The Society of Actuaries (SOA) recently announced its intention to offer a general (property-casualty) insurance specialty track leading to Fellowship in the SOA stating that “including general insurance education will help fulfill the strategic vision for the SOA as a leading global provider of actuarial education.”
The CAS Board affirms that it is the intention of the CAS to remain independent while at the same time cooperating with other actuarial organizations to meet challenges to the profession. Your Board has adopted the following statements:
- As the only actuarial organization in the world exclusively focused on general insurance risks, the CAS is uniquely positioned to provide the most comprehensive and rigorous education in actuarial science and risk management for general insurance actuaries. The CAS will continue to strengthen its education, research, and programs to support our members worldwide in meeting the requirements of their principals and the public.
- A key advantage that has enabled the CAS to achieve this status during its nearly 100-year history has been the single focus it has maintained on general insurance with respect to all aspects of actuarial education, research, and programs.
- With the continued expansion of challenges in general insurance, the CAS will maintain this single focus in seeking to meet its mission, irrespective of any new entrants to the marketplace.
The CAS has a long history of independence while concurrently collaborating with all actuarial organizations in the U.S. and around the world on matters of mutual interest. This continues to be the policy of the CAS.
This statement has been posted to the CAS Roundtable to allow members to provide comments on the blog. Members may also submit comments via email to the CAS office at office@casact.org. All comments posted on the blog and sent via email will be compiled and provided to CAS leadership. Note: According to the blog’s terms of use, individuals who wish to post a comment must include their full name with their submission.
I am very proud of the courage and strength demonstrated by the CAS Board and President by clearly affirming CAS independence in the face of extreme pressure to consolidate.
I applaud the CAS Board’s intention on remaining independent. However, the current response to the SOA Board’s decision to have a “general insurance” track is weak. Now is not the time to be meek in the response to the SOA Board decision. The manner in which the SOA Board choose to announce its decision only gives more ammunition to those in the CAS who feel that the SOA never will adequately treat CAS members as equals if there was ever a merge between the CAS and SOA. In addition the SOA action is a threat to the very existence of the American Academy of Actuaries. There is no need for the AAA, if the SOA covers all actuarial practice areas. I want my CAS Board to strongly denounce the SOA Board’s action. This is no way to treat a fellow partner of the actuarial profession.
I have heard several people describe the CAS response as weak, but I do not perceive it that way at all. I think the CAS leadership is acting very strong. The SOA competitive challenge is something very complicated and yes, the stakes are the highest. It requires a comprehensive response strategy that will be executed years, if not decades into the future. The CAS will need some time, at least a few weeks or months, to formulate this strategy. Care must be taken because specific actions may have unintended consequences.
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure that I understand why CAS members would not welcome closer integration with the SOA?
Both organizations have a long and established history we can be proud of. I don’t see the CAS moving into the SOA as something that diminishes our organization. To the contrary, with a more substantial organization behind us, I think the research and education efforts can be improved even further. And if the SOA provides general insurance education that is eventually recognized as a dual standard, shouldn’t we be present to ensure it is adequate and appropriate?
The AAA will of course continue to have an important mandate as the political lobbying arm of the profession whereas the CAS/SOA organizations focus on education, research, and standards of practice.
In response to Mark’s comment, one option that the CAS could consider is to send an email to every member of the SOA explaining (1) our intention to remain independent, (2) that the SOA Board’s hostile actions only reaffirm our intention to remain independent, and (3) how the SOA Board’s actions will have a negative impact on the profession. The CAS could then ask that SOA members consider these points as they vote in future SOA elections.
I want to preface this by saying that I am a member of both the SOA and the CAS. I am currently practicing as a Health Actuary. However, as a Health Actuary, I do not feel that the SOA gives me the professional education experience that I got from the CAS when I was practicing as a Casualty Acuary. I still go to the RPM Seminar because it is the best seminar for pricing and predictive modeling.
This is the reason I oppose the CAS and SOA merging. If it ever happens, the emphasis on P&C actuarial contuing education that the CAS has today is unlikely to continue. P&C actuaries will be a small percentage of the overall membership and will probably be relegated to one spring meeting, 1-2 seminars and some webinars each year. The rest would just be merged into “life” meetings.
The CAS is important for the P&C actuary, and it would be a sad day if the CAS ever lost its independence.
To reinforce what Jeremy points out, in the SOA the CAS would be relegated to a corner of the SOA’s agenda. This would be at a time when the educational and professional needs of casualty actuaries are increasing, not decreasing. We need to advance our profession in the areas of risk management, reinsurance, management data, catastrophe risks, finance engineering, statistical techniques, product development, health, loss reserve, regulation, etc. In the SOA we would be relegated to a silo where our needs, as distinguished from similar but not equivalent needs of other types of actuaries, would not be met.