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

2017 ACTUARIAL SALARY SURVEYS
Contact DW Simpson for a Personalized Salary Survey

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
  #31  
Old 02-23-2017, 10:30 AM
Abelian Grape's Avatar
Abelian Grape Abelian Grape is offline
Meme-ber                         Meme-ber
CAS
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 39,439
Default

Those were WAY before my time
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-23-2017, 11:34 AM
George Frankly's Avatar
George Frankly George Frankly is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CO
Favorite beer: Sam Smith Oatmeal
Posts: 9,119
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.
Well, you either love to 120 or you don't, so you'd basically be assuming half the plan participants live to 120.

Also, subscribed.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-23-2017, 11:43 AM
CuriousGeorge CuriousGeorge is online now
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Frankly View Post
Well, you either love to 120 or you don't, so you'd basically be assuming half the plan participants live to 120.

Also, subscribed.
No way half the population can love to 120. A lot of them start trailing off by age 40.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-23-2017, 11:55 AM
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: 81,648
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I do nothing but love.



=cough=

Okay, guys, let's settle down.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:09 PM
George Frankly's Avatar
George Frankly George Frankly is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CO
Favorite beer: Sam Smith Oatmeal
Posts: 9,119
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge View Post
No way half the population can love to 120. A lot of them start trailing off by age 40.


That's a typo I'm going to leave.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:17 PM
BruteForce's Avatar
BruteForce BruteForce is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Studying for More Money
Favorite beer: Wurzel Bier
Posts: 10,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I do nothing but love.



=cough=

Okay, guys, let's settle down.
Getting too rowdy for you in here?

I really hope that this thread is read verbatim in some courtroom somewhere.
__________________
ASA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Actuary321 View Post
I would really hate to bring Pokémon to a gun fight.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:18 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: 81,648
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I highly doubt it.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:19 PM
EddieC's Avatar
EddieC EddieC is offline
Member
Aktüerler Derneği
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 21,204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abelian Grape View Post
Those were WAY before my time
One day you'll be 120 like the rest of us.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine86 View Post
Shut yo' mouth I'm gonna make a chicken salad sammich with mayo for lunch today.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:30 PM
JasonScandopolous's Avatar
JasonScandopolous JasonScandopolous is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
for those who would like to see, Jim Palermo's first post on the AO was in March 2010, and here it is:

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actu...88#post4277088
Jim also alleged that the wrong retirement age was used. I am not a pension actuary, but regardless of any dispute about what table is appropriate, there is no excuse for doing that -- if the allegation is true -- correct?

In any case, I too applaud Jim for looking into this. It's not often that someone in government has the intelligence or temerity to go after something like this, for the benefit of the public (again, if allegations are true).
__________________
Jason Scandopolous Williams de la Hoya

Quote:
Originally Posted by jas66Kent View Post
People without an education don't see the solar system like I do.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:37 PM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,668
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydraskull View Post
Originally Posted by LOLAND
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.



If I was trying to bamboozle lay people, this is how I would do it.



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.
I'd offer at least one additional possibility: a reporter (or editor) condensing a story for space, or who didn't really understand the issues (s)he was reporting on. Assuming ignorance, bamboozling, or professional misconduct on a newspaper article is rather presumptuous IMO.

If I'm inclined to believe the best about the OP, I can see some weird ruling from the Illinois DOI and he is using an old table because he did some analysis and thinks the pensioners covered here aren't living that long, with the 120 year comments out of context or inaccurately summarized by the reporter.

If I'm inclined to believe the worst, he's representing that the DOI told him he's required to use the table he believes is most accurate and he's twisting that into "They told me to use the 1971 table" (because he has some reason to think it's most accurate).

This will be an interesting court transcript IMO, if it gets to that point and becomes public, but people saying "professional misconduct" based on a NYT reporter's understanding and reporting on a technical matter seem a little premature IMO.

Also, kudos to Mr. Palermo, who may be right or wrong in filing a complaint but is certainly above-and-beyond public officials I often see in terms of actually taking the time to ask questions and try to learn/understand. We need more public officials like that in many jurisdictions at all levels.
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 12:21 PM.


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 0.52718 seconds with 12 queries