ASA vote

[Take 2]

Notice the times on those candidate posts. They all work Bruce Schobel's hours = "all the time."

[JMO]

Originally Posted by Take 2

Notice the times on those candidate posts. They all work Bruce Schobel's hours = "all the time."

Maybe they don't post from work. Just sayin'

[dhyamamoto]

Trust me, nobody works Bruce's hours except Bruce.

[bdschobel]

They aren't my hours: They belong to everybody!!!

Bruce

Originally Posted by dhyamamoto

I haven't thought of it much but I don't see why ASAs couldn't be eligible to run for office.

The basic reasoning, as presented in the discussion surrounding the proposal at the time, is that an ASA in office would hold some sway over the E&E rules which could in turn make it easier for ASAs to gain fellowshp. Basic (appearance of) conflict of interest sort of thing.

[bdschobel]

Another reason is that we want people to complete the basic education and become FSAs. To the extent that ASAs can do anything FSAs can do, that works against us.

Bruce

[_BullDog_]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

Another reason is that we want people to complete the basic education and become FSAs. To the extent that ASAs can do anything FSAs can do, that works against us.

Bruce

Got to get those higher dues, right.

[JMO]

Originally Posted by _BullDog_

Got to get those higher dues, right.

Not the point. 5 year ASAs pay the same dues as FSAs. Just sayin'

[Double High C]

Originally Posted by urysohn

The basic reasoning, as presented in the discussion surrounding the proposal at the time, is that an ASA in office would hold some sway over the E&E rules which could in turn make it easier for ASAs to gain fellowshp. Basic (appearance of) conflict of interest sort of thing.

IMO, that is a very valid reason, and IMO, far superior to the following:

Originally Posted by bdschobel

Another reason is that we want people to complete the basic education and become FSAs. To the extent that ASAs can do anything FSAs can do, that works against us.

The reason a person should become an FSA should be self evident; blocking access to certain perks merely to boost up the FSA/ASA differential is not something that anyone should support. If this is the only way to boost this differential, then its intrinsic value is zero.

OTOH, if one argues that the officeholder, especially the the highest officer, the President should have the highest level of actuarial branding (which the FSA does, and the ASA does not), then I agree.

(This is not to say that all FSAs are better - or even "fuller actuaries" - than all ASAs. I strongly disagree with that assertion.)

[_BullDog_]

Originally Posted by JMO

Not the point. 5 year ASAs pay the same dues as FSAs. Just sayin'

Guess I forgot to use the sarcastic font......