CAS And Mutual Recognition

[Roasted Almond]

http://www.casact.org/pubs/actrev/feb03/mutual.htm

I just can't understand how CAS could achieve mutual recognitions with U.K Institute and other Actuarial organizations? keeping in mind that CAS seems to be the only Professional organization which focuses primarily on P/C issues.

U.K system to the best of my knowledge has hardly 2 out of 15 exams that focus on general insurance.

Are they planning to mess up with CAS designitions? :-?

[Arlie_Proctor]

Actually, the current version of the UK system has some pretty good courses in general insurance. My reading of their program shows that there would appear to be about the equivalent of four CAS exams for their general insurance track.

My biggest problem with the proposal is that it is drawn too narrowly. There are FSA's out there with sufficient practical P&C experience to be deserving of recognition. The proposal as drawn excludes them from consideration.

[Roasted Almond]

Arlie, I respect your opinion, I do have few comments though:

the current version of the UK system has some pretty good courses in general insurance. My reading of their program shows that there would appear to be about the equivalent of four CAS exams for their general insurance track.

If this being the case, why the CAS hasn't yet resolved the issue of mutual recognition until now? What they have been waiting for?? Its now almost 3+ years since 2000 conversion (they have been working on waivers since well before 2000) and until now an FIA is exempted from no more than CAS 1-4??

My take on this is that the educational goals of the two Societies are different i-e no exemption from CAS 5-9 because not much of overlap in between the Exam Syllabi and the Course contents for upper level CAS exams. The situation will remain the same UNLESS one of the Society changes its Educational goals Or Exam Syllabi (seems highly unlikely).

My biggest problem with the proposal is that it is drawn too narrowly. There are FSA's out there with sufficient practical P&C experience to be deserving of recognition. The proposal as drawn excludes them from consideration.


1) Well if we make "Sufficient Practical Experience" as a criteria for letters and recognition whats the need of conducting exams? Whats the Criteria for measuring this suffieicnt experience? why bother for an FSA? What about an ACAS/ASA with 10+ experience in the P/C industory? Currently an FSA worth 4 CAS exams, what about a four exams condidate with "Sufficient Practical Experience" in P/C side? Should CAS grant each of them the FCAS designation? If not why not? How many Actuarial Professional Organizations grant Fellowships based on "Practical expereince" in the related field and not on passing relevant exams?


2) IoA (U.K) students are currently being exempted by SoA for passing Institute's exams, If CAS start mutual recognitions with IoA (based on relevent work experience requirements) there will be plenty of IoA students which will get qualified for both FSA and FCAS. Wouldn't it better to be a U.K system's student than a U.S student in that case?

Furthermore, Is CAS interested in the similar relationships with SoA ? If not why not? the only difference b/w an FSA(Life) and an FIA(Life) Actuary seems to be that the FIA(Life) requires one compulsory exam on gnereal insurance (303 or 304 i guess), does this make such a big difference?


3) There may be MANY other differences as well e.g granting of CAS upper level exemptions for passing IoA exams (which may or may not have guessing penalties) wouldn't put U.K students on an edge, even on their general insurance papers? and Will the CAS be exempting Upper level exams for Good Academic Records in U.K Educational Universities too (like parts 1-4)?

[Shaft]

I am surprised at this discussion within the CAS. In my opinion of working with and employing CAS and FIA/FFA actuaries, THERE IS SIMPLE NO COMPARISON when it comes to P/C practice areas. The CAS guys and gals are so far ahead, so much better trained and so much more conscious of professional issues in respect of their practice areas that they win hands down. I disagree with the view that the FIA exams cover enough material, they are a joke in comparison to Parts 5, 6 and 9. Institute exams are generalist exams, and not of the depth you will find in CAS exams. I think the CAS is on to a loser here. Just because the CAS is "perceived negatively" on this issue is not a reason to compromise a very high standard.

But don't listen to me ranting, ask the CAS credential holders who work in the Bermudan market what they think of the few FIA's who have joined them....

[Cho Da]

Bermudian

[Arlie_Proctor]

Shaft:

Your point is well taken and I think it proves my point regarding practical experience. US students are trained both through exams and through practical experience to deal with US P&C issues. The exam process provides certain raw skills and proves an ability to learn and an ability to perform under pressure. The practical experience provides the skills necessary to do the job day-to-day.

I will hazard to bet that the average FCAS asked to price commercial liabilty in London is as much a fish out of water as the FIA asked to price the same coverage in the US. Put both in Australia for two years and I'll bet that both are equally equipped to deal with the same coverage there.

Let's face it, this business is all about learning to deal with local issues and applying some fairly basic principles to those issues. The essence of the "Fellow" is a demonstrated ability to assimilate the important information quickly and determine when he/she is qualified.

[Shaft]

Cho, I realised I had a missing "i" after I posted. Thanks for reminding me!

On AP's point - how do UK actuaries price commercial liability? Firstly there will be very few who get the chance to, second those that do will either ask an ACAS or FCAS colleague, or refer to the CAS literature.

