Talk:Actuary/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Milton Friedman

Just read in this month's UK magazine the actuary, that Milton Friedman had wanted to be an actuary but gave up due to his failing of the exams. More can be read on this here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoso Jade (talk • contribs) 10:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I was just trying to think of whether this could have a place in the article but I can't quite think of how it would fit in... it fits in much easier to the Friedman article...--Zoso Jade 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So place it there :) -- Avi 03:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I alrady did :)--Zoso Jade 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Continuing Education

Sorry if this not the right place for this, but... Under "United States" the article says "Continuing education is required after certification for all actuaries." This is not true. There are many actuarial functions for which one needs continuing education, and under the American Academy of Actuaries' Standards of Practice, one is not to perform functions for which he or she does not have the necessary expertise. But generally speaking, there is no continuing ed requirement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.165.201.47 (talk) 19:07, February 23, 2007

You're right. The Academy's Qualification Standards require continuing education only for some actuaries. I don't know anything about (a) the CAS or (b) ASPPA, but (c) the SoA doesn't have any CE requirement, (d) the CCA requires CE of its members, and (e) Enrolled Actuaries are subject to CE requirements.

I'll edit the article to modify or remove the sentence. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 18:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And, guess what. I believe that, starting in 2009, FSA's will be required to participate in continuing ed in order to maintain the ddesignation. You may want to check on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Credit risk

Credit risk is a subcategory of ERM. I have rewritten the paragraph to note this and added a source to this effect. -- Avi 14:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

South Africa remuneration

I spent a while trying to hunt down hard facts for sources for the South Africa data, and I could not find any. To take the range of salary that comes up on certain jobserach sites would be an example of original synthesis. The ASSA's website has no firm data either. The closest things I have found were here and here. I have commented the text out (as opposed to straight deletion) in the hopes that someone will find some hard data soon; if nothing can be added in a timely fashion, it will have to be deleted, I'm afraid. -- Avi 14:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actuaries as bookmakers

Casternpollux added a sentence to the lede likening actuaries to bookmakers:

Actuaries can be considered as professional bookmakers who manage economic risk by utilising mathematical and statistical probability rules to calculate financial rates.

The sentence is cited to two sources. First, a careers website that refers to actuaries as "are professional 'bookmakers' who manage economic risk by utilising mathematical and statistical probability rules to calculate financial rates." (Note the use of quotation marks around the word bookmakers.) The second source is an article from the Journal of the Institute of Actuaries (1965). On page 25 of the PDF file, the author writes:

The actuary has not infrequently been compared with the bookmaker in the course of after-dinner speeches; the bookmaker is prepared to make 'odds-on' bets, because his operation can be self-contained within each race; what one wins, another must lose. It is presumably the aim of the bookmaker to balance his book. The actuary or underwriter would be interested in the performance of all the horses, not just in the first three! [etc.]

I'm leaving the sentence in the article, but I want to start a discussion about whether the sources genuinely support the assertion. The first source seems to, but the second clearly raises the analogy in order to establish the difference between bookmakers and actuaries, not their similarities.

The analogy between actuaries and bookmakers has been made in the past, although it has never been sourced. The previous discussion can be found here. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer, is no, I don't think they "genuinely support the assertion", and I think including this statement as the second sentence in the lead is grossly misleading.

The GAAP website is using the term "bookmakers" in quotes in an attempt to relate the actuary's job to something its readers can understand. It's an analogy a careers website can get away with, but not an encyclopedia. It is quite possible to be a profitable bookmaker without any knowledge of the underlying probabilities: all you need to do is follow a mechanical process of "balancing the book", so that you make money no matter which horse wins. The two jobs are quite different.

The JIA paper makes a similar point. It's discussing the underwriting of above-average risks, and on what terms they may be accepted. It notes that bookmakers can accept odds-on bets (i.e., very bad risks) as long as their book balances, and then goes on to outline why there is a limit to the level of risk (on a given life) that an insurance underwriter can prudently accept.

There may be a case for stating, in the main body of the article, that actuaries have sometimes been compared to bookmakers, and then explaining why the analogy is unsound.

--NSH001 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor User:Avraham has deleted, without discussion, a valid point correctly cited with reference to an article in Journal of Institute of Actuaries , which discusses, inter alia, the similarities of Actuaries and Bookmakers. An overt threat was made to another editor on the talk page of User:Casternpollux

Hello. It does not matter what nom-de-plume you are using now; bookmakers do not belong in the article about actuaries. Further vandalism will be met with measures taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi 01:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This accusation of "vandalism" and threat of "measures taken" written by User:Avraham is an abuse of the egalitarian principles of Wikipedia. This is unacceptable behavior, being abusive and censorious and civility dictates that the point at issue be discussed. Accordingly I am reverting and await rational debate vis a vis the JIA article, which seems apposite in context.

Casternpollux 22:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, Casternpollux, I started a rational discussion here when you added the material a few days ago. I hope we can discuss this civilly without resorting to threats.

