show us a picture of that big carp? i.e. is this attack still on the RF? Because in my mind, that thing has been blown out of all proportion.

I am 100% behind Jeremy Gold and his pension research. But is it really so outlandish to question if a researcher has any financial or other ties that might influence his research? Andy's "attack" may have involved a logical fallacy and a lack of tact, but it was not libel. Not even close. And, if you don't believe me, sue him for libel. See how far you get with that.

And who cares if Andy criticizes the leadership of the actuarial profession of having conflicts of interest? There may be a grain of truth in that accusation; after all, aren't we all at least a little bit motivated by our self interests? Besides, it is a strong organization that tolerates criticism and debate. And it is a weak and dying organization that tries so hard to silence the nay-sayers.

Also, if Bruce or anyone else is so hot & bothered by Andy's "attacks" against Jeremy or the SOA leadership, why not turn in him to the ABCD? Andy even welcomed that with his best Dirty Harry impersonation (go ahead .... make my day). The truth is that the ABCD doesn't give a hoot about any debates or silly flame wars that take place on an internet message board. And if anybody doubts me, then go ahead and turn Andy in for his "attacks" and see where that goes.

He hijacked this board -- and then the SOA discussion forum -- with endless rants against everything from other actuaries to President Bush to the Catholic Church. It got so bad that the SOA decided to shut down its discussion forum rather than allow Andy to use it as his personal blog.

The SOA discussion forum was dead long before Andy started ranting about the Catholic Church. Andy just offered them a convenient excuse for putting that dog out of its misery. And, again, who cares if Andy rants against the Chimperor and the Pope? He's certainly not the only one on this message board doing that! C'mon, talk about two easy targets.

Andy is a pleasant fellow, especially in person. I have had numerous conversations with him, without any animosity. But I would strongly advise the administrators of this board to maintain the status quo. Until Andy apologizes for his unjustified accusations against Jeremy (and others) and agrees not to engage in such personal attacks in the future, he should be kept off of this board, in everybody else's best interests.

And everybody here keeps pointing out what a nice guy Andy is in person. I've never met him, but I don't doubt that.

But this insistence on an apology is silly to me. Even if he attempted an apology, I suspect we might here the objection "that apology wasn't good enough." C'mon, it's been three years. I think he's served his time for these "unjustified accusations".

edited -- I saw the link to Andy's "attack" after I posted mine. Good grief. Three years banishment .... for that?!

Samantha

10-28-2006, 11:38 PM

IMO, this "attack" against Jeremy is a like a real good fishing story -- that fish just keeps getting bigger every year. But can anybody actually show us a picture of that big carp? i.e. is this attack still on the RF? Because in my mind, that thing has been blown out of all proportion.

It's in the post just above yours.

And it's interesting. That post is dated 7/9/03. The mod request for an apology was 2 days later, just a few posts down. And the post that started this thread, which issued the ultimatum was almost a month after that. So it would seem that even in the end days, Andy was given more than a few chances to remain in good standing.

bdschobel

10-29-2006, 05:04 AM

...And who cares if Andy criticizes the leadership of the actuarial profession of having conflicts of interest? There may be a grain of truth in that accusation; after all, aren't we all at least a little bit motivated by our self interests? Besides, it is a strong organization that tolerates criticism and debate. And it is a weak and dying organization that tries so hard to silence the nay-sayers.

Also, if Bruce or anyone else is so hot & bothered by Andy's "attacks" against Jeremy or the SOA leadership, why not turn in him to the ABCD? Andy even welcomed that with his best Dirty Harry impersonation (go ahead .... make my day). The truth is that the ABCD doesn't give a hoot about any debates or silly flame wars that take place on an internet message board. And if anybody doubts me, then go ahead and turn Andy in for his "attacks" and see where that goes....

The SOA discussion forum was dead long before Andy started ranting about the Catholic Church. Andy just offered them a convenient excuse for putting that dog out of its misery. And, again, who cares if Andy rants against the Chimperor and the Pope? He's certainly not the only one on this message board doing that! C'mon, talk about two easy targets.You ought to care very much about accusations that the leaders of the actuarial profession are motivated by conflicts of inbterest. Such accusations call into question the integrity of our profession. If you want to tolerate such things, be my guest. I don't agree. In my personal view, Andy treads very, very close to violating the Code of Professional Conduct -- in various ways, but especially with regard to criticisms of other actuaries. The Code lays out the steps that are supposed to be followed. Andy simply ignores them with his shotgun-like blasts. If he were correct, we might have more tolerance, but he isn't.

