1. "What is your position regarding the future of the Associate designation? If you favor a single class of membership, Fellow, what should happen to the current Associate population, in particular those deemed lifetime Associates? Should the designation be run off, should such individuals be grandfathered as Fellows?"

The key consideration for me is what membership structure contributes most to our vitality as a professional society and best facilitates professional accomplishment and recognition for all CAS members. Much background is provided by the reports of the Task Force on the ACAS Vote and the Task Force on Classes of Membership. But, there are two related questions beyond the scope of these reports that bear on deciding the future of the Associate designation.

First, the CAS needs to be sure that all its members continue to be recognized as meeting high standards within the global actuarial profession. Comparison of possible CAS membership structures to IAA minimum guidelines for actuarial education is an important consideration in deciding this issue. Further research into the relationship between IAA education criteria and CAS membership criteria is needed to help us make an appropriate decision.

Second, sometimes perception can be enhanced by reversing figure and ground. Making Fellowship the figure and Associateship the ground poses the question of "Why don't more members pursue Fellowship?" Clearly our members are able to provide economic value to their employers and clients without Fellowship. In deciding the Associateship issue, we also need to look at how to add value to the Fellowship designation.

Whether a single class of membership for the CAS is the best course is also not yet clear because of the steps needed for change. This summer's election on Associate voting rights and ability to hold office could go either way. Without a change in voting rights, the Associateship issue will take longer to resolve.

To sum, decisions on the future of the Associate designation will be best made after this summer's election and in light of additional information. My position is to use the election results as a key indicator of membership changes that contribute to CAS professional vitality and facilitates members' professional accomplishment. In regard to runoff, no CAS member is expendable and any change in membership structure should continue to encourage the active participation of current "lifetime Associates" in the CAS.

2. "What do you view as the CAS' most effective next step in positioning actuaries for roles in some of the non-traditional arenas mentioned in the issues discussion (e.g., ERM, banking, etc.)?"

The CAS is fortunate to have enough talented volunteers so that it can take several important next steps in several directions at the same time. Here are four:

1. Creating References for Key Issues - In describing my motivation for becoming a Board candidate, I advocated CAS issuance of two statements of principles that could serve as reference materials for people in various professions. One would address "Actuarial Soundness of Risk-Bearing Entities" and the other would address "Actuarial Considerations in Enterprise Risk Management". Such information would be useful in a variety of contexts and would enable other professions to develop professional guidelines and standards in light of CAS principles. In this way, other professions would be able to reference CAS source material in contrast to the CAS serving primarily as a commentator on statements issued by other societies.


2. Supporting Research on Key Issues - For example, the CAS should considering awarding a cash prize for this best paper on the relationship between capital structure and enterprise risk management presented at next year's Enterprise Risk Management Symposium.


3. Documenting Success - From the creation of new rating systems for a new line of business to no fault issues of the 1970's to today's issues on capital, risk, and enterprise risk management, the Casualty Actuarial Society has a record of successful and valuable contributions to a panoply of social issues. By recording the CAS history, the work of the CAS Centennial History Committee will also strengthen our knowledge of what casualty actuaries and the CAS have accomplished.


4. Cooperation - Important issues are seldom entirely within the domain of a single profession. For casualty actuaries to be effective, it will be increasingly important to work with others. For example, the CAS is a sponsoring organization for the Joint Section on Enterprise Risk Management and also a sponsor of the ERM Institute International, Ltd (ERM-II).

In addition, under John Kollar's leadership as Vice President - Risk Integration the CAS has accomplished a great deal in the past year. The CAS now has substantial connections to other organizations active in enterprise risk management and is adapting principles of enterprise risk management to its own governance. The above next steps will build on solid momentum.

In closing two further comments apply.

First, the use of ERM examples is for ease of presentation and does not mean that issues such as solvency regulation (in particular European solvency models), new actuarial tools such as predictive modeling, emerging areas of practice such as financial analysis and stock performance, and the many other evolving issues are not opportunities for casualty actuaries.

Second, in many ways attacking non-traditional problems is the traditional CAS role. Investigating new frameworks for analysis of risk bearing is part and parcel of being a casualty actuary.

3. "I would like your opinion on Section 2.1 of the proposed AAA Standard on Qualifications. I have attached a link to the standard: http://www.actuary.org/pdf/prof/qualification_2ed_jan06.pdf Please see pages 11 and 12.

1. CAS Advantages ; 2. CAS Disadvantages - There are two main areas in which advantages or disadvantages might arise.

1. Qualifying to Sign SAO's: In order to have special advantages or disadvantages to the CAS, the Academy Qualification Standards would need to supersede the NAIC Annual Statement Instructions in determining who is qualified to prepare SAOs. Insofar as NAIC instructions continue to be more stringent (e.g., prior approval by Casualty Practice Council for non-CAS actuaries) and therefore more binding, I do not see the draft Qualification Standards as having particular advantages or disadvantages for the CAS and CAS members with respect to qualifications for signing SAOs.


2. Continuing Education: The Qualification Standard will continue to be key guidance for maintaining records of continuing education. Recordkeeping in accordance with the draft standard continues to strike me as unnecessarily cumbersome. I would like to see the NAAC (North American Actuarial Council, formerly the Council of Presidents) sponsor investigation of more uniform, better supported recordkeeping across the various actuarial societies.

3. CAS Exams - The potential variety and scope of actuarial opinions is enormous. My preference is for the examinations to be a key determiner of CAS membership, and for CAS membership to imply that individual actuaries performing services have done appropriate research to offer professionally competent statements of actuarial opinion. I do not favor creating examinations for each of the myriad of possible professional services performed by casualty actuaries.

4. CAS Action - The CAS Board does not have direct authority with respect to Academy Qualification Standards but can and should exert influence. A two stage approach is appropriate.

First, the CAS should encourage the Actuarial Standards Board needs to create a standard on "Professional Reliance". The standard would address which indicia an actuary needs to evaluate before relying on work by another professional, and what communication an actuary needs to provide so that another professional can perform a similar evaluation of his or her work. Once an actuarial standard of practice on "Professional Reliance" is in place, the CAS should encourage review of the Academy Qualifications Standards in light of the Professional Reliance standard.

Overall Opinion: My opinion is that we will see a second exposure draft if only because of "wordsmithing" changes. Unless NAIC annual statement instructions change dramatically, I do not anticipate the new Qualifications Standards becoming binding guidance for casualty actuarial opinions on statutory financial reporting. Casualty actuaries need to be mindful of the continuing importance of this standard for maintaining records of continuing education.