Clive L. Keatinge

[Cho Da]

Anybody else get the campaign brochure from Clive?

He wants to be elected to the CAS BOD so that he can work toward unifying the SOA and CAS into a single organization.

Any thoughts?

[ThE BlacK ScoRpioN]

I just read it... I say we let him and Sholom go at it in a 20ft steel cage. Or maybe this calls for a Hell in a Cell match.

I don't think the merge is such a good idea at this time. I reserve the right to discuss this further if I someone else wants to join the discussion...

[Dr T Non-Fan]

It will save some 50(?) people membership fees. (Need to do four searches in directory, and I don't want to wait.)
It's quite possible, and it might require the SOA to be more decentralized with its sections.
Downside: the annual meeting would be limited to very few hotels if another 500-1000 people plan to show up for it. And it would require a separate Spring meeting. Those are kinda full, too.

[Daria]

I just read it... I say we let him and Sholom go at it in a 20ft steel cage. Or maybe this calls for a Hell in a Cell match.


Hey, I'd pay to see that! :D

[jets fan]

I guess I just don't see what it achieves to combine them. IMO, life and P/C are 2 separate fields that require different skill sets.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

For starters, one headquarters instead of two would save some money.
One lame web site instead of two would save money.

Since the CAS members will insist, the end result would be a less-centralized, more section-focused actuarial society. I mean, those life people are anything but.

[jets fan]

If they're doing it for the sole reason of money in an "increase the profits" sense, then I think I'm against it - they're doing it for all the wrong reasons. If each society is in financial trouble, they'd have a point but I'd want to see the data that proves it. The CAS upper exams are now $475 each and with 1,296 people taking them last sitting, that comes to a cool $615,600 - not to mention the 114 new ACAS members from last sitting who will all begin paying dues. However, if the data does show financial trouble is on the horizon, I won't ignore the facts - something would have to be done.

I'm not sure where I'd stand for combining the societies for other than profit related reasons, though. If there's some educational reason for combining the societies, or some other type of reason that would somehow be benefitial to both societies and to the business community, then I'd listen.

[Maine-iac]

I may be a voice in the wilderness here, but I think we are at a disadvantage in not combining the societies, although the politics and power jockeying during a transition phase would be a nightmare.

Two main reasons:

1) When we try to interact with non-actuaries, the distinction is nearly meaningless and makes us look like petty, bickering, in-fighting boobs. In the giant scheme of things, we are a tiny profession, and the public barely understands what we do in a general sense, let alone understand the distinctions between life and P&C. They can't see why P&C would need a separate society from life, if say, health doesn't. And what about those pension folks? Are they in or out. Outsiders looking to deal with us look for us to speak with a united voice, and they see division and dissension. Better to go around us.

2) We are missing out on education, reasearch, development of new techniques, etc. by keeping the societies separate. Yes, P&C is different than life, but no more so than health or pensions, and they survive as separate tracks. I am a member of both societies. I used to work in health and now I work in P&C. There are P&C techniques that would have been extremely helpful on the health side, and health techniques that would be useful on the P&C side, but the similarities are rarely examined because of the artificial distinctions between the societies. Development of products like a 24 health insurance product is stymied because employee medical is a life/health product, WC and auto med pay are P&C product and the the two sides of the house are unfamiliar with each others terminology, claim dating etc.

On a personal note, I found switching between health and P&C to be uncessarily difficult due to the need to switch societies. This is not a common occurrence, but maybe more people would feel free to explore different discipline within the profession if there weren't so many hoops to jump through when you wish to explore "the other side".

Just my 2 cents, but I think we are doing ourselves a disservice be being so narrowly focused.

[1SQ]

Being a near ACAS, I noticed that Clive is against giving voting rights to the associates, citing as his reason that this would act as a disincentive to continue on to fellowship. I'm not sure what the breakdown is between FCASs and ACASs in the CAS, but it does trouble me that someone seeking to lead our professional society feels that he can do so without the voice of the ACASs.

As I understand it, ACASs sign rate filings and statements of opinions on reserves for annual statements, serve on CAS committees, are members of the AAA, pay dues, and, my personal favorite, head up departments of some of the largest insurance companies in the US. I believe the CAS would be a much stronger organization if the mandate for anyone choosing to lead the society came from the entire membership.

Personally, the only real reason I can think of to deny voting rights to associates is that those in power might be afraid of the real results.

[MountainHawk]

I'm generally opposed to the idea, unless the organization is such that the new organization was just really a figurehead for the societies, and the P&C members were solely and completely responsible for making decisions for P& issues. Exams 3 & 4 are the disasters they are because the CAS allowed them to be joint, and so, the much larger SoA community has essentially turned them into life exams. Joint decisions on issues would be so life-side biased that it could hurt P&C development (such as publication in journals, etc.)

[Glenn Meyers]

MountainHawk:

While I agree with your stand that we should not merge the CAS and the SOA, I disagee with your comment that the joint Exams 3 and 4 are a disaster.

Your statement implying that the joint exams are dominated by the larger SOA is simply false. At various times, I have served on all the joint exam committees and the CAS was well represented by active participants.

A full statement of my opinions on the joint exams are in the Actuarial Review.

http://www.casact.org/pubs/actrev/nov01/analysis.htm

http://www.casact.org/pubs/actrev/may02/readers.htm

Let me summarize my main points here.

Both students and employers benefit from having as many joint exams as possible. Students will have a greater choice of employers. Employers of casualty actuaries in particular, will have access to a far greater pool of students. More joint exams will allow more time for everybody to find the best fit. In other words, everybody wins.

Maine-iac is one, of at least a few, who have benefited from the joint exams.

