Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Fill in a brief DW Simpson Registration Form
to be contacted when new jobs meet your criteria.


General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-29-2019, 09:21 AM
ishamael ishamael is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by actuaryleaks101 View Post
"It should be made a bit tougher (no doubt about it), but that is not discrimination. It is more a professional body issue (so political)."

To the best of my knowledge, if the same standard is not applied, it is direct discrimination. There is a document I will try and dig out. It is a mapping document. It highlights how the qualifications around the world map against others. The one thing I have been told is that Greece doesn't have an economics exam. I need to verify this however. It is worth noting that the IFOA did wit hold significant amounts of information from the court. Moreover, Dr Watkins did not mention anything in his witness statement about the AAE.
It's hard to define same standards, e.g.
- SOA covers PBR but IFOA doesn't (AFAIK)
- UK covers With-Profits business but SOA doesn't
- IFOA's fellowship GI material is CAS Associateship material and CAS Fellowship material is not covered in IFOA (according to a CAS member, I haven't verified)
- CAS non-GI material is markedly lighter than SOA/IFOA
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-02-2019, 08:38 AM
764dak's Avatar
764dak 764dak is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by actuaryleaks101 View Post
"It should be made a bit tougher (no doubt about it), but that is not discrimination. It is more a professional body issue (so political)."

To the best of my knowledge, if the same standard is not applied, it is direct discrimination. There is a document I will try and dig out. It is a mapping document. It highlights how the qualifications around the world map against others. The one thing I have been told is that Greece doesn't have an economics exam. I need to verify this however. It is worth noting that the IFOA did wit hold significant amounts of information from the court. Moreover, Dr Watkins did not mention anything in his witness statement about the AAE.
Have you found the mapping document?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-02-2019, 08:42 AM
764dak's Avatar
764dak 764dak is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalium View Post
The Employment Tribunal decision in this case is a public document here.

Not sure if I have understood all the nuances, but it appears to come down to:
- IFOA offers its exams twice a year
- IAI offers its own similar exams twice a year, timed around a month after the IFOA exams, and using the IFOA syllabus
- IFOA gives exam credit for its students passing either the IFOA exams or the IAI equivalent
- Students from India are permitted to join the IFOA, but UK students are not permitted to join the IAI, with the tribunal accepting an argument that the IFOA either had some influence over, if at least did not object to, the latter. (Its education provider ActEd made/makes material available to IAI students at considerably reduced rates, and did/does not want UK students joining IAI to get the benefit of those rates).

By giving IFOA exam credit for the IAI exams to Indian students who are members of both IFOA and IAI, IFOA effectively gives them 4 opportunities a year to pass an IFOA exam, compared to only 2 opportunities for UK students. Under UK law it thus discrimates against UK students on the grounds of race (in this context, nationality).

The tribunal rejected an oddly worded claim around mutual recognition and some countries having "easier" routes to qualification.

It will set remedies at a further hearing on 17 June.

It would be discriminating against non-Indian students.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-03-2019, 06:07 AM
Kalium Kalium is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 764dak View Post
It would be discriminating against non-Indian students.
Possibly. The tribunal will have only considered the circumstances of the claimant, who is British. It isn't clear (to me) if the effective prohibition on joining IAI was a policy applied only to British/UK applicants, or to other non-Indians as well.

I guess the number of non-British non-Indians applying to join both IFOA and IAI is likely to be small!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-05-2019, 07:10 PM
actuary_truther actuary_truther is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Polymath View Post
It would be impossible to have the same standard because local insurance regulations would be different for each region.

There is no SA2 exam in France and Germany for example. They have their own version.

This doesn't imply discrimination if you have MR.

The claim wasn't that mutual recognition as a concept was discriminatory but that this particular AAE mutual recognition agreement is imbalanced, a harder route for those qualifying via IFoA rather than via the Swiss system. The purpose of the adaptation year or test would be to convert actuaries to the rules of the other country. For that to work there should be equivalence between the qualifications in the first instance.

The complaint is that the qualifications are not equivalent in the first instance. Please read paragraphs 96 onwards. That claim may not have landed but the facts found by the Tribunal are shocking and have emerged from a mapping document that was disclosed:

Paragraph 101 found:
Quote:
101. It was not in dispute that the AAE syllabus sets out the requirements for someone to be regarded as a fully qualified actuary. The Tribunal found, from the documents before it, that both the Associate and Fellowship qualifications for the Respondent fulfill the requirements in the AAE syllabus. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that, insofar as the Fellowship qualification requires more exams to be passed, and a higher degree of specialisation to be shown, than the Associate qualification, the Fellowship qualification requirements go beyond the minimum requirements set out in the AAE core syllabus in order to be regarded as a fully qualified actuary.
It's very clear from this finding that IFoA were wrong to designate Fellowship for this MRA. Designating Associateship would be fairer.

It's even more unfair when you consider that some associations didn't even meet the AAE minimum syllabus (this wasn't disclosed by IFoA to Court) yet were still full members of the AAE and eligible for the MRA. This meant someone qualifying in Greece, which didn't even have an economics exam, could come to UK work for a year and be given Fellowship by IFoA. That's an absolute scandal! Had IFoA made these disclosures to Court then I suspect the decision would have gone the other way.

Last edited by actuary_truther; 06-05-2019 at 07:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-05-2019, 08:10 PM
actuary_truther actuary_truther is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 36
Default

There's another way to see the problem here by using the SoA as a benchmark. My understanding is that SoA's Associateship meets the IAA syllabus. AAE syllabus is only marginally superior to IAA. Therefore IFoA wrong to give Fellowship, they should have given Associateship. However IFoA consider their Associateship superior to SoA's and this can be seen in that DMAC is for Fellowship not Associateship while IFoA require CA2 & CA3 for Associateship.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-07-2019, 08:54 PM
actuary_truther actuary_truther is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 36
Default

The story is in the Financial Times today.
https://www.ft.com/content/39f325be-...a-05ac2431f453

More media coverage to follow...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-09-2019, 04:00 AM
Disgruntledactuary Disgruntledactuary is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 11
Default

Do anyone not think it is even mildly embarrassing that the UK IFOA has been done for racial discrimination, instructing to discriminate and are even continuing to discriminate?

The story is now also in the Financial Times which is equivalent to the Wall Street Journal.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-09-2019, 05:19 AM
The_Polymath's Avatar
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntledactuary View Post
Do anyone not think it is even mildly embarrassing that the UK IFOA has been done for racial discrimination, instructing to discriminate and are even continuing to discriminate?

The story is now also in the Financial Times which is equivalent to the Wall Street Journal.
Dude, UK Actuarial politics are just as bad as anywhere else.

Look at what happened with the SOA vs CAS

We really are are own worst enemies.
__________________
Quote:
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-09-2019, 05:22 AM
The_Polymath's Avatar
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by actuary_truther View Post
There's another way to see the problem here by using the SoA as a benchmark. My understanding is that SoA's Associateship meets the IAA syllabus. AAE syllabus is only marginally superior to IAA. Therefore IFoA wrong to give Fellowship, they should have given Associateship. However IFoA consider their Associateship superior to SoA's and this can be seen in that DMAC is for Fellowship not Associateship while IFoA require CA2 & CA3 for Associateship.
I still think this is more a regulatory body matter rather than discrimination. When you first do stuff like MR (came online recently) you will always get issues like this as the mappings are fluid, so they change over time (sometimes for the worse).

I do agree that the exam issue was discrimination. Pretty obvious it was due to Acted as well. They really screwed up on that one.
__________________
Quote:
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.35753 seconds with 10 queries