SOA Board Adopts Nominations Process Task Force Recommendations

[CuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by tbakos

I have been trying to think of any reason (other than the need for a respected actuarial credential) that one needs to be an FSA. An MAAA is required for some opinion purposes as well, I understand, is an FCAS. Can any one point to any actual legal requirement that one must be an FSA to practice as an actuary?

What about the US Qualifications Standards? I guess you should be okay, since once you meet basic education, you have met it. But to enter a new specialty without your FSA makes the qualification standards much more onerous (3 yrs experience instead of 1).


I was thinking about it this morning, and the implications of leaving the SOA. The two big concerns I would have is:

1. I don't know that I would want to put myself in a position of having to job hunt with M.A.A.A. only.

2. If I eventually want my credential back, does the SOA have to accept me again (if I pay the back dues), or can they say, "No thanks, we don't want you back."

[Doctor Who]

Originally Posted by twig93

Regarding your second point, I think the thing to do is to get CAS to start offering life tracks and work out some sort of mutual recognition for existing SOA members to transfer over.

Given that the SOA has seen foot to tread in the CAS's pool w.r.t. offering a casualty track, perhaps the CAS would actually be open to such a suggestion??? Unlikely, I realize, but possible - particularly if things get a good deal worse with the SOA.

Originally Posted by bdschobel

That's a fascinating idea. Count me in! I'd gladly quit the SOA and join the much more sensible CAS (if it had a life or pension track, of course).

Bruce

This is the back door to merging the SOA and CAS. If the CAS allows FSAs in, then the FSAs could outnumber the FCAS and push a merger.

[Jon Evans]

I think the SOA activists are far too quick to assume their struggle is futile and fall into despair. Recapturing democratic control of the SOA is not trivial, but I don't think it is all that monumental a task. To date the dissidents have been using squirt guns against a tank. There is an entire arsenal of legal, mass resistance, sabotage, etc. tactics yet to be exploited to terrorize, embarrass, humiliate, and injure the cabal.

http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals...s=saul+alinsky

http://www.amazon.com/Simple-Sabotag...words=sabotage

http://www.amazon.com/Boobytraps-5-3...ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/The-Tables-Hav...ywords=lawfare

http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Hand---Han...to+hand+combat

http://www.amazon.com/Guerrilla-Warf...rrilla+warfare

http://www.amazon.com/The-Red-Book-G...ittle+red+book

http://www.amazon.com/Infantry-Attac...eywords=rommel

http://www.amazon.com/Freedoms-Battl...eywords=gandhi

http://www.amazon.com/Long-Walk-Free...ywords=mandela

http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-War-Su...rds=art+of+war

http://www.amazon.com/The-Anarchist-...chist+cookbook

http://www.amazon.com/The-Accidental...0903362&sr=1-2

It is orders of magnitude easier for the members to recapture the SOA, than trying to start a new organization.

[tbakos]

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge

What about the US Qualifications Standards? I guess you should be okay, since once you meet basic education, you have met it. But to enter a new specialty without your FSA makes the qualification standards much more onerous (3 yrs experience instead of 1).


I was thinking about it this morning, and the implications of leaving the SOA. The two big concerns I would have is:

1. I don't know that I would want to put myself in a position of having to job hunt with M.A.A.A. only.

2. If I eventually want my credential back, does the SOA have to accept me again (if I pay the back dues), or can they say, "No thanks, we don't want you back."

If you are a memebr of the AAA you are subject to the US Qualification Standards just as you are now if you are an FSA, MAAA. If you drop the FSA you are not subject to the SOA's CPD requirement. If a memebr of both, you can satisfy the requirement by satisfying either. They are, essentially, comparable.

Certainly, if no FSA were, rare job searching might be difficult. But, if you were not an FSA by choice and others made the same choice, I can't imagine it would reflect poorly on you - especially if you had been an FSA. For employers, if FSA weren't needed, it would mean less dues to pay.

A new E&E professional body would need to be created to replace the SOA for new actuaries. The MAAA doesn't do E&E - currently, and is mostly U.S. But, current actuaries would seem to face not much of a problem.

