Continuing Education Requirements - AAA, SOA & others

[River]

Last week one of the actuarial organizations (AAA) provided a webcast on their annual continuing education requirements for actuaries who issue statements of actuarial opinion in the US. That webcast can be accessed at the following location (at no charge) and watching the webcast entitles you to continuing education credits.

https://actuary.webex.com/ec0507l/eventcenter/recording/recordAction.do?theAction=poprecord&confViewID=301483831&siteurl=actuary

One thing the webcast doesn't talk about is that one U.S. actuarial board (SoA) is planning on establishing an annual requirement later this year for all SoA associates and fellows i.e. attending meetings, watching webcasts, reading articles etc), regardless of what kind of work the member is doing and whether or not the member issues statements of actuarial opinion. If you don't carry out the required minimum each year you would be designated as having some sort of inactive member status that you would have to communicate to clients. The SoA intends to apply its requirements to all SoA members internationally. More information is supposed to come out in November.

[wat]

Last week one of the actuarial organizations (AAA) provided a webcast on their annual continuing education requirements for actuaries who issue statements of actuarial opinion in the US. That webcast can be accessed at the following location (at no charge) and watching the webcast entitles you to continuing education credits.

https://actuary.webex.com/ec0507l/eventcenter/recording/recordAction.do?theAction=poprecord&confViewID=301483831&siteurl=actuary

One thing the webcast doesn't talk about is that one U.S. actuarial board (SoA) is planning on establishing an annual requirement later this year for all SoA associates and fellows i.e. attending meetings, watching webcasts, reading articles etc), regardless of what kind of work the member is doing and whether or not the member issues statements of actuarial opinion. If you don't carry out the required minimum each year you would be designated as having some sort of inactive member status that you would have to communicate to clients. The SoA intends to apply its requirements to all SoA members internationally. More information is supposed to come out in November.

Interesting. (Although, it isn't the AAA's place to comment on the SOA's CE requirements for their members - it's not directly their concern, and it would've been unrelated to the webcast.)

So, the SOA's intent is to require CE in order to keep the ASA/FSA/CERA after your name, whether it's specifically related to an SAO or not? Interesting.

[Irish Blues]

That topic actually came up at work this week among the managers. If you are a retired ASA/FSA/ACAS/FCAS, you're probably not issuing statements of actuarial opinion or any other actuarial documents [because you're probably enjoying retirement] ........ so should you really have to do continuing education to stay in good standing? Doesn't the fact that you're retired pretty much imply that you're inactive? Do members of other professional organizations who retire still have to undergo continuing training to stay in good standing?

It's a well-intentioned plan, and I don't think anyone would say that continuing education for practicing actuaries is a bad idea at all - but the lack of an exception for retired actuaries was/is an issue for those who were discussing the proposal.

[River]

So, the SOA's intent is to require CE in order to keep the ASA/FSA/CERA after your name, whether it's specifically related to an SAO or not? Interesting.

The SoA Board would allow you to retain your designation (i.e. continue to pay annual dues, etc), but note my comment that "if you don't carry out the required minimum each year you would be designated as having some sort of inactive member status that you would have to communicate to clients".

In other words, you would have to qualify the reference to your designation in some manner that has yet to be determined (suggestions from SoA Board members have included an asterisked reference to "inactive" or "retired").

Essentially, regardless of the work that you were doing or your experience, or whether or not you considered yourself to be "practicing as an actuary" the SoA Board would require you to explicitly communicate to a client (or if you made public statements or wrote an actuarial article) that you were no longer considered to be as "equally qualified" as other individuals identifying themselves as ASAs and FSAs. The SoA Board's intention is to "motivate" all members to attend conferences and webcasts and read articles, and gradually increase the requirements over time.

That might be reasonable in the context of SAOs etc, but the SoA Board is taking a different approach because they generally have no responsibility for SAOs, etc.

[Irish Blues]

... the SoA Board would require you to explicitly communicate to a client (or if you made public statements or wrote an actuarial article) that you were no longer considered to be as "equally qualified" as other individuals identifying themselves as ASAs and FSAs. The SoA Board's intention is to "motivate" all members to attend conferences and webcasts and read articles, and gradually increase the requirements over time.
Somehow, I see FCAS's who've been in the field for 30+ years not taking very kindly to the "you are no longer considered to be as 'equally qualified' as a newly minted FCAS" solely because of the CE requirement. I see this proposal drawing a lot of comments from people in the field, and for it to be tweaked accordingly.