The UK does not have a rate-filing regime, so they have missed out on decades of practical experience. I think that says more than enough about the comparison.

One of the other arguments given by the CAS is that there has not been a flood of alien actuaries into societies that offer mutual recognition. Well that's not a surprise as these societies are not offering what the CAS is offering. These socieities are very similar to each other. so no great incentive to join them through the mutual recognition path.

[Scott Bradley]

This deserves a very lengthy reply since there are a lot of issues involved. For now I'll restrict myself to commenting on one of Arlie's points:

Actually, the current version of the UK system has some pretty good courses in general insurance. My reading of their program shows that there would appear to be about the equivalent of four CAS exams for their general insurance track.


The last time Mutual Recognition and/or the extension of exam credits/waivers was being considered the Education Policy committee reviewed the Institute's syllabus material, study notes, and exams and concluded that, not only was the material not at the same level as that covered by the CAS but the Institute exams did not test the material at the same depth as is the case with the CAS exams. It is my understanding the Syllabus Committee and the Examination Committee independently came to the same conclusion.

Before someone jumps on me, the Institute syllabus reviewed was the "new" syllabus, not the old one. Arlie is correct when he points out that the revised syllabus does contain significantly more non-life material than the "old" one but it's still not comparable to the material covered by the CAS exams.

[r. mutt]

I will hazard to bet that the average FCAS asked to price commercial liabilty in London is as much a fish out of water as the FIA asked to price the same coverage in the US.

I'd hazard a guess that you're wrong about this. An FCAS would be familiar enough with U.S. coverages to at least have a starting place for comparison, and would have a grounding in basic P&C pricing techniques. An FCAS would also know what questions to ask first. My guess is that an FIA would start with a very mechanical technique when faced with this problem, as an FCAS would when suddenly faced with a pension problem.

[Brad Gile]

When the CAS decided not to adopt Mutual Recognition in 1999 but also created a new member classification (Affiliate Member, NOT a designation), I thought they had done the right thing. I am FSA (1986) but have been working in P/C since 1987 at American Family. I won't go into detail as to just how this came about, but I have never regretted the switch.
In any event, I became one of the first CAS Affiliate Members in May of 1999. I am very comfortable with this; the CAS is far more my professional home than is the SOA, which (properly) is not concerned with the education of casualty actuaries.

By the formal process of becoming FSA and my practical experience in P/C over the last 16 years, I do consider myself to be a casualty actuary. That said, however, I would be quite uncomfortable with the notion that I should be given an FCAS designation for that.

Brad Gile

[Arlie_Proctor]

Shaft:

The fact that the UK does not have a similarly irritating regulatory structure does not make the FIA less qualified to price/opine. It simply makes them green with respect to the US environment. If you look at the research literature, you will find that Institute actuaries are actually ahead of the CAS in a number of areas. Whether or not they have ever dealt with the California DOI does not appear to me to be particularly relevant.

Familiarity with our legal climate? That may be a legitimate point of argument, albeit one that can be overcome with practical experience (let's face it, our part 7 is hell, but it just scratches the surface).

Scott:

I was among those who reviewed the old UK materials for the purpose of determining whether or not exam-by-exam credit made sense. I argued then and I argue now that any system of providing exam-wise credits is trouble. Our systems differ too much to make it feasible.

The only way in which any type of mutual recognition is feasible is an holistic one. Here is my question: take four individuals:

1) a newly minted FCAS,
2) a newly minted FIA,
3) a newly minted Aussie (in deference to the captioned thread in this forum), and
4) a newly minted FSA.

Put them among experienced actuaries pricing or reserving the same line of business for two years and then compare them. Can you tell which is which (accent excluded)? In my experience, I can't tell the difference when you start with a quality individual.

I see the same mistake made at a more granular level by actuarial hiring managers who pass on candidates without specific knowledge about specific lines of business (nope, never done reinsurance, can't possibly be qualified...never priced commercial extra-planetary collision, not the right candidate).

Are there actuaries out there trained by other societies whose skills make them good candidates for admission into the CAS? I think yes, some of them already have material on the CAS syllabus. How do we determine which are qualified? That is the million dollar question.

[Shaft]

Hi Arlie

If you look at the research literature, you will find that Institute actuaries are actually ahead of the CAS in a number of areas.

Which P/C areas?

[Arlie_Proctor]

For starters, look into the genesis of GLM and neural nets as classification techniques -- you'll find that the Brits were the first to embrace it and make it work.

[Brad Gile]

The only way in which any type of mutual recognition is feasible is an holistic one. Here is my question: take four individuals:

1) a newly minted FCAS,
2) a newly minted FIA,
3) a newly minted Aussie (in deference to the captioned thread in this forum), and
4) a newly minted FSA.

Put them among experienced actuaries pricing or reserving the same line of business for two years and then compare them. Can you tell which is which (accent excluded)? In my experience, I can't tell the difference when you start with a quality individual.