The SOA discussion forum was simply hijacked by Andy. His extreme ranting on so many subjects did not belong on the website of the Society of Actuaries. They embarrassed all of us, you included! Andy was asked and then warned numerous times to stay on actuarial topics and to maintain some degree of decorum; he refused in the most vociferous terms. So we shut down the discussion forum. You may consider that a good thing; I don't happen to agree, but so be it.

Andy's accusations were -- and are -- very serious to many people and, in my opinion, should be taken seriously by you, too. The passage of time, even 3 years, doesn't make everything all right. He needs to apologize and retract his false accusations. Until then, we should ask to maintain the status quo regarding his posting status.

Bruce

Sonny

10-29-2006, 07:36 AM

You ought to care very much about accusations that the leaders of the actuarial profession are motivated by conflicts of inbterest. Such accusations call into question the integrity of our profession. If you want to tolerate such things, be my guest.

Bruce, there are many issues right now that call into question the integrity of our profession. Andy Lang isn't one of them. On the casualty side, we recently formed a Task Force to address the perceived actuarial "credibility gap". This Task Force published multiple recommendations for restoring the public's trust in the credibility of our profession; none of these recommendations involved Andy Lang's rants on the internet. I'm sure that other branches of actuarial society have their own credibility issues, and I'm mystified as to why the leadership of any actuarial society would spend more than 30 seconds worrying about Andy Lang.

In my personal view, Andy treads very, very close to violating the Code of Professional Conduct -- in various ways, but especially with regard to criticisms of other actuaries. The Code lays out the steps that are supposed to be followed. Andy simply ignores them with his shotgun-like blasts.

I'm gonna call your bluff on that one. Andy put all his posts out there on either the SOA board or his own blog. He didn't hide it from anyone. In the CAS Seminar on Professionalism, they tell us (in no uncertain terms) that if you believe another actuary has violated the Code of Professional Conduct, then it is your duty to turn that actuary in to the ABCD. Have you turned Andy in?

The SOA discussion forum was simply hijacked by Andy. His extreme ranting on so many subjects did not belong on the website of the Society of Actuaries. They embarrassed all of us, you included! Andy was asked and then warned numerous times to stay on actuarial topics and to maintain some degree of decorum; he refused in the most vociferous terms. So we shut down the discussion forum. You may consider that a good thing; I don't happen to agree, but so be it.

First of all, I have never been "embarrassed" by anything that Andy Lang has ever posted on the internet. Bored to tears, yes ... but embarrassed, no. Second, it is ridiculous for you to keep blaming the demise of the SOA Discussion Board on Andy Lang. If you wanted to keep Andy off that board, all you had to do was ban him, and refuse to give him a new password. So let's make one thing perfectly clear: the reason that the SOA shut down its message board was not because of Andy Lang -- it was because nobody used it! And, ultimately, that was the only real "embarrassment" of that board.

Andy's accusations were -- and are -- very serious to many people and, in my opinion, should be taken seriously by you, too. The passage of time, even 3 years, doesn't make everything all right. He needs to apologize and retract his false accusations. Until then, we should ask to maintain the status quo regarding his posting status.

A vast majority of today's medical research is (IMO) tainted by conflicts of interest. For example, I recently read a research paper involving a new product manufactured by P&G. I found an important, glaring, and obvious flaw in the experimental design of the research. After a little more internet searching, I also found that several of the authors of the report had financial ties to P&G. That, unfortunately, is par for the course in medical research these days. In medical or pharmaceutical research, I believe that it is entirely relevant whether the author (or authors) has financial ties to the product or technique that is the subject of the research. Is it also relevant in actuarial research?

Now, Gold/Bader/Peskin are advocating that corporate pension plans be funded with taxable bonds, as opposed to common stocks. In the paragraph that Gandalf linked, Andy Lang contends that bonds must be traded more frequently than equities (btw, he may be right about this), and then he basically asserted that these three actuaries earn money from transaction costs associated with the trading of taxable bonds in corporate pension funds -- and that this was their motivation for advocating bond funding.

I have no idea whether any of these three guys are asset managers for pension funds. If not, then Andy's accusations would be a simple matter to refute. If they are, then is this a relevant point? Well, as a dissatistfied consumer of P&G, it was certainly relevant to me that the research used to support the product in question was written by authors with financial ties to P&G.