The trends that I identify in both the article and the letter seem to be holding (the differences in the pass ratios are up a bit in the Spring02 exams, but the differences are statistically insignificant). The dangerous trend is the small number of CAS workers taking the exams. This will hurt us in the (not so) long run.

I believe the strategy of waiting until the exams are changed is a dangerous one. It will take time, even if the BOD votes to make an immediate change.

While I believe it would be a mistake to merge societies, we should cooperate whenever it is in our mutual interest. And I believe this applies for Exams 3 and 4.

[MountainHawk]

Maybe disaster was a bit harsh. But still, at least when I took those two exams in 2000, while the number of questions was reasonably proportional to the material, the more challenging questions came from the SoA material, and the CAS-type material was more basic type questions.

I'm sure they've improved in the past 3 sittings, and will continue to do so, but I just think that the material the CAS should be placing importance on is different enough that joint exams for 3 and 4 isn't going to work in the long run.

[Slick]

Being an FSA, I can assure those of you seeking associateship in either society that the opportunity to vote when fellowship is attained is certainly the most important reason to continue on to fellowship! Yeah, right.
Merge CAS and SOA and allow associates to vote (then they won't seek fellowship, making my initials all the more valuable).

[Slick]

Being an FSA, I can assure those of you seeking associateship in either society that the opportunity to vote when fellowship is attained is certainly the most important reason to continue on to fellowship! Yeah, right.
Merge CAS and SOA and allow associates to vote (then they won't seek fellowship, making my initials all the more valuable).

[Roasted Almond]

I flunked exam3 back in may 2000 (because of lack of preparation and NOT b/c of either an SoA or a CAS candidate). However, being the first exam after conversion, it was heavily concentrated on Life Contingencies material (SoA 150 type questions). Many of my friends who had passed SoA 150 before conversion didn't have much trouble in passing May 2000 "Exam3" with a "6" or a "7".

In next sitting Fall 2000, I was surprised with a number of questions being asked on Loss models and Simulation type of questions with a much Less emphasis on SoA 150 material (as compared to May 2000). I finally managed to pass in that sitting but I DO believe that SoA and CAS did a good job after that first exam sitting(May 2000) to evenly distribute the amount of material asked for both SoA and CAS students and eliminating any significant advantage of being the student of one Society than the other.

I'm now a CAS student and have no complains regarding joint exams 3 or 4. I passed all these exams(1-4) privately (without working in either Life or P/C side) so i don't think working in P/C may have any significant disadvantage in passing 3 and/or 4. For me, Actuarial mathematics was understandable and doable without specifically having any REAL experience in Life side (Just my own experience and opinion).

[Arlie_Proctor]

I am ambivalent with regard to merging the SOA and CAS. On the one hand, there is an advantage to merging publications and research in that more minds are focused on current issues. On the other hand, the SOA is much larger and garners greater academic attention today; is there any reason to believe that merging will refocus any of that attention on casualty issues? Are there synergies to be gained by bringing together the disciplines? If there are, then I say merge. If not, then I say no. Cost considerations are utterly irrelevant in my mind.

At the end of the day, I really don't believe that the skill sets of life and casualty actuaries are all that different at a base level. The legal, tax, and regulatory environments in which they operate require special knowledge, take that as a given. But, do these issues really justify two separate societies in this country? The rest of the world says no. The US court system, on the other hand, is unique.

Open question, fire away.

[jets fan]

At the end of the day, I really don't believe that the skill sets of life and casualty actuaries are all that different at a base level.

My first impression is that I agree - the key words are 'base level'. Whether you're SOA or CAS, there's a standard math/statistical aptitude that you need to have.

The legal, tax, and regulatory environments in which they operate require special knowledge, take that as a given. But, do these issues really justify two separate societies in this country?

Maybe the 3 issues you cited don't, by themselves, justify 2 separate societies, but the other differences combined with those 3 issues might. I don't really feel strongly one way or another as far as the "2 vs 1" debate, but if they are merged, there will have to be a separate track for P/C actuaries.

There are P&C techniques that would have been extremely helpful on the health side, and health techniques that would be useful on the P&C side, but the similarities are rarely examined because of the artificial distinctions between the societies

Looking at the syllabus is one way to address an issue like this - get rid of some of the old/outdated/needless/poorly written readings and put some material covering the techniques you're suggesting on the exams. Maybe there would be more of an initiative to do this if the 2 societies were combined. Or maybe it could be done with 2 separate societies if people like you who are experienced in each discipline speak out loudly enough.

[EuroMonkey]

At the end of the day, I really don't believe that the skill sets of life and casualty actuaries are all that different at a base level.

Well, the skills necessary for math professorship may not be that far from actuarial skills, but I still wouldn't want to merge with math professors. The point is that there's a lot of value in the CAS syllabus, would we dump parts of it to 'generalize' our knowledge and add SOA material, or would we just make the exam track longer?

Some miscellaneous comments:
Having separate societies doesn't make us look like ignorant boobs. Nobody cares. I've been an actuary for more than a dozen years and nobody's ever said, "hey....wait a minute! You're not a member of the SOA, what are you trying to pull here??"

I also don't want decisions about our continuing ed and other policy to be made by a mix of people who are 80% life/pension/health and 20% P&C.

I don't see merger enabling anything that isn't already enabled by us working together as separate societies.

I wonder if Clive wants to dump the ACAS designation or keep it? It's worth asking him.

[Elisha]

jets fan,
Remember, Main-iac is saying that (about health and P&C) from experience, not just syllabus issues.

[jets fan]

jets fan,
Remember, Main-iac is saying that (about health and P&C) from experience, not just syllabus issues.

Right, and as I said, one way to make people aware of Maine-iac's experience and to train people in how to apply such techniques is to put material that deals with such techniques on the syllabus.