I see the same mistake made at a more granular level by actuarial hiring managers who pass on candidates without specific knowledge about specific lines of business (nope, never done reinsurance, can't possibly be qualified...never priced commercial extra-planetary collision, not the right candidate).

Are there actuaries out there trained by other societies whose skills make them good candidates for admission into the CAS? I think yes, some of them already have material on the CAS syllabus. How do we determine which are qualified? That is the million dollar question.

I strongly agree with this viewpoint. Yes, it IS a "million dollar question" that I hope those who are in a position to do something about it are asking themselves (both in CAS and SOA, which already has Mutual Recognition).

Brad
"Karate ni sente nashi. There is no first strike in karate."-Gichin Funakoshi
"Neither is there a second!"-Brad Gile

[Scott Bradley]

Arlie,

If you assume that those four individuals:

1) a newly minted FCAS,
2) a newly minted FIA,
3) a newly minted Aussie (in deference to the captioned thread in this forum), and
4) a newly minted FSA.


all have a few years of business experience behind them when they qualify (five or more??) I suspect you could add a fifth individual to your sample - a math grad with no actuarial exams of any sort - and, with the same amount of experience as you are suggesting here (the 5 years the rest of the group get in the business world plus the two years working closely with highly qualified actuaries) I seriously doubt that in the majority of circumstances you could distinguish between this individual and any of the others. Work quality is not the point. Practice rights aren't the issue either.

The FCAS is an educational designation. Practice rights in the US and Canada come from the American Academy and the Canadian Institute respectively. Those bodies require certain educational qualifications for admission. On the P&C side that qualification is typically an ACAS or FCAS - however, FIA's are entitled to join either body (there are specific hurdles that such an FIA needs to meet but it is possible).

[Arlie_Proctor]

Scott:

Now we have an interesting discussion!

Practice in the US is unique in that our educational and standard-setting/practice rights bodies are not one and the same. There are, today, 699 members of the AAA that hold the FIA/FAIA/AIA/AAIA designations. The puported number of such individuals who have applied for mutual recognition from the SoA is small. Any of these individuals practicing in P&C can work freely in the US as members of the academy. I can't remember any state regulations that would preclude any of these individuals from opinining on reserves or on rates. Ergo, we have not excluded any member of the IA or AIA from practicing here in the US.

Is that sufficient to say that we recognize the members of these organizations as learned individuals that may be (subject to certain experience requirements) suitable for employment in the US or on US interests? I should think so.

And, yes, you are correct in pointing out that there is a legitimate fifth contender for my group. However, there is a distinct difference between the first four and the fifth. With the first four, you have an indication of both breadth and depth of knowledge. In the fifth case, you have a highly trained specialist that may or may not be qualified to step outside their specialty and view the insurance organism from a different standpoint.

Thoughts?

[RBLANCHARD3]

I skimmed through the comments here, and was disappointed at the ignorance relative to the Academy's role. My understanding is that the CAS used to view Mutual Recognition as only an issue with regard to practice rights, and in the U.S. practice rights were handled by the Academy. Note that an FSA with significant casualty practice experience can currently be approved to sign casualty loss reserve opinions after applying to and getting approval from the Academy's Casualty Practice Council.

Unfortunately, the Academy's work on mutual recognition issues has been slowed down by concerns of other (non-US) organizations with enrolled actuaries. It appears that enrolled actuaries (i.e., those with only the minimum education required to be pension actuaries under ERISA) are full members of the Academy, but would not meet the education requirements of the IAA. Therefore, certain non-US actuarial organizations are resisting entering into a mutual recognition agreement with the Academy. THey don't want any enrolled actuaries to gain their credentials via Academy membership.

In general, rather than complaining about the issue on this forum, why not address this question directly to CAS leadership? Ask a question at a CAS meeting. Send a letter to the Actuarial Review. Send an email on CASNET about this. Such an approach may be more effective in achieving a full dialogue of the issues.

[Arlie_Proctor]

Ralph:

With all due respect, I think you miss several points:

1) I may be somewhat of a devil's advocate and may sometimes put issues out for discussion where there is an obvious answer. Yes, the AAA is the answer with regard to practice rights -- the discussion got there before you arrived. The issue here is whether or not to issue the FCAS designation to individuals who meet criteria outside the CAS education system. THAT is the issue under consideration by the CAS Board. Whether or not non-CAS members are qualified to practice should be irrelevant.
2) I have forwarded my own opinions on this issue up to CAS leadership in far greater detail than I have revealed here. Other members here have expressed their opinions directly as well. Do not chastise open discussion of the issues here, because:
3) This is the single largest open discussion forum for actuaries from all walks of life. If it's being discussed here, the CAS leadership should be paying attention. The CAS discussion forum claimed that distinction at one time, but the CAS chose to destroy it. That is a separate issue altogether.

[neofan]

A question for employers too, if mutual recognition takes place, would you check the candidates' FCAS (either through exams or mutual recognition) and pick those who receive FCAS through CAS exams?

[Brad Gile]

A question for employers too, if mutual recognition takes place, would you check the candidates' FCAS (either through exams or mutual recognition) and pick those who receive FCAS through CAS exams?