As I wrote above, I think the Journal of the Institute of Actuaries article mentions the analogy of actuaries to bookmakers in order to highlight the difference between the two, not to assert their similarities. In addition, I don't think the careers website is a reliable source ("authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand").

From my perspective, the matter is in your hands, Casternpollux. If you can convince me that the sources support the statement that actuaries and bookmakers are similar, or if you have other reliable sources that help make that case, I'll fight with you to keep the statement (or a similar one) in the article. But please try to ignore Avi and stick to the analogy between actuaries and bookmakers. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Malik . As pointed above, and at great length in the archives, there is no reliably sourced data stating that actuaries have special similarities to bookmakers any more than arithmetic teachers; they both deal with numbers. -- Avi 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Is not "Journal of Institute of Actuaries" cited in article, but summarily reverted, a reliable source?" User Avi seems to be to too closely involved with article to be an impartial editor. Accordingly reversion is appropriate. 23:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.188.48 (talk • contribs) 19:14, August 7, 2007

What do you know? It's our old friend from Havelock House in Belfast. Welcome back. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. Bookmakers do not belong in the article, especially the lead, and this IP editor has been trying to get this into the article for months. -- Avi 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is not the reliably (what is more reliable than JIA itself) sourced viewpoints;

The profession has been in compared to the ubiquitous bookmaker even within the profession itself, as exemplified by the Journal of the Institute of Actuaries in 1965. .... However, the Journal of the Institute of Actuaries makes the same statement, albeit "tongue in cheek"..Actuary has not infrequently been compared with the bookmaker..

adequate to assert the issue?. If not, why is the citation inappropriate in context; it seems to be fair and balanced in context, as it is not a wild card and certainly not an unreliable source.

So you are telling me that in the millions of pages of print journals, articles, newspapers, and tens of millions of websites, you have to go back 42 years to find ONE source that uses the two words in the same sentence, IN A HUMOUROUS NON-SERIOUS FASHION?!?!?!?! To add that ANYWHERE in the article is a travesty. Stop crusading to get the two linked, it is not the case, then, or now. -- Avi 23:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it not ironic that in an article that cites sources going back to the 17th century and which discusses "fictional actuaries" in the same serious manner as the rest of the article, notwithstanding that fictional entities are totally trivial in the article's context, should have an editor who objects to a reference from a non fictional serious source "Journal of Institute of Actuaries" that is disparaged as being 42 years old. To state that this comparison "it is not the case, then, or now" is to disparage reliable cited opinion, which obviously does not coincide with Avi's viewpoint. A rational debate without shouting as Avi has done on 23:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC) is unacceptable in a civilized editorial setting. The issue is worthy of debate, not of ranting. Casternpollux 22:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

See below. -- Avi 23:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Analogies section

Malik, what is the purpose of this section? How is any of this important to what an actuary is? A collection of indescriminant quotes does not enhance the article, in my opinion. -- Avi 01:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Another issue with the section is that it changes the reference style, in contravention of the wikipedia manual of style. This is a featured article in wiki, and extra-special care must be taken to ensure that it does not become polluted with unecessary detritus. Malik, can you supply a valid reason why we should be bringing indiscriminate quotations? -- Avi 01:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(Throwing up his hands) Mostly to shut up Casternpollux. Sorry about the footnote style, but I didn't expect the section to stay in the article very long. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Malik, we do not need to ruin the article to "shut up" one troll, do we? -- Avi 02:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the Analogies section?, it seems reasonable. What is the significance of the statement from contribs "Mostly to shut up Casternpollux"? Is there a hierarchy of editors who are more "editorially competent" than others. User Avi seems to be discriminatory and this is not in accord with the editorial principles of Wikipedia. I think that the Analogies section should be reinstated. -- Zubenzenubi 23:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a collection of random quotes from different people with no addition to the text of the article. How does it enhance the article? And no, while there is no "hierarchy", there are experts. -- Avi 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Even Malik admitted that the section was to "shut up" a particular troll. Trolling is not a valid reason to add extraneous and unnecessary information to an article, ESPECIALLY one that is supposed to represent the best one one-hundreth of one percent of articles on wikipedia. Castor, and his Havelock House IPs, have been trying for months to equate actuaries with bookmakers, a highly flawed and irrelevant analogy, to be charitable. That is similar to comparing surgeons with someone arrested for assault and battery with a broken glass bottle, because both people caused an incision in someone's body. -- Avi 00:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an element of elitism in Avi's comments "one one-hundreth of one percent of articles"??. His comments on surgeons and criminals is totally naive and shows a lack of objectivity, possibility rationality; indeed it shows him to be not prepared for factual debate or editing by others to include established well sourced data in accord with the fundamental basis of Wikipedia. Is the reference correctly cited to the Journal of Institue of Actuaries "extraneous and unnecessary information to an article" ?. No article is the exclusive preserve of any individual, anyone with validly referenced material pertinent to the subject, is as appropriate to edit as any supposed expert. Because one editor does not agree with another's validly sourced material is not a basis for reversion and certainly not a ground for disparagement of other editors.