But in closing, let me just add that Jeremy Gold is one of the most respected actuaries in our profession. And I don't think that his research is motivated by conflicts of interest; it is motivated by his deep knowledge and respect for financial economics (although many actuaries, not just Andy Lang, have no time for FE!). I have a world of respect for Jeremy as a person and an actuary.

bdschobel

10-29-2006, 08:23 AM

I'd guess that 30 seconds was about right! And, sure, the actuarial profession has lots of problems, and we're working hard on them, but to ignore Andy would have been a mistake.

I said that Andy came very close to violating the Code of Professional Conduct, not that he in fact violated it. If I believed the latter, then I would have reported him to the ABCD. But likewise, Andy should have reported Jeremy, me and others, if he really believed his accusations.

I will simply ignore your views about why the SOA discussion forum was shuttered. I helped to make that decision; you did not. 'Nuff said. And if Andy's posts did not embarrass you, well, they should have.

Even though we disagree about so much, I do share your views about Jeremy Gold. I cannot name a more exemplary actuary.

Bruce

Sonny

10-29-2006, 10:03 AM

I said that Andy came very close to violating the Code of Professional Conduct, not that he in fact violated it. If I believed the latter, then I would have reported him to the ABCD.

Either he did or he didn't. If you think think that his rants on the internet "came very close" to violating the CPC, then report him. But you really need to either play that hand or fold it.

I will simply ignore your views about why the SOA discussion forum was shuttered. I helped to make that decision; you did not.

Here's your quote: Andy was asked and then warned numerous times to stay on actuarial topics and to maintain some degree of decorum; he refused in the most vociferous terms. So we shut down the discussion forum. C'mon. You didn't like what one poster was doing, so instead of just banning him, you shut down the entire discussion forum? Talk about the atomic fly swatter....

And if Andy's posts did not embarrass you, well, they should have.

I don't share most of his views, so they don't embarrass me. On the contrary, I would be proud to be part of an organization that tolerates and allows harsh criticism.

And you never addressed the last few paragraphs of my post. What exactly were Andy's "false accusations"? And do you think that it's relevant to know whether a researcher has any financial ties to the subject of his/her research?

bdschobel

10-29-2006, 10:09 AM

Either he did or he didn't. If you think think that his rants on the internet "came very close" to violating the CPC, then report him. But you really need to either play that hand or fold it....That's ridiculous. I don't report people for "coming close." Read what I said.

Regarding the SOA discussion forum, you said previously that it wasn't shut down because of Andy. Now you're saying that it was because of him. You really should make up your mind! Anyway, how would you know? :rolleyes:

Bruce

bdschobel

10-29-2006, 10:15 AM

Gandalf

10-29-2006, 10:43 AM

Andy's e-mail address is in the SOA directory. The CAS web has a discussion forum. Perhaps Sonny should encourage Andy to post there.

Swan

10-29-2006, 11:19 AM

...I would be proud to be part of an organization that tolerates and allows harsh criticism....Of unrelated organizations like the Catholic Church?! That sort of commentary belongs on Andy's personal blog, not on the SOA website.
SOA website is one thing. An SOA discussion forum, on the other hand, which -- I assume -- was only hosted by the SOA, and probably contained a disclaimer that read something to the effect of "Any opinions expressed by the members of this forum do not reflect the views of the SOA," is a different thing entirely. An honest question: Did the SOA discussion forum not allow its members to engage in any political discourse, such as the Political section of this forum does?

P.S. I can't believe I'm sitting here defending Andy's right to criticize organizations like the Catholic Church on an internet message board. :crazy: This whole conversation is getting WAY out of hand. :)

Sonny

10-29-2006, 11:25 AM

That's ridiculous. I don't report people for "coming close." Read what I said.

Let's say that you believe that a certain actuary's conduct "treads very, very close to violating the Code of Professional Conduct". How should you, as a fellow actuary, handle this situation. This might make a good case study for the next CAS Seminar on Professionalism. I'll throw out two possible courses of action:

Course 1: Privately report that person's conduct to the ABCD. Tell them that you don't think that it violates the CPC, but that it comes very, very close. Then let them decide where to go with it.

Course 2: Publicly announce on an internet message board that this person has come very, very close to violating the CPC. If anybody asks why you haven't reported this conduct to the ABCD, simply state that you believe it was very, very close, but you don't think it quite rose to the standards of a full violation.