Well, I don't think a designation gets you any more than an interview. Other factors will prevail from then on. For that reason, I suspect that many employers would not make a distinction.

Brad
"Karate ni sente nashi. There is no first strike in karate."-Gichin Funakoshi
"Neither is there a second!"-Brad Gile

[RBLANCHARD3]

Arlie,

My post was trying to answer the question as to why the CAS board may have a different view than the past on this issue. One reason was that the CAS considered this a practice rights issue, and felt that practice rights were an Academy issue, not a CAS issue. But the Academy has gotten bogged down in an issue concerning enrolled actuaries, hence the CAS cannot rely on timely resolution by the Academy.

Another factor has been increased experience in dealing with international issues, through participation in IAA initiatives. We have found our effectiveness threatened or potentially threatened, due to a perception that we are isolationists.

Another factor has been experience in dealing with p/c experts from the UK and Australia. Based on some of the postings I've seen, some appear to view any p/c training outside the CAS as being substandard. But many of us have had very interesting and challenging discussions on conceptual and technical p/c matters with people who had no CAS training. In general, these non-CAS people were trained through the UK and Australia general insurance actuarial programs.

We have also discovered that, where such mutual recognition programs have been in existance, they have not been used much.

Therefore, the CAS's quandry is how to not be viewed as isolationists, how to acknowledge true p/c expertise that's being developed outside the CAS confines, yet not water down the FCAS designation. Many of us believe that a "just say no" attitude doesn't work, as it may shut us out from the worldwide actuarial community.

Ralph Blanchard

[Arlie_Proctor]

On almost all points, agreed. My question is this: if we are having problems with the AAA regarding practice rights for casualty actuaries from other educational systems, what are we doing about it? The last time I checked the roster, the casualty practice counsel of the AAA did not contain any EA members. Granted, that's been a while back, but this problem does not make sense. The AAA is the right answer for questions of practice rights -- why have we abandoned it?

[Roasted Almond]

Bump! for those still interested :D

Latest stories:

http://www.casact.org/members/MR/

[Straight From My Id]

Bumped as a reminder that disinterested and/or uninformed FCAS's can approve just about anything put before them.

[Lou Pai]

Therefore, the CAS's quandry is how to not be viewed as isolationists, how to acknowledge true p/c expertise that's being developed outside the CAS confines, yet not water down the FCAS designation. Many of us believe that a "just say no" attitude doesn't work, as it may shut us out from the worldwide actuarial community.

Ralph Blanchard

Dear RBLANCHARD3,

How does the "just say no" attitude shut us out from the worldwide actuarial community? I don't see any FCAS demanding to have a FIA, or a fellow of Australia.. Why do they deserve FCAS? This has nothing to do with practice rights.

It is silly to think that the outside world will shut us out. They can't shut us out, the CAS is the premier global P&C organization. You can combine all the other P&C organizations in the world, and they still don't come close to the CAS.

FSA is far more equivalent to FCAS than anything from the UK. So any mutual recognition where the word "equivalent" is used, is misleading at best.

You're Welcome.

Lou Pai

[Lou Pai]

Bumped as a reminder that disinterested and/or uninformed FCAS's can approve just about anything put before them.

Straight From My Id,

Oh there is a lot of interest from FCAS's on these boards. A lot of interest in getting a position at the IAA.

You're welcome.

Lou Pai

[Lou Pai]

Another factor has been increased experience in dealing with international issues, through participation in IAA initiatives. We have found our effectiveness threatened or potentially threatened, due to a perception that we are isolationists.

Ralph Blanchard

Dear Ralph Blanchard,

It is nice that you point out the IAA has strong influence in this.

Maybe it would be nice to point out to the forum goers, that the SOA/CAS pays over 60% of IAA dues, yet we get less than 20% of the votes. Maybe that is why we would be viewed as isolationists. We are funding an organization that is designed to not act in our best interests.

All of this is held up by a toothpick obviously. If the SOA/CAS decides to renig their membership to the IAA, IAA collapses, and then SOA/CAS become THE global organizations again.

There is no real threat behind any of this, just smoke and mirrors.

You're welcome.

Lou Pai

[bdschobel]

...the SOA/CAS pays over 60% of IAA dues, yet we get less than 20% of the votes. Maybe that is why we would be viewed as isolationists. We are funding an organization that is designed to not act in our best interests.This is basically true, but the details aren't quite right. Because each actuarial organization pays IAA dues on behalf of its own members, people who are members of multiple organizations (like most American actuaries) pay multiple IAA dues. If you add up all the dues paid on behalf of American actuaries (and members of the SOA and CAS who are also members of other non-American actuarial organizations), you get roughly 60% of all IAA dues. Yet the U.S.-based organizations have something like 16% of the voting rights on the IAA Council. There is a proposal to increase this to 21% that will be voted on next month in Hyderabad. Even that is quite low considering the 60% figure.

