Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Pension - Social Security
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #181  
Old 09-01-2016, 05:05 PM
Jeremy Gold Jeremy Gold is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New York City
College: Wharton PhD 2000
Posts: 448
Default

The AAA has missed no opportunity to insult the authors by claiming that we were uncooperative (maybe insubordinate to the all mighty review process). They have made these accusations on their website and at least twice in Pensions & Investments.

They have not told the truth about the many months of back and forth during which time the VP Pensions (who assigned himself as the chief peer reviewer) demanded changes that were entirely inconsistent with the intent of the paper.

The paper, like many scholarly papers, lays out its premises and then uses the logic of academic argument to incorporate principles of economics, finance and public finance to draw out the implications of the premises. The AAA finds these very narrow. But Reinventing published in the SOA Pension Forum (January 2003) is similarly narrow. It is in the nature of science papers (even in the social sciences) to state premises and follow them logically.

In his latest missive, Tom Wildsmith describes the paper as poorly written and poorly organized. This is just another gratuitous insult that has no truth behind it. The paper is highly organized, progressing logically from the three sets of principles above through measurement of liabilities, financial reporting, funding, investing, benefit design and risk-sharing. Any disorganization perceived by Wildsmith must derive from efforts to placate the AAA reviewers. It is hard to tell whether or not Wildsmith actually read any version of the paper. When the latest version is eventually published, AOers can judge for themselves.

Further, with respect to the slur that the paper is poorly written, I have three additional comments: 1) academic papers can be difficult to read especially for those unfamiliar with academic conventions; 2) my own academic papers can be difficult for those same reasons but, over the years, several of my papers have appeared in the Pension Forum. My papers have won or shared two Redington Prizes, an NAAJ annual best paper, and a couple of awards for paper calls. I eagerly await an anthology of Tom Wildsmith's greatest hits. Mine, for better or worse, may be found here: http://users.erols.com/jeremygold/papers.html

Eventually Tom and the AAA will cross over from gratuitous insults into outright defamation. Then what?

We authors, after eight months of being beaten up by our peer reviewer (a practicing public plans valuation actuary with no clear claim on expertise in financial economics), we realized that part of what the AAA was saying was true -- this was not an AAA policy paper. Immediately we offered the paper to the SOA Pension Section Council for the Pension Forum. Slap forehead. Why did it take us so long? The SOA PSC was happy to accept the paper.

But the AAA hadn't punished us enough. They refused to let the SOA publish and this went on for many months. Then in an email from the AAA Pension VP to one of the authors we were told:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAA Pension VP
The suggestion to publish the paper in the SOA's Pension Forum as the work of certain individuals who are members of the PFTF instead of completing the Academy review process is also not acceptable. The paper is the work product of the PFTF on a high profile topic and has the potential to provide an important alternative viewpoint on that topic. The Academy expects the work product to be completed and published. Using the efforts of the PFTF to publish a paper as individuals denies the Academy (and the SOA) its work product. As a matter of practice, we remove members of committees and task forces who do not contribute to the committee or task force. Here, the suggestion is that some members of the task force should be allowed to take the work of the task force and publish it as individuals, undermining the ability of the task force to meet its mssion. If volunteers are committed to delivering work product to the Academy that meets Academy standards for publication, they should consider resigning because they are not really volunteering for the Academy.
We were shocked. Never in my experience had a paper of mine or anyone else's that I knew been claimed for ownership by an actuarial organization (BTW, did I mention I also won the CCA's Hanson Prize?). I will stop here as this is a reasonable end of chapter one. After stalling for many more months, the AAA (dragging the SOA in its polluted wake) shut down the PFTF and asserted that the authors could not publish the paper on their own.

Last edited by Jeremy Gold; 09-02-2016 at 10:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 09-01-2016, 05:09 PM
snikelfritz's Avatar
snikelfritz snikelfritz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Yep
Studying for Nope
Favorite beer: Yep
Posts: 27,409
Default

We need to cut down to like 1 actuarial organization.....
__________________
The universe is a cruel uncaring void, the key to being happy isn't the search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense and eventually, you'll be dead.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 09-01-2016, 05:11 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: 89,890
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snikelfritz View Post
We need to cut down to like 1 actuarial organization.....
That will be the SOA's next strategic plan.

We've got time.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 09-01-2016, 05:19 PM
Wag, the Dog Wag, the Dog is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Rust belt
College: Purdue
Posts: 965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snikelfritz View Post
We need to cut down to like 1 actuarial organization.....
Is that an intentional homage to Brad Smith?

Also advocated by Steve Kellison as he said goodbye to the SOA Presidency. Also advocated by the CRUSAP Report.
__________________
IANA ...
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 09-01-2016, 05:21 PM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdschobel View Post
The AAA's "review process" has always been a bit of a farce. There are too many layers of review, and any of them can be used to derail work that seems controversial or problematic in some way. Many of the reviews are assigned to people not particularly well qualified to review what they are tasked with reviewing. (Many of the reviewers are AAA staff, which I often found to be a problem.) The process is frustrating to any author but especially so when you figure out how rigged it is. I stopped writing for the AAA a long time ago. It was just too difficult -- and not because my work didn't meet their "high standards." Far from it.

Bruce
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 09-01-2016, 06:51 PM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,643
Default

It would appear that the email from the AAA Pension VP was not subjected to peer review.
__________________
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 Nov. 20, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Actuario View Post
Therapists should ask the right questions, not give the right answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 09-01-2016, 07:03 PM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO View Post
It would appear that the email from the AAA Pension VP was not subjected to peer review.
To the contrary, I was told it was vetted (maybe even ghostwritten) by AAA attorneys.
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 09-01-2016, 07:09 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: 89,890
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I bet the SOA lawyers are better.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 09-01-2016, 10:32 PM
DiscreteAndDiscreet DiscreteAndDiscreet is offline
Member
AAA
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Gold View Post
The paper, like many scholarly papers, lays out its premises and then uses the logic of academic argument to incorporate principles of economics, finance and public finance to draw out the implications of the premises. The AAA finds these very narrow. But Reinventing published in the SOA Pension Forum (January 2003) is similarly narrow. It is in the nature of science papers (even in the social sciences) to state premises and follow them logically.
That's not the nature of the sciences. Browsing through random papers on arxiv.org in the sciences and economics, every paper I look at discusses phenomena in the context of multiple models.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 09-01-2016, 10:49 PM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscreteAndDiscreet View Post
That's not the nature of the sciences. Browsing through random papers on arxiv.org in the sciences and economics, every paper I look at discusses phenomena in the context of multiple models.
I am amazed. The great papers in financial economics work from premises to conclusions:

Markowitz (1952)
Modiigliani-Miller (1958)
Samuelson (1962)
Borch (1962) - in an insurance context actually derives CAPM before ...
Sharpe (1964)
Black-Scholes (1973)
Merton (1974)
Harrison & Kreps (1979)

Several Nobels in there and the idea that Hayek didn't like it doesn't count.
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 0.47518 seconds with 10 queries