Personally, I would advocate Course 1. Course 2 is a cop-out. I mean, how "close" was Andy's behavior from violating the Code, Bruce? Was he just one cuss word or one insult away from it? Or did he have a good 20 or 30 more posts before he got there. If you're that concerned, maybe you should let the ABCD look into it.

Because if I really thought another actuary's conduct was very, very close to violating the CPC, then I would report it.

Regarding the SOA discussion forum, you said previously that it wasn't shut down because of Andy. Now you're saying that it was because of him. You really should make up your mind! Anyway, how would you know? :rolleyes:

My last comment was sarcastic. Let's say that you have a message board that requires a password and a real name ID. And let's say that this is a really great message board, with the exception of one user who is clearly violating the rules of the board. How do you respond? Do you simply ban the one offending user, or do you shut down the entire message board? I think it's unfair for you to blame the demise of the SOA Discussion Board on Andy Lang. If the SOA Discussion Board had anything worth saving, then the obvious solution would have been simply to ban the one poster whom you feel is violating the rules.

Sonny

10-29-2006, 11:34 AM

...I would be proud to be part of an organization that tolerates and allows harsh criticism....Of unrelated organizations like the Catholic Church?! That sort of commentary belongs on Andy's personal blog, not on the SOA website. Andy's postings embarrassed the whole actuarial profession. Perhaps as a CAS member, you don't care what appears on the SOA site, but I most assuredly do. Would you like to provide a forum for Andy's views, as a way of demonstrating your great tolerance? :)

Bruce

I really don't care if Andy posts on the CAS discussion forum. However, very few people over there are interested in pension issues.

Bruce, can you address my points regarding conflict of interest? What is the specific apology that you are demading from Andy? What is he supposed to be saying he's sorry for? When he said that these three authors earned some sort of monetary gain from the trading of bonds in corporate pension funds, was this factually untrue? Was this his "false accusation"? I honestly don't know.

But like I said, I think to some extent we are all motivated by self interest. And I believe that another poster in this thread (very early on) noted that many actuarial researchers have some sort of "conflicts of interest". I don't think that it's necessarily a cardinal sin to point that out.

bdschobel

10-29-2006, 11:54 AM

Sonny

10-29-2006, 12:06 PM

Stop attributing these demands to me. Andy Lang was banned from this board long before I ever heard of it!!! I happen to agree with that decision, but making it sound like mine is misleading at a minimum.

Fair enough. My mistake.

Accusations of conflict of interest are very serious. Anybody who makes such accusations better be prepared to support them in some manner. Andy never did that. He merely accused. I'm not going to comment on the factual basis, if any, to his accusations. That's his job.

I think he tried to support them. I'm not sure if what he said was true or not. But he basically said that the authors of this research earned money from the trading of bonds in corporate pension funds. Is that true? Is it relevant to their research? I don't know.

Sometimes reporting someone to the ABCD for false accusations can be counterproductive, and you know that as well as I do. One might believe that the ABCD is ineffective (note that I am not claiming to believe that myself) or simply want to avoid making a possible martyr of the accuser or giving any additional publicity to the false accusations. Thanks for your advice on what I should have done about Andy (forgetting, of course, that I never even knew what he said about Jeremy until years later). I'll consider it. OK, all done! :)

Well, if you're serious, than you're welcome. And I hope you will drop the whole ABCD card, unless you're serious about actually playing it.

edited for spelling

bdschobel

10-29-2006, 12:10 PM

I do believe that unsupported accusations can cross a line and result in referral to the ABCD. Whether Andy has gone -- or will ever go -- that far is unknown at this time.

Bruce

Jeremy Gold

10-29-2006, 01:14 PM

I worked for Morgan Stanley from 1985-1989. Morgan Stanley trades bonds. Morgan Stanley trades stocks. They'd be happy to trade either with your pension plan.

Michael Peskin worked for Morgan Stanley from 1988-now with a 2 or 3 year hiatus in the early 90's.

Larry Bader worked for Salomon Brothers from 1985-early to mid 90's, returned to Mercer and retired later in 90's. Salomon (now Citigroup) trades bonds. They trade stocks. They'd be happy to trade either with your pension plan.

Larry and I have advocated bonds for a long time now -- for strong companies subject to Anglo-Saxon tax regimes. Michael has performed studies that included all sorts of investments.

Because I advocate bonds, I occasionally (actually rarely) am hired for some consulting by money management firms that want to understand the reasoning behind my advocacy. I am occasionally (also rarely) hired by actuarial and other consulting firms for the same reason.

Andy's posting from 2003 speaks for itself. He exerted no effort to determine whether his accusation was true or false. This is reckless.

