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

DW Simpson
Actuarial Jobs

Visit our site for the most up to date jobs for actuaries.

Actuarial Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Health, Life, Pension and Non-Tradtional Jobs.

Actuarial Meeting Schedule
Browse this year's meetings and which recruiters will attend.

Contact DW Simpson
Have a question?
Let's talk.
You'll be glad you did.


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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #951  
Old 03-01-2018, 12:28 PM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 28,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pension.Mathematics View Post
For those who are relatively new to the organization:
You quoted the part that sounds the worst, but omitted the part about how the Academy settled for $600,000 and, according to Bruce, would have settled for much more money if he'd agreed to keep his mouth shut. He insisted on being able to speak freely about what happened and accepted less money in exchange for that. (According to him anyway.)

And if we had any doubts about the Academy being an open & honest & forthcoming organization, why did they suddenly vote to close their meetings to membership?

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...d.php?t=330014
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
Reply With Quote
  #952  
Old 03-01-2018, 12:40 PM
pragmatist pragmatist is offline
Member
CAS Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tudor View Post
Pragmatist: just curious--did your public denouncement accomplish anything? I guess what I'm asking is if it's even worth it? Or, is the public denouncement more of a self-therapeutic exercise than anything else?
It's too early to be able to determine it; some events and judicial proceedings are still going on; the matters involve intangible aspects; and the denounced individuals wouldn't acknowledge any effect of the disclosures incriminating them. However, it is definitely worth the effort for reasons that have nothing to do with self-therapeutic exercise.

Networking is important to one's career and it has a tight relation to a person's dignity and due reputation. When courts or boards (as is alleged of the ABCD in this matter) don't meet their obligation, public denouncement with evidence and full context becomes a professional necessity rather than a therapeutic recourse. Showing evidence and giving full context of facts and of laws is how I dismantle the inept and distorted statements made by the Michigan Court of Appeals. I gather Mr. Sharpe's envisioning would be to do something similar regarding the ABCD and the complainant.

Whether it's a deadbeat judge acting with dishonesty, a corrupt intermediary/competitor, or managers of a public institution abetting misconduct, a public denouncement -made responsibly- serves to warn our society about those corrupt individuals. When I began my litigation, I couldn't find any useful information about the judge who would preside my cases. I wish I knew beforehand what a complete mess that judge is as a person, because I would have immediately requested reassignment (this is much harder to achieve later on in judicial proceedings). But now subsequent litigants in that court can verify through official records I make available the judge's lack of integrity and take precautions accordingly. A similar reasoning applies to the intermediary engaging in fraud and unfair competition.

In the denouncement I also aim at showing people that it is possible to do things on their own, without being milked by a lawyer. With diligence, people can bring wrongdoers to court without having to disburse "legal" fees in exchange for incompetent representation. I think I accomplish this aspect very well in that collusion between attorneys and judges cannot override the evidence of perjury and misconduct.

Last edited by pragmatist; 03-01-2018 at 12:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #953  
Old 05-11-2018, 11:49 AM
DeepPurple's Avatar
DeepPurple DeepPurple is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydraskull View Post
Ditto. This smacks of either ignorance or bamboozling. Either way, as an actuary, it's professional misconduct.

No qualified actuary would use this line of reasoning. We all know that just because a mortality table goes to age 120, that doesn't mean everyone lives to 120.
IANAPA, but I am an Illinois resident, and I have family in La Grange.

Consider this Bayesian analysis:

Probability that a season pension actuary would say this: less than 1%
Probability that a media person/reporter would misquote this subtle detail: at least 50%

Bayesian probability of gross misconduct: at most 1/51 and less than 2% and potentially a lot lower.
__________________
Come on. Let's go space truckin'. Come on!
Reply With Quote
  #954  
Old 05-14-2018, 10:11 AM
Helen Sass Helen Sass is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Nearby
Studying for Colorectal Exam
College: SUNY Alumni
Favorite beer: #1 - Free; #2 - Cold
Posts: 1,661
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepPurple View Post
IANAPA, but I am an Illinois resident, and I have family in La Grange.

