The CAS Board of Directors met on November 6, 2011. One of the items on our agenda was the proposal by the SOA President for consolidation of U.S.-based actuarial organizations.
Following an extensive discussion, which included a review of feedback on the proposal received from CAS members, the Board unanimously agreed to issue the following statement.
“The CAS is the only non-nation specific actuarial organization exclusively focused on property-casualty risks, and our members find this of value. Our members have made it clear, and the CAS Board agrees, that they do not see benefits in consolidation with other actuarial organizations. The CAS has been, and continues to be, strongly in favor of cooperative efforts with other organizations, including efforts to address the concerns raised in the SOA President’s speech.”
In the last CAS Roundtable post, we invited feedback on the SOA President’s consolidation proposal through a short online poll. Below is a summary of that feedback.
Q1. Please indicate your level of agreement with Brad Smith’s proposal to consolidate the CAS, SOA, and Academy.
| Strongly Agree | 8.3% |
| Agree | 9.5% |
| No Opinion | 1.7% |
| Disagree | 18.7% |
| Strong Disagree | 45.0% |
| Need More Information | 16.8% |
Total Responses: 1,059 (includes CAS Members, Candidates, and Others)
Q2. Members of the CAS would benefit from the consolidation of the CAS, SOA, and Academy.
| Strongly Agree | 5.8% |
| Agree | 10.2% |
| No Opinion | 2.2% |
| Disagree | 22.6% |
| Strong Disagree | 42.6% |
| Need More Information | 16.6% |
Total Responses: 1,058 (includes CAS Members, Candidates, and Others)
We continue to invite feedback on this issue, particularly CAS member reaction to the CAS Board statement. Read the comments below and add your own views. You may also send comments to Mike Boa at mboa@casact.org.
I believe the work of Casualty Actuarial Society members is unique. Seeing the results of the ‘common’ umbrella of the American Academy of Actuaries, which (rightly or wrongly) appears to be mostly concerned with politics and and SOA activities, I would find it impossible to support any further efforts to merge the two diverse groups. Continued cooperative work in the international community and with the SOA should be encouraged. I have greatly enjoyed my career as an FCAS; but not really seen great benefits as a MAAA. I wonder sometimes, as a ‘seasoned’ actuary, if my thinking is simply ‘old school’.
I strongly oppose consolidation. This is a simple supply and demand issue which will ultimately drive down compensation for casualty actuaries.
Add me to the list strongly opposed to consolidation.
I strongly oppose consolidation with the SOA because the benefit of being separate outweighs that of being together. I recently asked a health actuary about why there’s no separate organization for them. His answer was that such an organization would be too small. I suggested that being separate forces you to keenly focus on your profession’s relevance, survival, innovation, and growth, and presented the CAS as Exhibit A. In my opinion, health actuarial work has more in common with casualty than life, and could be part of the CAS if they don’t want to go alone. How’s that for an idea for growing the CAS? Why not invite health actuaries to join us? Dare I say the best defense is a good offense?
I just recently made the switch to group benefits from P&C and I completely agree with the comments by Man-Gyu Hur. I have relied more on P&C practice standards than life & health standards. The work is much closer to standard P&C than life.
I agree with you. I posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:26 pm
“In my opinion, a better organization would be one where the financial, health and enterprise risk actuaries join the CAS leaving the life and pension actuaries in the SOA. We would then have a better division into life and non-life actuarial societies. ………. The world would be well served by a strong common worldwide non-life actuarial profession. By organizing along life/non-life divisions we could be an example for the rest of the world to follow.”
Raymond Nichols, FCAS, FCA, MAAA, CPCU, CIDM, ARe, AIC
Pingback: The Week in a Minute, November 11, 2011 « Actuarial Opinions
I agree with the above comments concerning health insurance. I think casualty actuaries should be and would be much more qualified to perfrom actuarial health studies. I think the dynamics of health insurance is closer to property and casualty work than life and pension work. I never understood why the CAS does not play a more prominent role in this area.
I would also recommend that the CAS incease its educational efforts in health insurance. The life actuaries currently perform studies for the the post retirement health benefits. I think the CAS could make substantial contributions in this area.
I would also like to invite health actuaies to be more involved in the CAS.
Actually, I appreciate more on the technical and educational robustness of CAS, more responsive to needs of members and as the sole society focusing on non life discipline in the world, which has a continuous internal driver to forward the technical and meet the needs from real world.