And I agree that IAA often does not act in the interests of the SOA and CAS. I have asked at various times what the SOA gets for its IAA membership, which costs about half a million dollars a year, including dues and leadership and staff travel expenses. It's also a tremendous distraction at times. IAA may do a lot for actuarial organizations in small and developing countries, but what it does for SOA and CAS is difficult to discern.

Bruce

[campbell]

It puts me to mind of the UN for some reason.

I doubt that's all that surprising, though.

[Shaft]

This is basically true, but the details aren't quite right. Because each actuarial organization pays IAA dues on behalf of its own members, people who are members of multiple organizations (like most American actuaries) pay multiple IAA dues. If you add up all the dues paid on behalf of American actuaries (and members of the SOA and CAS who are also members of other non-American actuarial organizations), you get roughly 60% of all IAA dues. Yet the U.S.-based organizations have something like 16% of the voting rights on the IAA Council. There is a proposal to increase this to 21% that will be voted on next month in Hyderabad. Even that is quite low considering the 60% figure.

And I agree that IAA often does not act in the interests of the SOA and CAS. I have asked at various times what the SOA gets for its IAA membership, which costs about half a million dollars a year, including dues and leadership and staff travel expenses. It's also a tremendous distraction at times. IAA may do a lot for actuarial organizations in small and developing countries, but what it does for SOA and CAS is difficult to discern.

BruceWhat does it do? It lives off the North American actuarial dues. Hosts nice conferences is great locations. It also allows small actuarial organizations to ride on the back of the credibility of 'proper' actuarial orgs, Ilike those that have proper exam systems. t also allows dubious characters to float round promoting their IAA membership as if it bestows them designation status equivalent to SOA or CAS.

I think there is a TREMENDOUS amount of good work that could be done for North American actuarial advancement with 500k.

[bdschobel]

I tend to agree. Some of the IAA committees (e.g., insurance accounting) do really good and necessary work, but generally the IAA is a social club where a bunch of old friends hang out together -- for far too long! And the half million annually figure that I estimated is for the SOA only. Throw in the other organizations, and you get closer to a million per year. I don't have precise figures, but it has to be in that ballpark.

Bruce

[EddieC]

I think there is a TREMENDOUS amount of good work that could be done for North American actuarial advancement with 500k.

:iatp: I'm sure we can find a few more disgruntled ex-employees or directors to whom we could award that money.

[JMO]

Arlie,

My post was trying to answer the question as to why the CAS board may have a different view than the past on this issue. One reason was that the CAS considered this a practice rights issue, and felt that practice rights were an Academy issue, not a CAS issue. But the Academy has gotten bogged down in an issue concerning enrolled actuaries, hence the CAS cannot rely on timely resolution by the Academy.

Another factor has been increased experience in dealing with international issues, through participation in IAA initiatives. We have found our effectiveness threatened or potentially threatened, due to a perception that we are isolationists.

Another factor has been experience in dealing with p/c experts from the UK and Australia. Based on some of the postings I've seen, some appear to view any p/c training outside the CAS as being substandard. But many of us have had very interesting and challenging discussions on conceptual and technical p/c matters with people who had no CAS training. In general, these non-CAS people were trained through the UK and Australia general insurance actuarial programs.

We have also discovered that, where such mutual recognition programs have been in existance, they have not been used much.

Therefore, the CAS's quandry is how to not be viewed as isolationists, how to acknowledge true p/c expertise that's being developed outside the CAS confines, yet not water down the FCAS designation. Many of us believe that a "just say no" attitude doesn't work, as it may shut us out from the worldwide actuarial community.

Ralph Blanchard
Don't listen to the nay-sayers. This is a good sensible post. The world is getting smaller all the time.

[Ke$ha]

Actually, the current version of the UK system has some pretty good courses in general insurance. My reading of their program shows that there would appear to be about the equivalent of four CAS exams for their general insurance track.

My biggest problem with the proposal is that it is drawn too narrowly. There are FSA's out there with sufficient practical P&C experience to be deserving of recognition. The proposal as drawn excludes them from consideration.

Hrmmph.

[Abnormal]

While I have a lot of issues with the various Mutual Recognition agreements the biggest single problem is that they're completely one sided. If a Fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries wants to apply to become an FCAS the requirements are quite simple (http://www.casact.org/join/mr/mr_application.pdf). However, if an FCAS wishes to join the Faculty and Institute there are additional restrictions, the most significant of which is:

Three years' recent practical experience, one year of which was in the U.K. or Ireland.

Interestingly enough, when the CAS entered into this agreement I asked what exactly constituted experience in the UK for purposes of this agreement. Given the number of CAS members that live and work in Bermuda the question of whether or not a British Crown Colony was considered part of the UK is a question I would have expected the Board would have considered. Surprisingly no-one I spoke to had an answer with respect to Bermuda and no-one seems to have thought about the definition of the term "UK" - at the time I spoke to a UK solicitor and asked for a definition of the term. His response - "That depends. What did they mean when they entered into the agreement?"

[llcooljabe]

Hrmmph.

Brad Gile is an excellent example...

