25 Years Ago in The Actuarial Review
The following excerpt is from Paul Liscord's "From the President" column.
Most casualty actuaries haven't been much bothered by non-CAS members operating in their area of expertise. Maybe it's because the casualty area is much less closely defined than the life and pension fields. Also, maybe it's because we are relatively so few in number and our work universe so large that we are indifferent to professional certification in any form. Regardless, if these reasons represent past attitudes, I submit they should not so importantly influence future casualty actuarial thinking.
As increased regulatory requirement, both at the state and federal level, and the entry of large life companies into the field have expanded our work universe, they have also introduced the need for more precise definition of what casualty actuaries do and how they accomplish it.
Further, other professions, most notably the accountants, and the so-called "risk managers" are making inroads into our area, thus requiring a sharper focus on our own professionalism.
I cite these trends only to emphasize the need for our close attention as to what constitutes casualty actuarial professionalism generally, and more specifically, on the whole spectrum of alternatives and guidelines regarding certification and proper conduct.
The following puzzle was offered.
Reaching a fork in the road where one way leads to Heaven, the other to Hell, you encounter three shadowy figures. One of them (Ghandi) always tells the truth, another (Goebbels) always lies, and the third (de Gaulle) sometimes tells the truth. It is impossible to distinguish between the three figures.
You are allowed two questions of the type that can be answered "yes" or "no" to find out which way leads to Heaven. Both questions may be addressed to the same shadow, or the two questions may be addressed to two different shadows.