Clarification / Semi-Apology re. WSJ Letter to the Editor

Well, it seems that a post I made over the weekend, on a letter to the editor published in the Wall Street Journal may have been open to misinterpretation.

The author of the letter, in the comments to my post and later in an email, expressed some concern about the possible implications of one point of disagreement I had. Quoting my earlier post:

I’m not sure that I entirely agree with the closing paragraph. While actuaries do have an obligation to provide objective analysis when performing their duties, and there is admittedly an “interesting” bit of convolution required when politics and legislated responsibilities/obligations become involved (c.f. some of the debate in the Medicare Part D fiasco), I think actuaries have a bit more responsibility than simply laying down the facts.

One of the precepts of actuarial professionalism urges the actuary to consider the audience of his/her work product, and requires the actuary to exercise care so that the work product is not misused or abused. Professionalism standards also oblige actuaries to act first and foremost in the public interest.

My invoking professionalism standards in the post might give a reader the wrong impression of my meaning. So, I’ll recast my concern in a hopefully clearer manner:

I am concerned that, at least within the American insurance community…at least on the P&C side of the house, which is where my familiarity lies… that actuaries are at risk of being marginalized by virtue of being seen as either back-room, moldy number-cruncher and/or as a guild of individuals who hand down pronouncements from their throne, somewhat removed from the front lines of the game.

Now, there is not anything wrong with a designated expert providing a purely objective, unbiased opinion for decision-makers to act upon. Such is a valuable role, and within insurance and risk-oriented fields, an actuary is a natural person to fill that position. An actuary fulfilling that role is presumably providing a valuable service, and barring evidence to the contrary probably shouldn’t be construed to acting “unprofessional”, at least not by the likes of me.

Where I do become somewhat uncomfortable is with the notion that that is the only suitable environment for an actuary to act upon. I think it is appropriate for an actuary, when appropriately qualified and under appropriate circumstances, to go beyond simply saying “this is the answer” to kibitzing with “…and this is what will happen if no further action is taken….and here are some possible areas to be explored if a different outcome is desired…”

In other words, I’m uncomfortable with seeing the profession portrayed strictly as a group of unbiased, somewhat disinterested, oracles pronouncing fact from a sea of data. While we need some such individuals in the profession, I’d also like to see the public looking to the profession when advocacy is called for.

That is the point I was trying to make with my earlier post. I apologize if anyone construed my earlier comments as an attack on the professionalism of any non-advocates in the audience.

And, please, don’t let one of my buttons having been pushed detract from the kudos that Mr. Filliger deserves for calling the Journal on the gratuitous swipe at the actuarial profession.