Again ... I don't think anyone would say CE is a bad thing - but I think when it's required [especially for retired members] and the underlying commentary explaining the significance of not having adequately completed CE in the past year are going to be hotly debated among some people.

[JMO Fan]

CE should be a requirement for MAAA. MAAA should be a requirement for SAO. FSA/FCAS & ASA/ACAS should be permanent, like PhD/JD/MD & MA/MS. You shouldn't have to pay dues to prove you passed exams.

[River]

Somehow, I see FCAS's who've been in the field for 30+ years not taking very kindly to the "you are no longer considered to be as 'equally qualified' as a newly minted FCAS" solely because of the CE requirement.

The same reasoning would of course apply to SoA members. Of course, in the context of statements of actuarial opinion, there is some rationale for consistent requirements regardless of the minting :) date. The issue arises when extending such a requirement irrespective of what work the individual is doing.

CAS members would not be directly affected by the SOA Board requirements (unless they are also SoA members).

In the US, only SoA Board members have identified they will be implementing such an approach, not CAS Board members.

Notably, however, all the U.S. actuarial boards have signed a pledge in Sept 2006 to establish consistent CE requirements within the U.S. Supposedly the CAS Board would not be expanding its requirements prior to the SoA Board implementing its version of CE requirements (unless the intention is to have inconsistent SOA and CAS requirements).

[Irish Blues]

When I say "FCAS", I'm not meaning that to be "exclusively FCAS's" - it should be read as all Fellows whether they're members of the SOA or CAS [or Associates, where applicable]. But again ... the requirement doesn't distinguish between those members who've retired [and thus presumably wouldn't be writing SAO's] and those who are active but didn't meet the CE requirement [and are presumably writing SAO's]; in the opinion of people around my office, the lack of it implies that "to remain in good standing even after retirement, you need to be doing CE" when retirement itself should kill any notion that the member will still be practicing [and thus need to complete CE].

It's the failure to provide an interpretation clarifying just how retired actuaries are to be treated in the application of this standard that makes them shake their head. Certainly if I were 64 and on the verge of retirement after 30+ years in the field, the last thing I'd want to read is that for me to "still be in good standing" I need to continue to complete CE requirement even after I retire. I know at least 2 guys here who, when they retire in the next few years, won't be worrying about CE - they'll be worrying about where to enjoy the winter.

[River]

I agree the intended approach is problematical, but we may find the Board does not really care that retired actuaries do not want to be labelled as "retired" in reference to CE requirements (i.e. "not in good standing"). :Headset:

[River]

The Board may instead care more about helping clients or prospective employers. :Unsure: For example, in the case where a member did not meet the Board's CE requirements for the prior calendar year because their employer did not think the requirements should be a priority for the current area of work (e.g. most of the current work might not even be actuarial, with no SAOs at all), that member would be professionally obligated to present themselves to any clients or prospective employers as some form of "not in good standing" with reference to their actuarial designation. :Sad: That would make it easier for clients and prospective employers to decide to not work with members who do not meet the SoA Board's requirements.

Although you'd think clients and employers would make their own hiring decisions based on work experience and the interview process, without the SoA Board "motivating" members by requiring a neon sign to highlight the issue of CE hours which may be marginally relevant.

[wat]

I actually prefer the way the AAA states their qualification standards - you don't need to officially file the information with anyone, but there are requirements regarding the communication of the qualification and being able to provide proof and documentation at any given time of the activities you participated in to satisfy the qualification requirements.

In the US, we already have the AAA to govern our actions and our issuing of "Statements of Actuarial Opinion". Maybe the SOA should amend the CE to say, "If there is no other governing body that regulates continuing education requirements for a given jurisdiction, then that person is subject to the following CE rules ..."

It just seems to me that with the AAA qualification standards are stated, it covers virtually every situation that is encountered within the US. What happens to newly minted ASA/FSA's that don't qualify for AAA? Well, they can use their letters (like PhD, MA, MBA, etc.), but a person's credentials alone do not satisfy the minimum requirements to convey qualification, so that new actuary's work is subject to review by a person who is qualified to issue statements of actuarial opinion.