Consider this Bayesian analysis:

Probability that a season pension actuary would say this: less than 1%
Probability that a media person/reporter would misquote this subtle detail: at least 50%

Bayesian probability of gross misconduct: at most 1/51 and less than 2% and potentially a lot lower.
No one except Hydraskull said "everyone lives to 120".

We calculate pension liability basically as discounted expected future benefit streams. Tim's point was that by using the older mortality table there is 0% chance of any benefits payable beyond age 110. It may be small, but with the newer mortality table there is some probability > 0 of surviving beyond 110 and as late as 120. A small probability applied to a large plan results in some cost > $0 which the taxpayers would bear.

I am not presenting an argument for using outdated mortality (or any other) assumptions. I am explaining Tim's comment which would only smack of ignorance, buffoonery or professional misconduct to someone who is ignorant of how pension valuations work and/or actuarial science in general. It amazes, angers and saddens me that such statements denigrating the work of pension actuaries are frequently made in this forum by the IANAPA crowd.

Your analysis of the probability of this statement being considered gross misconduct is correct to the extent you say it is potentially a lot lower than 2%. It is much closer to 0%.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neutral Omen
ok, have fun setting up contrived academic problems in elementary probability that don't correspond to reality in any way.
Ouch
Reply With Quote
  #955  
Old 05-14-2018, 11:45 AM
Pension.Mathematics Pension.Mathematics is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Studying for Done with exams.
Posts: 680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helen Sass View Post
I am not presenting an argument for using outdated mortality (or any other) assumptions. I am explaining Tim's comment which would only smack of ignorance, buffoonery or professional misconduct to someone who is ignorant of how pension valuations work and/or actuarial science in general. It amazes, angers and saddens me that such statements denigrating the work of pension actuaries are frequently made in this forum by the IANAPA crowd.
Reply With Quote
  #956  
Old 05-14-2018, 02:54 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 82,392
Blog Entries: 6
Default

As a reminder, since you guys keep quoting each other instead of the original NYTimes article: (from my much earlier post here http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...81&postcount=3 )

Just going back to the omega issue:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/b...ef=topics&_r=1
Quote:
In a phone interview, Mr. Sharpe said that he had been instructed to use the 1971 mortality table by the Illinois Insurance Department. Even though it was old, he said, he considered it more realistic because it projected death rates out to age 110. The table from 2000 uses a different population sample and projects death rates out to age 120.

If La Grange projected life spans the way Mr. Palermo wanted, he added, it would “be collecting taxes to pay for pensions to people assumed to live to age 120,” a needless expense.

Mr. Sharpe said those additional 10 years were particularly troubling.

“In Illinois, our pensions start very early, at age 50 for police and fire,” he said. “There’s a 3 percent compounded cost-of-living increase that goes on for life. So the pensions at the later ages of life — I’m talking about after 100, for instance — get very, very large. The person who gets a $50,000 pension at age 50 would get a $250,000 pension by age 100.”
The reporter was Mary Williams Walsh, who has been covering public pensions and finance for the NYT for quite a bit of time. To be sure some long-running reporters may have invincible ignorance or like to slant things on the topic they regularly cover, but note that she's not some newbie.

Sharpe did not say everybody lives to 120 under RP-2000 (or whatever table was being referred to). And the reporter didn't indicate that at all, either.

It does sound like there may have been some mix-ups in precision in language - because the example given was age 100 [and there was further elaboration in the article], which is under omega for both tables. Simply adding ten years to omega, when it's already over 100, is not changing the survival probability to age 100.

I think the issue was how much higher survivorship to older ages were, in general.

And at a much lower level than 100.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
court of public opinion, discoverable evidence, oops too much information

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 05:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 0.28448 seconds with 10 queries