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.

[URL="https://actuary.webex.com/ec0507l/eventcenter/recording/recordAction.do?theAction=poprecord&confViewID=301 483831&siteurl=actuary"]https://actuary.webex.com/ec0507l/eventcenter/recording/recordAction.do?theAction=poprecord&confViewID=301 483831&siteurl=actuary[/URL]

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.

[URL]https://actuary.webex.com/ec0507l/eventcenter/recording/recordAction.do?theAction=poprecord&confViewID=301 483831&siteurl=actuary[/URL]

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.