I actually did not object (with respect to me; I have no idea what Michael and Larry felt) to the accusation of conflict of interest because it was false and easy to refute.

I believe that Andy probably violated some of our conduct rules when he called fellow actuaries idiots in a public forum. I asked for an apology. I think that may have been my first post on this forum.

Others banned Andy then and now. Traci told Andy he would be welcome if he simply apologized. Andy made his choice then.

Apologizing for being rude is relatively easy. We are all rude (by accident or on purpose) from time to time and apology clears the air.

After I was asked above about describing Andy's rants as monomaniacal, I looked up the word and found it had two connotations -- one is a narrow focus, an obsession, the other is a form of mental illness. I have heard Andy opine on how EAN is the solution to some very large problems. I don't think many informed people agree with him. Actuaries are the group most capable of evaluating the long and short of EAN. Most actuaries recognize its relative advantages and disadvantages. Few would insist that it is the ONLY answer to fixing DB plans and Social Security. Andy's insistence that it is THE way is narrowly focused. Repeated over and over to an audience that does not agree may be described as obsessive.

But I don't believe that Andy is mentally ill and, even if I did so, it would be inappropriate for me to express such an opinion in a professional forum.

So, I apologize to Andy for describing his words as monomaniacal.

See how easy it is to apologize.

I do not plan to engage in an extended dialog about this. I wrote this note with the hope of ending the conversation.

Malik Shabazz

10-29-2006, 01:27 PM

In fact, he and Tom Terry invited me to become a member of the Conference of Actuaries in Public Practice and I am considering it, although I no longer do that work, only pro bono work and talks and seminars and much writing.That will require a bit of time travel, as CAPP renamed itself the Conference of Consulting Actuaries in 1991.

Sonny

10-29-2006, 01:27 PM

Wow. Excellent post, Jeremy. I think that should end the conversation.

bdschobel

10-29-2006, 01:37 PM

Thank you. I agree.

Bruce

Malik Shabazz

10-29-2006, 01:44 PM

Malik Shabazz

10-29-2006, 01:50 PM

He hijacked this board -- and then the SOA discussion forum -- with endless rants against everything from other actuaries to President Bush to the Catholic Church. It got so bad that the SOA decided to shut down its discussion forum rather than allow Andy to use it as his personal blog.The SOA discussion forum was dead long before Andy started ranting about the Catholic Church. Andy just offered them a convenient excuse for putting that dog out of its misery. And, again, who cares if Andy rants against the Chimperor and the Pope? He's certainly not the only one on this message board doing that! C'mon, talk about two easy targets.Sonny, a forum like our Political Forum would have been the appropriate place for messages like Andy's, not a professional forum, like the Pension Forum in which we're having this discussion.

The problem is that Andy repeatedly has shown that he doesn't know the difference. When it was pointed out to him that a professional forum wasn't the appropriate place for him to attack another actuary because he (Andy) thought the actuary with whom he disagreed was Catholic, Andy started a diatribe about the Catholic Church. In the Finance and Investments Forum (!).

E. Blackadder

10-29-2006, 01:51 PM

That will require a bit of time travel, as CAPP renamed itself the Conference of Consulting Actuaries in 1991.
Fortunately there's a thread or two for that.

Samantha

10-29-2006, 02:18 PM

I believe that Andy could, and would, say to Jeremy "I'm sorry I called you an idiot; I got a little carried away in the heat of the debate."

Are you new here?

I imagine that would probably do it, but that would never happen.

Nevah ... Nevah ... NEV AH!! :shake:

Sonny

10-29-2006, 03:38 PM

I am a firm advocate of free expression, but along with free expression comes responsibility. Since Andy has demonstrated, both here and in the SoA Discussion Forum, that he cannot restrain himself, I'm afraid that I cannot side with those who recommend his return.

If Andy is welcomed back, I urge the moderators to keep him on a very short leash.

Andy has nothing positive to contribute. His message, which he repeats ad nauseum, is that actuarial profession is peopled by incompetents and that actuaries -- pension actuaries in particular -- are criminals. As should be clear from this thread, he has no qualms about personal attacks against actuaries with whom he disagrees.

Within the past six months Andy's vitriol destroyed the SoA Discussion Forum, and he's started to destroy this Pension Forum (starting two of his trademark rants this week).

The generally professional tenor of the discussion in this Pension Forum has been a delight to me. I'm afraid we're going to lose that if Andy starts his past behavior here.