FSAs are reinstated. I'll check into the requirements.

[tbakos]

Originally Posted by Jon Evans

It is orders of magnitude easier for the members to recapture the SOA, than trying to start a new organization.

Agreed - and that is why we try that first.

But, as I have thought about this, except for the fact that I (or you) might want to be President Elect one day, why do we need to continue to belong to the SoA?

I was surprised by the fact that many actuaries I grew up and came through the ranks with are now retiring and don't see any reason why they should even pay "retired" level dues.

[Old Actuary]

Some suggestions seem to be:
start a new actuarial society
sue the SOA
resign from SOA
get CAS to start a life/pension track

Most of these would take a long time to come to fruition.

A Bylaws amendment can be submitted with 100 signatures and would bring the issue squarely into the membership's focus. The major decision is to pick how many signatures are needed. CAS requires 2% for the president-elect. For the SOA, that would be approximately 280 signatures. As I stated before, try to pick a number that the Board could not reasonably reject and is not an unreasonable hurdle.

I would also suggest that it would be easier to collect signatures for a nomination proposed within the framework of the Bylaws than for a nomination that may appear to have no viable chance of success.

[CuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by tbakos

If you are a memebr of the AAA you are subject to the US Qualification Standards just as you are now if you are an FSA, MAAA. If you drop the FSA you are not subject to the SOA's CPD requirement. If a memebr of both, you can satisfy the requirement by satisfying either. They are, essentially, comparable.

The continuing education piece is comparable. I'm referring to the basic education and experience requirements.

If you do not have an FSA or FCAS, then in order to meet the basic education and experience requirements in a specialty that you did not take the exams in, you must gain three years of experience under the review of a qualified actuary. If you retain your FSA, it is only one year.

[tbakos]

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge

The continuing education piece is comparable. I'm referring to the basic education and experience requirements.

If you do not have an FSA or FCAS, then in order to meet the basic education and experience requirements in a specialty that you did not take the exams in, you must gain three years of experience under the review of a qualified actuary. If you retain your FSA, it is only one year.

Well, the exact language is:

Attain the highest possible actuarial designation in an IAA full-member organization (other than the Academy) and have a minimum of one year of responsible actuarial experience in the area of actuarial practice relevant to the subject of the SAO under the review of an actuary who was qualified to issue the SAO at the time the review took place under standards in effect at that time;or

Technically, it doesn't say you have to maintain the FSA or other non-MAAA designation.

If the only thing preventing you from being an FSA is that you choose not to pay dues but in all other respects you are just as qualified, then can there really be an objection? Paying dues to the SoA cannot, reasonably, be a requirement to sign an SAO.

However, I am pretty sure some would object to this. Perhaps this is just another example of poor writing quality.

[bdschobel]

Originally Posted by tbakos

Well, the exact language is:


Technically, it doesn't say you have to maintain the FSA or other non-MAAA designation.

If the only thing preventing you from being an FSA is that you choose not to pay dues but in all other respects you are just as qualified, then can there really be an objection? Paying dues to the SoA cannot, reasonably, be a requirement to sign an SAO.

However, I am pretty sure some would object to this. Perhaps this is just another example of poor writing quality.

This is not an error. You can join the AAA by having the required credential, but you are not required to keep it! A few people have discovered this little trick already and dropped their FSA while keeping their MAAA. The number was ten last time I checked.

Bruce

[Mary Frances]

Originally Posted by tbakos

Well, the exact language is:


Technically, it doesn't say you have to maintain the FSA or other non-MAAA designation.

If the only thing preventing you from being an FSA is that you choose not to pay dues but in all other respects you are just as qualified, then can there really be an objection? Paying dues to the SoA cannot, reasonably, be a requirement to sign an SAO.

Correct. "Attain" is a one time activity. Note that the first part of the general qualification standard says you have to be a member of some organization - otherwise you would not be subject to a code of conduct and discipline. But beyond that, it's what you've learned (well, passed exam on), not where you pay your dues.