[Abnormal]

Brad Gile is an excellent example...

Without a doubt.

[secondlife]

While I have a lot of issues with the various Mutual Recognition agreements the biggest single problem is that they're completely one sided. If a Fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries wants to apply to become an FCAS the requirements are quite simple (http://www.casact.org/join/mr/mr_application.pdf). However, if an FCAS wishes to join the Faculty and Institute there are additional restrictions, the most significant of which is:



Interestingly enough, when the CAS entered into this agreement I asked what exactly constituted experience in the UK for purposes of this agreement. Given the number of CAS members that live and work in Bermuda the question of whether or not a British Crown Colony was considered part of the UK is a question I would have expected the Board would have considered. Surprisingly no-one I spoke to had an answer with respect to Bermuda and no-one seems to have thought about the definition of the term "UK" - at the time I spoke to a UK solicitor and asked for a definition of the term. His response - "That depends. What did they mean when they entered into the agreement?"
I am confused.
I am not a CAS guy. What are you implying? FIA who can fulfill requirements 1-5 in your link are not qualified to do CAS work in America? FCAS's can't get CAS jobs in UK (are there many CAS openings in UK/Ireland)? Are there many CAS companies in America where parent company is in UK/Ireland?

Wonder how many FIAs got FCAS!

Just trolling!

[Abnormal]

secondlife, all I'm saying is that the agreement is one sided.

As for people moving from one side of the Atlantic to the other there are a substantial number of FIA's in the US as well as a significant number of FCAS's in London. But MR isn't about working on the other side of the pond. It's about exchanging designations.

As for how many FIA's obtained an FCAS by MR, I don't have an answer (although I do know one FIA who obtained both an FSA and an FCAS by that means).

[campbell]

secondlife, all I'm saying is that the agreement is one sided.

As for people moving from one side of the Atlantic to the other there are a substantial number of FIA's in the US as well as a significant number of FCAS's in London. But MR isn't about working on the other side of the pond. It's about exchanging designations.

As for how many FIA's obtained an FCAS by MR, I don't have an answer (although I do know one FIA who obtained both an FSA and an FCAS by that means).

Well, CAS/SOA don't set practice rights in the U.S. anyway. The Academy does.

Which is why it should be the Academy who does the MRAs, not the SOA or CAS.

[secondlife]

secondlife, all I'm saying is that the agreement is one sided.


I agree 100%.

As for people moving from one side of the Atlantic to the other there are a substantial number of FIA's in the US as well as a significant number of FCAS's in London.

So for those FCASers, experience requirement do not matter?

But MR isn't about working on the other side of the pond. It's about exchanging designations.

This part puzzles me, why would anyone wants to pay dues if they are not getting anything in return? Serve in exam committees or to run for elected leadership positions?

As Campbell pointing out correctly FIA is similar to MAAA not FSA or FCAS? SOA and CAS should stop giving letters through MRA. Now who would run for elections with this in their agenda?

[JMO]

Well, CAS/SOA don't set practice rights in the U.S. anyway. The Academy does.

Which is why it should be the Academy who does the MRAs, not the SOA or CAS.
Has anyone made this point to the leadership of the Academy?

[Brad Gile]

Has anyone made this point to the leadership of the Academy?

Well, in 1999 I wrote a letter to the CAS Actuarial Review (shown in at least one of my posts here on the AO some time ago) stating this very point. If the Academy leaders are unaware of this incredibly obvious point, they are either obtuse or too much in bed with IAA wishes to recognize it.

I leave it to the reader to decide which of these two alternatives is more likely.

[Arthur Kade]

Well, in 1999 I wrote a letter to the CAS Actuarial Review (shown in at least one of my posts here on the AO some time ago) stating this very point. If the Academy leaders are unaware of this incredibly obvious point, they are either obtuse or too much in bed with IAA wishes to recognize it.

I leave it to the reader to decide which of these two alternatives is more likely.
It seems to me that the issue isn't what Academy are/arent aware of and whether they are/arent in bed with IAA. The question is why are CAS and SOA leaders doing what they are doing? When this first came up, why didn't THEY refer the matter to the AAA?

[SamTheBellhop]

Has anyone made this point to the leadership of the Academy?

Why should that even been necessary? Let the SOA/CAS (rightly) stop offering mutual recognition since it wasn't their job/responsibility in the first place. Then, should the AAA feel that there is a void, they can decide on their own if they would like to fill it.

[Abnormal]

Well, CAS/SOA don't set practice rights in the U.S. anyway. The Academy does.

Which is why it should be the Academy who does the MRAs, not the SOA or CAS.

Has anyone made this point to the leadership of the Academy?

A number of people did - both in letters to the editor and directly.

Officially the problem related to EA's but fixing that would have been too easy so the MR question got pushed onto the CAS and SOA.

The CAS Board was adamant that this would go through (to the point that they were distributing chocolate bars at one of the meetings with pro-MR slogans printed on them). [BTW, there were a number of anti-MR letters published in the Actuarial Review at the time.]

