SOA CPD Exposure Draft

[DW Simpson]

Originally Posted by short & sweet

How about. BSc, ASA (1982-2007), MBA. That would still get the message across that an individual has an actuarial background.

It'd probably get a few other messages across, too.

[short & sweet]

Or maybe BSc(ASA), MBA.

Indicating that the individual took a Bachelor's of Science degree with a specialty in actuarial science that led to an ASA designation (shown as a secondary reference because they have been rendered inactive as a member of the SOA, or they have simply decided themselves not to support the SOA any longer as a dues-paying member).

[DW Simpson]

Originally Posted by short & sweet

Or maybe BSc(ASA), MBA.

Indicating that the individual took a Bachelor's of Science degree with a specialty in actuarial science that led to an ASA designation (shown as a secondary reference because they have been rendered inactive as a member of the SOA, or they have simply decided themselves not to support the SOA any longer as a dues-paying member).

That'd be a SOX jackpot.

[short & sweet]

Originally Posted by D.W. Simpson Webmaster

That'd be a SOX jackpot.

[Katie.]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

Nonsense.

Bruce

Bruce,
While I appreciate your willingness to speak your mind as President of the SOA, I find your dismissiveness of members' opinions in a public forum to be inappropriate, particularly when this matter is currently open for comment. Your attitude towards people who disagree with you makes me question why I should bother to send my comments in, if the people making the decision are going to react in this manner. Multiple actuaries have posted here suggesting that there might be issues with the proposal, and you have gone on the defensive and told us that we are wrong without really explaining why you hold that opinion. I'm extremely glad that you're here to interact with us, but I think the organization might benefit if you were a little bit more aloof. JMHO.

[bdschobel]

Originally Posted by Katie.

While I appreciate your willingness to speak your mind as President of the SOA, I find your dismissiveness of members' opinions in a public forum to be inappropriate, particularly when this matter is currently open for comment. Your attitude towards people who disagree with you makes me question why I should bother to send my comments in, if the people making the decision are going to react in this manner. Multiple actuaries have posted here suggesting that there might be issues with the proposal, and you have gone on the defensive and told us that we are wrong without really explaining why you hold that opinion. I'm extremely glad that you're here to interact with us, but I think the organization might benefit if you were a little bit more aloof. JMHO.

I am not at all dismissive. But I will defend my positions to the best of my ability and will challenge others' statements if I believe that they are inaccurate. That's what the First Amendment allows us to do. Great country, isn't it?

On your specific point, I am the one who said a couple of pages back that the SOA will take comments on CPD very seriously. I'm also the guy who read each and every comment made on the August 2003 exposure draft of the education redesign. I care very much about what members say. Ask anyone who has come to me with a problem. There's no shortage on this site. But I didn't run for president of the SOA to suddenly become mute. Sorry.

Bruce

[Michael Hawkins]

Another aspect of the exposure draft is that the alternative to the SOA CPD is limited to the AAA or CIA standard. It has been argued by others that U.S. and Cdn actuaries will largely be captured by those standards and that the SOA CPD will otherwise capture U.S. members and non-North American members. Why not allow as an alternative the member who complies with the CPD of another IAA recognized actuarial organization? For example, there are hundreds of FIAs who are members of the SOA (a membership search of FIA living in UK returns 100 just getting up to last names beginning with J). The alternative should accomodate these members (FIAs, AIAs, FFAs, FAIAs etc.).

Bruce, what counts as a "user of actuarial services"? If a CEO calls himself "FSA" then I think there's a reasonable assumption that people who rely on his opinions are relying on his "actuarial services". If the SoA disagrees, the right way to do so is the route the AAA took, of explicitly expempting such people.

I would not want to be the Cxxx of a company that was being investigated, and have them find that I'd signed "FSA" when I hadn't fulfilled the SoA's written requirements. So I think that given the rules as I understand them, CEOs will have to choose between

* spending a lot of hours at CPD
* selling other stuff that they do to the SoA as CPD
* dropping the FSA/ASA

(I think signing as "FSA inactive" is even more of a non-starter than signing as "FSA 1984-2007" or "formerly FSA")

I see this as a real, substantive problem with your proposal. I am not a member of the SoA, so I won't write any more formally than this note. JMO and all that.

[bdschobel]

Originally Posted by Michael Hawkins

Another aspect of the exposure draft is that the alternative to the SOA CPD is limited to the AAA or CIA standard. It has been argued by others that U.S. and Cdn actuaries will largely be captured by those standards and that the SOA CPD will otherwise capture U.S. members and non-North American members. Why not allow as an alternative the member who complies with the CPD of another IAA recognized actuarial organization? For example, there are hundreds of FIAs who are members of the SOA (a membership search of FIA living in UK returns 100 just getting up to last names beginning with J). The alternative should accomodate these members (FIAs, AIAs, FFAs, FAIAs etc.).

That's an idea under active consideration within the SOA. We started out with the U.S. and Canada because we already know and understand their qualification standards so well. Other countries' standards could easily be added to the list, but probably not automatically (just by being a member of IAA, for instance). The SOA Board would need some demonstration of equivalence.

Let's suppose that a country had a qualification standard requiring just one hour of CPD every 10 years. (This is just hypothetical, of course.) The SOA would not accept that one under an "alternate-route" procedure -- and probably no one would expect us to do so.

Bruce

[kazh]

It's hard to see calling an argument a "straw man" as anything but dismissive.