What about ASA/FSA's in other countries? Well, that's when the rule can go into effect. I'm imagining that the SOA's CE requirements can be the default, unless there's another system in place.

And if it's not clear from my post, I do agree with JMO Fan about not having to participate in CE just to keep your letters. If you depend on the SOA as the only actuarial governing society in your jurisdiction (I'd think this is a rare situation), then you'd need to participate in CE. (Dues, on the other hand, should probably stay - the SOA provides quite a few services/sections to participate in, and you gotta cover the administrative fees somehow.)

[River]

It just seems to me that with the AAA qualification standards are stated, it covers virtually every situation that is encountered within the US.
Partly based on the clarifications in the AAA webcast last week, I'd assume there are thousands of SoA members in the U.S. (and more still, if one were to consider other jurisdictions and CAS members) who are not providing clients with professional actuarial services and issing statements of actuarial opinion. :Exclamation:

Those thousands of SoA members (and eventually CAS members) would be the ones affected by the SoA Board's adopting a view that actuarial CE or CPD annual requirements for conferences/ webcasts/ reading should be primarily a requirement of "in good standing" membership, rather than a requirement that is specifically related to being qualified for the work the member is doing. ... :Confused:

[JMO Fan]

While being a member of the American Academy of Actuaries is required for a number of legal purposes, being a member of SoA/CAS is not. Telling someone with FSA/FCAS/ASA/ACAS credentials that they can no longer use them due to lack of CPD seems silly. If qualified by AAA standards, the actuary is also qualified for the others.

[wat]

Partly based on the clarifications in the AAA webcast last week, I'd assume there are thousands of SoA members in the U.S. (and more still, if one were to consider other jurisdictions and CAS members) who are not providing clients with professional actuarial services and issing statements of actuarial opinion. :Exclamation:

Those thousands of SoA members (and eventually CAS members) would be the ones affected by the SoA Board's adopting a view that actuarial CE or CPD annual requirements for conferences/ webcasts/ reading should be primarily a requirement of "in good standing" membership, rather than a requirement that is specifically related to being qualified for the work the member is doing. ... :Confused:

Note that according to the AAA system, one can be using time that they've spent reading about an issue or otherwise learning about a different topic as CE credit. My guess is that if the SOA were to adopt AAA's system for continuing education, I don't think the profession would suddenly have to revolutionize in order to accomodate additional CE credit. Most credentialed actuaries would probably have to spend a little more time making sure documentation of CE exists for the purposes of their clients.

And JMO Fan, I agree with you to a certain extent. If a person says, "I've got an ASA, that makes me an actuary", then yes, one can use it in casual conversation.

However, if you give an opinion to someone, and you use your SOA credential as a basis for obtaining the trust of another individual and that individual subsequently relies on your judgement because you're an actuary, then I believe CE is certainly something that should be required.

In short, if you're using the credential to refer to events in the past, then CE is not needed. However, if the credential is referring to your current expertise (events in the future), then CE is certainly warranted.

[River]

My guess is that if the SOA were to adopt AAA's system for continuing education, I don't think the profession would suddenly have to revolutionize in order to accomodate additional CE credit.

That premise doesn't seem correct. :confused: ... From what I've heard, that does not seem to be what the SoA Board intends to do.

Although, the AAA requirement is based on whether the member is professionally issuing statements of actuarial opinion (that are intended to be relied upon as SAOs), the SoA Board wants to have a requirement that has nothing to do with whether the member issues SAOs, or even whether the member is currently doing actuarial work.

I don't think the SoA Board is involved at all in establishing guidelines etc for professional SAOs. That's the job of the AAA. But, :embarrassed: apologies if I'm repeating myself. :sleepy: There's not really much to talk about until the SoA Board issues their exposure draft in November. Then members will have a few weeks to talk about it before the SoA Board goes ahead with their plans. :Headset: No membership voting on this one they said.

[Irish Blues]

Status: CP says that is not his role because of the firewall, but apparently he did initiate the banning for inappropriate reasons, with JMO implementing it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Paul Brand #567 - from what I've read in this thread, a ban was not unreasonable.