[secondlife]

The CAS Board was adamant that this would go through (to the point that they were distributing chocolate bars at one of the meetings with pro-MR slogans printed on them).
This is hilarious! Wonder who paid for it? If members do not know then CAS board is ... In SOA meetings, recruiters throw good receptions. Wonder there were any recruiters behind chocolate bars?

[Ke$ha]

It seems to me that the issue isn't what Academy are/arent aware of and whether they are/arent in bed with IAA. The question is why are CAS and SOA leaders doing what they are doing? When this first came up, why didn't THEY refer the matter to the AAA?

The IAA did not want the SOA or CAS to be international organizations, which is why mutual recognition is done through the SOA and CAS and not the AAA.

The plan eventually was for the SOA/CAS/AAA to merge, and therefore when you combine the years of experience requirement of the AAA statutory opinion rights with the SOA/CAS mutual recognition requirements, you arrive at something similar to the UK mutual recognition requirements.

And the AAA is COMPLETELY in bed with the IAA. The IAA is mentioned so many times in AAA's documentation that you would think the IAA was an American organization.

[bdschobel]

And IAA's president, Cecil Bykerk, is also AAA's president-elect (simultaneously). That's nothing short of extraordinary.

Bruce

[Ke$ha]

Why should that even been necessary? Let the SOA/CAS (rightly) stop offering mutual recognition since it wasn't their job/responsibility in the first place. Then, should the AAA feel that there is a void, they can decide on their own if they would like to fill it.

The issue is the AAA leadership is stacked with people who implement proposals that are in direct conflict with SOA/CAS members' interests. They have no accountability to their members and many of the presidents are heavily connected with the IAA.

For example:

Cecil Bykerk was the IAA education committee chairman from 1998-2004,the 2011 President of the IAA, and is 2012 AAA President-elect.
Mary Frances Miller was the IAA education committee chairman from 2005-2010ish, and is the 2011 AAA President.

[tommie frazier]

And IAA's president, Cecil Bykerk, is also AAA's president-elect (simultaneously). That's nothing short of extraordinary.

Bruce

is it? color me stupid (you won't be the first) but if the IAA is an org of orgs, wouldn't the leaders of the member orgs also be leaders of the IAA? is it different from CUSP in some regard?

[Ke$ha]

What does CUSP think about merging the SOA/CAS/AAA?
http://www.actuary.org/pdf/cusp/crusap_aug07.pdf

Recommendation 19. Establish consolidation of the U.S. actuarial profession as a goal of the profession.
CUSP recognizes the value and intention of this recommendation, and most (not all) of its members agree with it, under a suitably long-term time horizon. There have been decades of repeated leadership initiatives to consolidate the profession over a short to moderate time frame, all of which have failed. It is clear that even a moderate time horizon for this goal is not realistic.
CUSP is unanimous in its belief, however, that the profession will be well served through achievement of a long series of smaller goals, designed to continuously improve coordination and cooperation among the various organizations, and to efficiently and effectively share infrastructure and process. CUSP is focused on finding and encouraging those improvements, and building this continual collaborative process into the operation of the profession’s associations.

[bdschobel]

I wrote most of those words. ("Sharing infrastructure" is a phrase that appears in my SOA campaign materials dating back at least to 2004.) It was in response to the CRUSAP recommendation. Basically, we said that merger isn't going to happen, but we should still work together collaboratively, eliminating redundancy and so forth. That still makes sense. Merger doesn't -- and it will fail once again, as CUSP observed it has every previous time.

Bruce

[Ke$ha]

Given Brad's proposal was four years later, would you call that short term, moderate or long-term?

[bdschobel]

Moderate, I suppose.

Bruce

[acs]

I strongly agree with this viewpoint. Yes, it IS a "million dollar question" that I hope those who are in a position to do something about it are asking themselves (both in CAS and SOA, which already has Mutual Recognition).

Brad
"Karate ni sente nashi. There is no first strike in karate."-Gichin Funakoshi
"Neither is there a second!"-Brad Gile

Hi all,

I think the SOA had the answer to the "million dollar question" - for fully-qualify actuaries (FQA or fellow) of a full-IAA member organization with no MRA (with the SOA), the process is as follow:
- being FQA of a full-IAA member organization
- have at least 7 years of experience as an actuary of which 2+ in the U.S.
- pass exam C or MLC via examination (thus proving that you can pass one of the 2 toughest exams for associateship)
=> you can be granted ASA ... so you can pursue FSA designation like any other ASA

Personally I think it's fair enough and CAS should consider such a process to conclude on the "soap opera" subject of MRA ...

ACS

[Bobby]

Hi all,

I think the SOA had the answer to the "million dollar question" - for fully-qualify actuaries (FQA or fellow) of a full-IAA member organization with no MRA (with the SOA), the process is as follow:
- being FQA of a full-IAA member organization
- have at least 7 years of experience as an actuary of which 2+ in the U.S.
- pass exam C or MLC via examination (thus proving that you can pass one of the 2 toughest exams for associateship)
=> you can be granted ASA ... so you can pursue FSA designation like any other ASA

Personally I think it's fair enough and CAS should consider such a process to conclude on the "soap opera" subject of MRA ...

