Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Upload your resume securely at https://www.dwsimpson.com
to be contacted when our jobs meet your skills and objectives.


General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 09-08-2009, 11:29 AM
MathGuy's Avatar
MathGuy MathGuy is offline
Official Speelchecker
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Boston-ish
Favorite beer: Panda
Posts: 2,038
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glassjaws View Post
Bruce posted about it the day he filed the suit. That thread was removed for the holiday weekend. His OP about the suit was included in the Academy's response they filed. As for anything sooner, I was not aware, I am not an Academy member.
I believe that was the first anyone had heard of it. The powers that be removed the thread from the forum, apparently because they feel this is a "personal dispute" between Bruce and the Academy, and not something that is hugely relevant to many of the users of the forum. According to the post I just linked (Made by Mod1, but apparently edited by Tom), we are probably going to be banned for even acknowledging the existence of the older thread.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-08-2009, 11:31 AM
mlschop's Avatar
mlschop mlschop is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 36,089
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
One question I have is if the conviction was expunged, and this means what tbakos says, then why would Bruce be impacted by a change in the rules that disqualified felons from AAA membership? The NYT implies that he would have been. (Quite possibly the NYT is wrong, but you never know.)
Per NYT - the debate was barring felons from the profession, not just the AAA. I don't think it implies that said rule change would have impacted Bruce, but I think he was sensitive to the topic, given his personal situation.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-08-2009, 11:35 AM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 35,340
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
One question I have is if the conviction was expunged, and this means what tbakos says, then why would Bruce be impacted by a change in the rules that disqualified felons from AAA membership? The NYT implies that he would have been. (Quite possibly the NYT is wrong, but you never know.)
I have information from a totally different source that says an expunged conviction is legally the same as never convicted (of that offense).
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Mar 15, 2017.

Spoiler:
I should keep these two permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
MORE:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Smoothie View Post
The ones who complain that they're too good for that kind of work really aren't that good.
Two really useful all-purpose responses. Use one or both:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonScandopolous View Post
To which I say: duh and lol.
Careers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Smoothie View Post
actuarial isn't the only good career out there.
All round good advice:
Quote:
Originally Posted by snikelfritz View Post
Don't live your life by other people's expectations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
If you feel you have to lie, then you're don't have enough integrity to be an actuary.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-08-2009, 11:35 AM
Jack's Avatar
Jack Jack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 100 Luten Avenue, 10312
Studying for Life
Favorite beer: Free Beer
Posts: 14,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Brachowitz View Post
I can get by just fine with FSA/EA. I think I might.
If you want to opine on Reg 126 or be an illustration actuary you need to.

Quote:
Section 53-3.7 Annual Certifications.

(a) The board of directors of each insurer shall appoint one or more illustration actuaries.

(b) The illustration actuary shall certify that the disciplined current scale used in illustrations is in conformity with the Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 24 for Compliance with the NAIC Model Regulation on Life Insurance Illustrations promulgated by the Actuarial Standards Board, and that the illustrated scales used in insurer-authorized illustrations meet the requirements of this Subpart. A copy of Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 24 as adopted by the Actuarial Standards Board in December of 1995 may be obtained from the American Academy of Actuaries, 1100 Seventeenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 and a copy is available for public inspection at the Insurance Department offices at Agency Bldg. One, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York and at 25 Beaver Street, New York, New York and at the New York Department of State, 41 State Street, Third Floor, Albany, New York 12231.

(c) The illustration actuary shall:

(1) be a member in good standing of the American Academy of Actuaries;

(2) be familiar with the standard of practice regarding life insurance policy illustrations;

(3) not have been found by the Superintendent, following appropriate notice and hearing to have:

(i) violated any provision of, or any obligation imposed by, the Insurance Law or other law in the course of his or her dealings as an illustration actuary;

(ii) been found guilty of fraudulent or dishonest practices;

etc.
__________________
Grand Funk Railroad paved the way for Jefferson Airplane, which cleared the way for Jefferson Starship. The stage was now set for the Alan Parsons Project, which I believe was some sort of hovercraft. For more information on Grand Funk consult your local library.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-08-2009, 11:35 AM
remilard's Avatar
remilard remilard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Favorite beer: Talschänke Wöllnitzer Weißbier
Posts: 9,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
One question I have is if the conviction was expunged, and this means what tbakos says, then why would Bruce be impacted by a change in the rules that disqualified felons from AAA membership? The NYT implies that he would have been. (Quite possibly the NYT is wrong, but you never know.)
I think the NYT article was factually wrong, perhaps in a defamatory way, in stating that Bruce had something personal to gain from opposing a ban on convicted felons.