Casternpollux 22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your dredging up some actuary's joke from 1965 above. Featured articles, of which this is one, are held to the highest of standards. This is not "eliteism", it is wiki policy. You may wish to remember that wikipedia is not a soapbox; it is also not a place to try and forge new connections connotations. Original reasearch is not allowed. Finding one, off-the-cuff, humorous statement is about and using that to demand that actuaries be compared to bookmakers, is about as classic an example of undue weight as I can think of. One-offs, in general, do not define reality. I am sorry that wikipedia policy does not allow you to further your crusade of linking actuaries with bookmakers. May I suggest myspace or blogspot as suitable sites for you to be able to post whatever you wish. Thank you. -- Avi 22:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference to elitism has been taken out of context by User:Avi. Lack of objectivity is still present as is total trivia in relation to "Fictional Acturies" in a featured article that countenances this trivia, but rejects another validly cited non fictional reference, as being unacceptable POV. By removing the valid links from Journal of Institute of Acturies, that cite a stated fact unacceptable to Avi is in breach of fundamentalWP:SP editorial principles of Wikipedia.

This action is not in accord with Wikipedia principles as exemplified in the five pillars WP:SP.
.. we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible,..

Also Avi should remember from WP:SP that
Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community.
To suggest to another editor, to cease and go elsewhere in a blogsphere is uncivil is not in accord with Wikipedia principles and is abusive of another editor. Casternpollux 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:OR, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising., etc. There are plenty of restrictions on what wikipedia is or is not. Wikipedia is not the place for quoting a 40-year old joke to create some perceived linkage between actuaries and bookmakers. If you have a theory about that, once again, I suggest you post it somewhere that personal theories are allowed. Making synthesized linkages based on old humor is an example of a personal theory—inappropriate for wikipedia. The history of actuaries goes back centuries, so the historical references go back as well. Taking old humor and turning it into the lynchpin of a perceived deep connection between actuaries and bookies is a completely different matter. I am sorry you don't see it that way; every other actuary on wikipedia seems to; and we are experts in our profession. -- Avi 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SP states that
Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community.
Avi seems to be unaware that WP:SP is the dominant principle in editorial activity. To state otherwise for validly referenced material is not in accord with Wikipedia philosophy. Reversions is unacceptable. Casternpollux 00:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier, Casternpollux: Try to ignore Avi and stick to the analogy between actuaries and bookmakers. Instead of strengthening your argument, you've chosen to engage in a pissing match over what WP:SP says. (Psst. Take a look at it. It doesn't say what you think it says.) Your avoidance of the main issue suggests that there isn't very much to your argument that actuaries and bookmakers can be described as similar professions.

Please take a look at WP:SYNTH for an explanation of why the "Analogies" section is considered WP:Original research. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of re-iterating what Malik has written, I need to point out that you, Casternpollux, seem to be suffering from a form of selective memory. All edits in wikipedia must conform to its policies and guidelines, which include WP:No original research, WP:SYNTH, etc. Your fascination with bookmakers notwithstanding, your edits to the article fail wikipedia's guidelines, and are not permitted. Please refresh your knowledge of the appropriate wikipedia guidelines and policies. There is much more to the rules for editing here than WP:SP. It would behoove you to learn them before measures need to be taken to protect the integrity of the wikipedia project. -- Avi 01:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing that is not factual in the Analogies section and reversion to include this section is warranted. Casternpollux 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that every statement in the section is factual. Please read WP:SYNTH: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If fictional actuaries are rated as appropriate to article, why is the comparison to "bookmakers" adequately sourced and cited declared as "vandalism". Where does reality begin and fiction end. Accordingly the reference to bookmakers is apposite and reinstated accordingly. Casternpollux (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See the archives for detailed discussion, which you took part in, in which the overriding consensus was that the linking of bookmakers and actuaries was original research and POV violation. Please desist from restoring it as further edits of tis nature may be viewed as disruptive and measures may be taken to protect the project. -- Avi (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Credentialing and Exams - India

How do I add this information onto the page?

"In India, a Fellow member of The Institute of Actuaries of India is referred to as an Actuary. The Fellow Membership is achieved by passing examinations at various stages and fulfilling other conditions as required from time-to-time. The examinations can be taken after being enrolled as a Student member. For enrollment as a Student member, one needs to be at least a graduate with a major subject in mathematical sciences such as mathematics, statistics, econometrics, engineering and actuarial sciences.

Spread over four groups (Series CT, CA, ST and SA) there are 15 subjects. The exams are conducted twice a year during the months of May-June and October-November."

Source: http://www.actuariesindia.org/Faq/faq.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitgk (talk • contribs) 10:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I shortened the text a bit, since it is very similar to the british model, and I wikilinked it to the main article on the Actuarial Society of India. I also formatted the reference to conform to the rest of the article. Good find! -- Avi 14:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable actuaries

shouldn't james C hickman be in the notable actuaries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.240.13.137 (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good catch. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian remuneration

I have commented out the salary details for actuaries in India since it is not from a trusted source. Avekashgupta (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Avekash

Fair enough. Is there a better source that may be substituted? -- Avi (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)