ACS

I agree with you here, but because the ACAS requires a few upper-level exams in addition to the preliminary exams, we'd need to add a few exams. If someone passes 4, 5, 6, 3L, 3F, 2 and 1 then I think that'd be enough to grant them the ACAS credential.

[Colymbosathon ecplecticos]

I agree with you here, but because the ACAS requires a few upper-level exams in addition to the preliminary exams, we'd need to add a few exams. If someone passes 4, 5, 6, 3L, 3F, 2 and 1 then I think that'd be enough to grant them the ACAS credential.

I'm on board with this, but I'd add some VEE credits, a couple of letters of reference, and a professionalism course.

[JasonScandopolous]

I'm on board with this, but I'd add some VEE credits, a couple of letters of reference, and a professionalism course.

lol

[JMO]

:bump:
I just noticed this bit of transparency in the latest Actuarial Review.
New Fellows by Mutual Recognitions (http://www.casact.org/newsletter/index.cfm?fa=viewart&id=6339). Has the CAS always announced mutual recognition actions? Or maybe this is new. Anyway, I applaud it, and would very much like to see the SOA make similar announcements when such action takes place.

[secondlife]

:bump:
I just noticed this bit of transparency in the latest Actuarial Review.
New Fellows by Mutual Recognitions (http://www.casact.org/newsletter/index.cfm?fa=viewart&id=6339). Has the CAS always announced mutual recognition actions? Or maybe this is new. Anyway, I applaud it, and would very much like to see the SOA make similar announcements when such action takes place.
A better suggestions is wait until they become elected leaders or running for an election and then do a character assassination (like so and so didn't pass any actuarial exam but serving in E&E committee).

[Gecko]

:bump:
I just noticed this bit of transparency in the latest Actuarial Review.
New Fellows by Mutual Recognitions (http://www.casact.org/newsletter/index.cfm?fa=viewart&id=6339). Has the CAS always announced mutual recognition actions? Or maybe this is new. Anyway, I applaud it, and would very much like to see the SOA make similar announcements when such action takes place.Yes. At the annual meetings where they announce new ACAS and new FCAS, they also announce new Fellows by Mutual Recognition. I assume that's always been in the Actuarial Review, too, although I don't recall ever expliclty checking for it.

Seems reasonable to announce all new members. Doesn't the SOA do that?

[campbell]

Yes. At the annual meetings where they announce new ACAS and new FCAS, they also announce new Fellows by Mutual Recognition. I assume that's always been in the Actuarial Review, too, although I don't recall ever expliclty checking for it.

Seems reasonable to announce all new members. Doesn't the SOA do that?

They announce all new FSAs. They don't make a distinction of whether it's by mutual recognition or the normal way, afaik.

[Wigmeister General]

They announce all new FSAs. They don't make a distinction of whether it's by mutual recognition or the normal way, afaik.

Why is it pertinent to have distinctions? Should we go back and specify those who became members by passing Part 7-US vs. Part 7-Canada, too?

[secondlife]

A while ago when I was taking exam they did name candidates who got credits for exams through other routes (100-GRE, 220 all CFA exams etc). At that time there was no MRA.

I don't see any reason for doing it either.

[campbell]

I don't even think it's appropriate for the SOA or CAS to be handing out mutual recognition.

It should be about practice rights, which falls under the realm of the AAA in the U.S., and the CIA in Canada (and whatever national bodies elsewhere).

[soyleche]

Why is it pertinent to have distinctions? Should we go back and specify those who became members by passing Part 7-US vs. Part 7-Canada, too?

It might be helpful to to specify the FSA track they went through.

[bdschobel]

I don't even think it's appropriate for the SOA or CAS to be handing out mutual recognition.

It should be about practice rights, which falls under the realm of the AAA in the U.S., and the CIA in Canada (and whatever national bodies elsewhere).Exactly. The designation should tell viewers which organization's exams you took, nothing more or less.

Bruce

[rekrap]

It might be helpful to to specify the FSA track they went through.

Stinks for those coming through the GI tract.

[campbell]

Stinks for those coming through the GI tract.

:-|

[rekrap]

:-|

Movin on up the list?

[campbell]

:shake2:

[Brad Gile]

Yes. At the annual meetings where they announce new ACAS and new FCAS, they also announce new Fellows by Mutual Recognition. I assume that's always been in the Actuarial Review, too, although I don't recall ever expliclty checking for it.

Seems reasonable to announce all new members. Doesn't the SOA do that?

I was accepted as an Affiliate Member of the CAS in 1999. This was subsequently announced in the Actuarial Review. I believe that this has been done regularly over the years. There aren't a lot of us and only 2 of us are FSA.

[Brad Gile]

Movin on up the list?

I think Campbell has your number, rekrap! :-)

[tommie frazier]

i have seen MR fellows mentioined over the years, yes.