Ultimately this is a private board, and it's up to DWS whether or not Andy is allowed to return. And I will fess up to one thing: if I were the admin of this board, I would probably not want Andy Lang posting here. Even if he apologizes for calling Jeremy an idiot. Because it would bring too many headaches for me.

However, I also get a little fed up with those who attempt to suppress freedom of speech under the banner of actuarial professionalism. For example, let's say that Andy continues to post his rants on his own personal blog, and he continually refers to the SOA Leadership as idiots or morons or whatever else. And he tells us that they just don't "get it", because they are dominated by self interest and they are stupid. And he rips on the pope and Allah and GW Bush and whoever else. He's got a right to speak his mind on his own blog, and I don't think that the ABCD is gonna care one whit about it.

bdschobel

10-29-2006, 04:17 PM

...He's got a right to speak his mind on his own blog, and I don't think that the ABCD is gonna care one whit about it.I agree with the first part but not the second part of your statement. In the United States, anybody has the right to say essentially anything he likes about any subject under the sun (with a few classic exceptions for things like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). But professionals willingly give up some of that freedom. If an actuary makes false accusations against other actuaries, he brings the profession into disrepute and can indeed lose his actuarial credentials. Just because it has never happened doesn't mean that it cannot happen.

And, while anybody can post whatever he likes on his own private site, the SOA has no obligation at all to post anything, least of all rantings on topics unrelated to the SOA's mission of education and research. The SOA never had a "political" section of its discussion forum and likely never will, assuming that the forum is revived one day.

Bruce

Gandalf

10-29-2006, 04:33 PM

The SOA never had a "political" section of its discussion forum and likely never will, assuming that the forum is revived one day.Not an exclusively "political" section, but it did have "Cyberchat".

Sonny

10-29-2006, 07:16 PM

I agree with the first part but not the second part of your statement. In the United States, anybody has the right to say essentially anything he likes about any subject under the sun (with a few classic exceptions for things like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). But professionals willingly give up some of that freedom. If an actuary makes false accusations against other actuaries, he brings the profession into disrepute and can indeed lose his actuarial credentials. Just because it has never happened doesn't mean that it cannot happen.

I agree that there are certain things that you could publish on your own personal blog that would clearly violate the CPC. For example, if you published confidential information about a client or Principal (w/o consent), then you would be in violation of Precept 9. Also, if you published something about another actuary and you were found guilty of libel, then I suspect that the ABCD would take a look at that.

But, again, the ABCD is not going to care a whit if Andy voices the opinion that the SOA leadership is comprised of "idiots". Or if he asserts that some research paper is tainted by a conflict of interest. And they also aren't going to care about his vitriolic rants against GW Bush and the Pope. And I think Bruce knows that.

And, while anybody can post whatever he likes on his own private site, the SOA has no obligation at all to post anything, least of all rantings on topics unrelated to the SOA's mission of education and research. The SOA never had a "political" section of its discussion forum and likely never will, assuming that the forum is revived one day.

Gandalf is correct -- the SOA board did have a cyberchat (or off-topic) board.

Sonny

10-29-2006, 07:53 PM

Also, I suspect that Jeremy would just like to see this thread go away, so I'm gonna try real hard not to make another appearance in it.

It was very gracious of Jeremy to extend an apology to Andy. And now that Jeremy has taken that first step, I think it would be wonderful to see Andy apologize for calling Jeremy an idiot. Most of you doubt that Andy will do that, but never underestimate the power of forgiveness. He might surprise you. Jeremy isn't looking for an apology for the "conflict of interest" comment, just the "idiot" remark. I think it's important to him to hear that apology from Andy, and I wish that Andy would give it.

I got a little carried away in this thread myself, especially in the argument w/ Bruce. However, the only comment that really set me off was Bruce's statement that Andy had come very, very close to violating the CPC. And I'm definitely not an AL fan; I've picked on him far more than most in this thread. But put yourself in his shoes for a minute. One of the leaders of the SOA states publicly that you have come very, very close to a professional violation. Somebody then challenges him to turn you in, but then he backs down and says "well, it was very, very close, but not quite there, so I'm not actually going to turn it in." Sort of like, "well, it's not a full violation, but just a close call, so a little public rebuke will have to suffice."

I personally would much rather be turned in to the ABCD. At least that way I would get my "day in court" so to speak. Otherwise all you've done is taken a potshot that you're not prepared to backup, which is exactly what everybody gets so mad at Andy for....