Status: An unsubstantiated comment. No postings were deleted because of inappropriate content. No banning warning was provided. The apparent reasons for the banning were inappropriate (see earlier postings in this thread). [Other posters (e.g. BS) contravened the AO banning rules several times, with no banning etc action taken except in one instance where a posting was partially edited.] [/INDENT]

JMO et al should cancel the banning action, stop deleting reasonable postings and allow all interested parties to participate in the serious discussion of the Nov 1 SOA CPD exposure paper. CP should respect the firewall and post personal comments under his own name, rather than post as a sponsor representative actively involving himself in censoring the discussions. Various posters should address serious SOA issues professionally and save the seagull swooping for other recreational threads.
As an admin for a major hockey-related website, there's a distinction between, "initiating the procedure" and "carrying the procedure out." Someone else may request a ban for a user in appropriate circumstances [the initiation] and I or another admin may then ban the user [the implementation]. I don't know that I'd hang all the blame on JMO - do you blame the person who pulls the switch, or the person who accumulates evidence that later turns out to be faulty?

That said, most major forums have some set of rules that must be followed; failure to observe those rules is grounds for getting tossed. While I'm obviously not privy to the details here, in the absence of anything contrary I would assume that actions unknown to Joe Average Poster led to the ban, and that it wasn't a move designed to stifle discussion.

The rest? Meh ...I'll let you know after reserving is done.

[Irish Blues]

When you review the comments by BS, JMO and others throughout the original SoA CPD Outpost thread, and look at the context for the DA banning, and the various postings that JMO has been deleting recently (probably banning the posters too since there have been no further posts from some of them), it seems clear that the intent is to stifle discussion.
:rolleyes:

If you want to quote me and make a point, fine - quote my entire statement, not just the parts that slant things to fit your POV.

I'll repeat - there were likely actions behind the scenes that caused DA to get tossed ... things that the average poster never saw. If that constitutes stifling discussion, then that's one take. I think of it more as a slew of stuff that was completely off-topic to the actual intent of the thread [which was to discuss the CPD requirement]; on the forum I serve as an admin, we don't allow off-topic conversations on the main forums.

That said, this entire "discussion" is doing more to bring harm to the image of the SOA than any lack of CPD ever will. Some people need to put their pettiness aside, kiss and make up, and move forward together to help promote the SOA instead of leaving the impression that it's full of supposed adults who are apparently stuck in a high school mindset and are more worried about who said what to who last night in the parking lot.

[Irish Blues]

I'm not sure how to edit my comment here, but it clearly doesn't make any sense, so I withdraw it.
On the bottom underneath your post should be an "EDIT" button next to buttons for "QUOTE", "MULTI 'off'" and "QUICK" - click on it and you'll be able to edit as needed.

This post will self-destruct shortly after yours does. ;)

[Irish Blues]

Irish Blue, you seem to be trying to provoke posters a bit. I don't see why you should get upset that a poster only quotes the part of your comments that they choose to comment on. Your full comments are there for everyone to see. My impression is that you are acknowledging that your views are somewhat speculative and you have not reviewed the correspondence that was provided on the CIA general list. Why should posters dwell on speculative comments?
For the record, you have no idea what I'm thinking. If I was trying to provoke anyone, there wouldn't be a question about it - I'd come right out and speak my mind. What I object to is the partial quotation of my post, and the response to that partial quote when my words are completely taken out of context. Sure, the full post is up above for anyone to see - but people assume that a poster quotes someone else accurately.

You didn't. For the record, I don't agree with your assessment of what allegedly happened, nor do I necessarily agree with the assessment of others. Maybe that's because I understand what happens behind the scenes, and that a member getting tossed isn't always based on what happens in public; if a poster gets nasty via PM or e-mail, it's very likely they're going to find themselves on the outside looking in pretty quickly. At the same time, it's very easy for someone in a position of authority to abuse such authority for their own selfish reasons, leaving everyone else to wonder what the true motives are and what got swept under the rug.

Does that mean my view is speculative? No more speculative than yours - and the fact is, neither of us can prove the other wrong. Not wrt the details about what happened, nor wrt the motives of the parties involved. I'd prefer to actually have more facts come out rather than leap to assumptions about who did what and start making potentially incorrect accusations based off those erroneous assumptions.

I'll stand by my comment earlier: this whole episode is a complete embarrassment to both the SOA and to some of the people involved. The fact that this has blown up like it did is purely laughable, and if I was a current or potential future member of the SOA [I'm not in either case], I would be ashamed that the people supposedly leading my field are acting about as mature as a group of grade school kids hopped up on sugar.