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 Display Modes
  #811  
Old 01-06-2018, 02:26 AM
redearedslider's Avatar
redearedslider redearedslider is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 12,132
Default

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Weishaus View Post
ASM does not have a discussion of stimulation, but considering how boring the manual is, maybe it would be a good idea.
Reply With Quote
  #812  
Old 01-06-2018, 08:41 PM
msydlaske's Avatar
msydlaske msydlaske is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NYC
Studying for High altitude hiking
College: Univ of Michigan - alum
Favorite beer: Liberty Ale (Anchor)
Posts: 63
Default

Assuming the facts noted in the Academy release are correct, Sharpe acted contrary to several ASOPs in his service to one client, a Village, regarding a GASB retiree health plan valuation. As detailed in ASOP 6, health plan cost assumptions should not only reflect Medicare eligibility, but also attained age in in meaningful bands, and sex. His assumptions, obtained from another actuary, apparently met only the first criterion. As a matter of actuarial communication, he apparently did not mention the source he relied upon for cost assumptions, and did not detail the plan provisions completely. His health plan CPE was not adequate.

None of this is trivial, but by themselves these shortcomings would not justify public reprimand, let alone possible expulsion. No doubt, and consistent with Sharpe's first post starting this thread, he was previously counseled on these or similar topics. From the ABCD or Academy point of view, they were dealing with a non-complying member who refused to change his ways. After taking a lot of time, the Academy dinged Sharpe in the lightest public fashion possible.

How about the lawsuit ? I would guess that this reprimand works to Sharpe's favor in the lawsuit, as he is arguing that the leak of a much harsher ABCD recommended action did real harm. And the Academy did not come down with its much softer reprimand until almost 2 years after the leak. Or maybe this is one step in some sort of settlement dance. I don't know the status of the suit, but FWIW I did see that the judge assigned to the case was changed Nov2017 - so the suit is not dead and may be quite alive.
__________________
Countdown
Reply With Quote
  #813  
Old 01-08-2018, 12:38 PM
Tim Sharpe Tim Sharpe is offline
AAA
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
College: Michigan
Posts: 6
Default

"Public Reprimand." I am as surprised as you are. First, it should have been a dismissal. Second, I was literally notified by the Academy of their decision a few hours before they posted it. I received an email from the Academy Attorney around noon on Friday, January 5, 2018, notifying me of their decision. Although the Academy's official decision was signed on December 21, 2017, the accompanying letter from the Academy Attorney states, "I had intended to get this out to you over the holiday period, but my personal travel schedule prevented me from doing so."

Thus, although the official "Notice of Public Discipline" is filled with errors, half-truths and omissions, and since I was served the Notice literally a few hours before they posted it on their website, I was not given an opportunity to review nor comment on the Notice, all because "My personal travel schedule prevented me from doing so." Take that as a word of precaution: Do not ever interfere with the Academy Attorney's personal travel schedule.

There is much to say about the experience and I will do so when the opportunity presents itself, including naming names. However, in the meantime we continue to wait patiently for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to complete their review of my case. Happy New Year.
Reply With Quote
  #814  
Old 01-08-2018, 12:59 PM
YetAnotherCareerChanger's Avatar
YetAnotherCareerChanger YetAnotherCareerChanger is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,387
Default

Reply With Quote
  #815  
Old 01-08-2018, 02:49 PM
CuriousGeorge CuriousGeorge is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,036
Default

I expect we'll have to wait until the suit for further comment, but I found this interesting:
Quote:
The ABCD and JDC determined Mr. Sharpe did not meet the qualification standards required to perform the Project because he failed to meet the continuing education requirement in the health practice area.
I'm curious what their position is with regard to the failure:
1. You failed to do the required hours of CE/organized/professionalism.
2. You completed the required hours, but they were not documented.
3. They were documented, but not sufficiently to their satisfaction.
4. You completed and documented your CE hours, but not enough of them were related to Health.

As someone who practices in multiple areas, it would be interesting/concerning to find that the problem was #3 or #4.
Reply With Quote
  #816  
Old 01-08-2018, 03:51 PM
Doctor Who's Avatar
Doctor Who Doctor Who is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 22,533
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge View Post
I expect we'll have to wait until the suit for further comment, but I found this interesting:

I'm curious what their position is with regard to the failure:
1. You failed to do the required hours of CE/organized/professionalism.
2. You completed the required hours, but they were not documented.
3. They were documented, but not sufficiently to their satisfaction.
4. You completed and documented your CE hours, but not enough of them were related to Health.

As someone who practices in multiple areas, it would be interesting/concerning to find that the problem was #3 or #4.
If any actuary wasn't in compliance with CE requirements and was counseled for it, I would be surprised if either 1) the Academy did not follow up to ensure compliance -OR- 2) the subject actuary didn't take steps to rectify it.

As for this particular case, the complaint was in early 2014. That's plenty of time to get compliant. I'm curious to know the answer too.
Reply With Quote
  #817  
Old 01-08-2018, 04:16 PM
CuriousGeorge CuriousGeorge is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,036
Default

I'm thinking from my own perspective, if I were to have the misfortune of ABCD scrutiny.

If #3 was the issue, am I at risk with my own level of CE documentation (I don't keep handwritten notes, or even slide handouts in most cases)? If #4, am I at risk if I get 50% of my CE from Life topics, but 80% of my SAOs are P&C?
Reply With Quote
  #818  
Old 01-16-2018, 10:24 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: 80,080
Blog Entries: 6
Default

http://www.actuary.org/files/imce/20...to_Dismiss.pdf
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old Yesterday, 06:26 AM
Willie Mays Bayes Willie Mays Bayes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I read the whole thing. 14 pages, and not too arduous for a legal opinion. Not a single mention of the AO, which was a bit of a letdown.

Cut to the chase:
Quote:
Although neither the Academy’s Bylaws nor the ABCD Rules seem to require or compel the disclosure of any information to a complainant, and the Plaintiff may fairly argue that it would be in poor taste to disclose the ABCD’s recommendation in an instance where a complainant has so clearly made known her intention to disclose the recommendation, these provisions cannot support a claim for breach of contract in light of the explicit provisions permitting the disclosure of certain information to the complainant.
Reply With Quote
  #820  
Old Yesterday, 07:23 AM
Marcie's Avatar
Marcie Marcie is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,983
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Mays Bayes View Post
I read the whole thing. 14 pages, and not too arduous for a legal opinion. Not a single mention of the AO, which was a bit of a letdown.

Cut to the chase:


Nice summary in a single quote!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Sharpe View Post
There is much to say about the experience and I will do so when the opportunity presents itself, including naming names. However, in the meantime we continue to wait patiently for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to complete their review of my case. Happy New Year.
Now that the USDC has weighed in (my condolences), I'm looking forward to names being named.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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

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 05:54 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 0.32945 seconds with 12 queries