It is likely that Bruce's opinion was colored by his own experience, but that is something else entirely.
__________________
Listen to me now and hear me later.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-08-2009, 11:35 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlschop View Post
Per NYT - the debate was barring felons from the profession, not just the AAA.
My error.

Quote:
I don't think it implies that said rule change would have impacted Bruce, but I think he was sensitive to the topic, given his personal situation.
That's not how I understand "personal reasons for his stance", but you could be right.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-08-2009, 11:42 AM
llcooljabe's Avatar
llcooljabe llcooljabe is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGuy View Post
I believe that was the first anyone had heard of it. The powers that be removed the thread from the forum, apparently because they feel this is a "personal dispute" between Bruce and the Academy, and not something that is hugely relevant to many of the users of the forum. According to the post I just linked (Made by Mod1, but apparently edited by Tom), we are probably going to be banned for even acknowledging the existence of the older thread.
From what I saw on Saturday and Late friday, that thread was devolving into certain people "backing up the truck" and unloading all the dirt on how evil BS really is/was. I didn't read all the unloaded dirt. I'm assuming that the thread got deleted because of that, not because of the discussion of BS v. AAA.
__________________
www.GoodNewsNow.info
Propoganda
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-08-2009, 11:42 AM
tbakos's Avatar
tbakos tbakos is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SW Colorado looking South towards the San Juan Mountains
College: IIT Graduate - Math, English, Philosophy
Favorite beer: Fat Tire (or, maybe a bottle of wine) - And Lots of It during these hard times we are now going through!
Posts: 2,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlschop View Post
This is my exact feelings on the situation.

If I were on AAA board, would I want Bruce to step down voluntarily? Maybe. Regardless of what stance Bruce or SOA has on the issue, the fact that Sanford was awarded something makes it seem that the court felt she was defamed. I'm not sure that would make my organization look good - and I understand the desire to want Bruce to resign. The AAA just did not do it in the appropriate way, and now has to pay for that.
Please understand that it was not a "court" that made that determination. It was a panel of three, I believe, arbitrators acting under a binding arbitration agreement - part of the former SoA Executive Director's contract.

As the Academy President, probably with coaching from the Academy General Counsel, tried to explain to Academy Board members, the opinion of these arbitrators has no standing outside of the arbitration proceeding. They are not obligated to follow any law. Drawing any conclusion based simply on what the arbtrators said could be very, very wrong.

But, again, the real issue is not why the Academy Board did what it did but how they did it. In fact, that is the only issue being litigated.
__________________
TomB

Tom Bakos, FSA, MAAA
Served as SOA Board member: 2002 - 2005 and (as VP) 2008 - 2010
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-08-2009, 11:52 AM
Not Mike Not Mike is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 9,724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbakos View Post
But, again, the real issue is not why the Academy Board did what it did but how they did it. In fact, that is the only issue being litigated.
I disagree 100%. This is positively about the why, not about the how. If the "why" wasn't the issue, this would have never gotten this far. Even in the court proceedings, the "why" is a huge part of the defamation portion of the suit.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-08-2009, 11:54 AM
Jack's Avatar
Jack Jack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 100 Luten Avenue, 10312
Studying for Life
Favorite beer: Free Beer
Posts: 14,879
Default

I'm disturbed by lots of things here

1) The lack of transparency and forthrightness from the Academy
2) Selection of a president with a very serious felony conviction or at least Academy not informing its mebership of the conviction.
3) Legal dispute regarding the Sanford incident.

The Academy could have a lot to say regarding insurance, pensions, health care reform, and social security but instead is getting coverage in the Times over this crap.
__________________
Grand Funk Railroad paved the way for Jefferson Airplane, which cleared the way for Jefferson Starship. The stage was now set for the Alan Parsons Project, which I believe was some sort of hovercraft. For more information on Grand Funk consult your local library.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
aaa, bruce schobel

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.32043 seconds with 10 queries