More Responses to Anker's February Letter to the CAS

Dear Bob:

Your letter of February 24 reminded me of the good times we had when we were serving on the CAS Board together, and how long ago that has been. I admire how active you continue to be.

Your letter about the new publication of the SOA arrived the day before I received the inaugural issue of the NAAJ. I don't understand why you would have protested about the inauguration of a new actuarial journal or why you would think it would compete with the Proceedings of the CAS. An actuarial journal that would attract wide readership from both actuaries and non-actuaries is something we would all benefit from.

The latest annual volume of the PCAS, for 1995, contains one paper and five reviews. At last count, we have 2,706 members. That suggests that the vast majority of the publication activity of our members, probably about 99 percent, takes place in other journals already.

The 1997 Syllabus of Examinations for the CAS contains about 293 "Materials for Study," of which only 37 come from the PCAS. That suggests that most of the materials read by our members, even on subjects covered by our Syllabus, already come from other sources.

The PCAS has become a residual publication for papers that are often technical, narrow in scope, that can afford to wait a year before publication, and that attract relatively little readership interest among non-actuaries, "lay" actuaries, and even many "pure" actuaries. I scanned the titles in the 1995 PCAS when it came out and found none of interest to me. Many others, possibly including yourself, may have had similar experience.

When I served on the CAS Committee on Review of Papers for the Proceedings, we tried to guard against being a residual publication for papers that lacked readership interest. The CAS Board backed us up when our rejection of a very actuarial paper for no other reason than that it "lacked sufficient readership interest" was appealed to the Board. But that was long ago.

I have published a number of articles in the past 15 years on insurance financial subjects. I offered a few of them to the PCAS first, but they were all rejected. The reason given was "not sufficiently actuarial." They were published by other publications of wider readership.

The new NAAJ clearly indicates its aim to publish articles that appeal to a broader range of readers than actuaries, or "pure" actuaries. All of the articles in its first issue would have been rejected for publication in the PCAS if they had been offered, although some would be of interest to many casualty actuaries, and at least one has an author whose work appears on our Syllabus.

I was pleased to note that the editor of the new NAAJ is Sam Cox, FSA. He was head of the insurance program at Michigan State University in East Lansing until he moved to Georgia State University a couple of years ago. I enjoyed working with him both at MSU and at our office. I also have enjoyed working with his brother, David Cox, FCAS, who has helped substantially in applying actuarial science to the regulation of title insurers in practical and constructive ways. Sam may be the next Matt Rodermund in actuarial publications. If he is, or could be, we should be helping him. We actuaries need another Matt Rodermund.

Shouldn't we encourage our members to participate in this new NAAJ ? We have little to lose and much to gain.
Robert A. Bailey, FCAS

From a voice message left with Mr. Anker:

I would like to reaffirm my support for the CAS maintaining independence at this junction. I am concerned about adopting the new SOA exam process. I feel that it is important that we maintain our independence.

My recommendation is that when they stop offering Parts 1 & 2 we offer them ourselves. The SOA proposal is generating a lot of bad publicity with math departments around the country. The CAS would get a tremendous boost if we were to maintain the current exam process rather than shifting over to the new SOA proposal.

Thank you for continuing to work for our independence. Thanks for sending the letter out.
Steve D'Arcy, FCAS

Dear Bob:

I just read your February 24, 1997 notice to the CAS membership concerning the NAAJ. I was very disappointed to learn that the SOA was involved in active solicitation of CAS members for their journal.

I wanted you to know that I strongly support the CAS's efforts to convince the SOA to stop this.

Good luck.
Edward W. Ford, FCAS

From a handwritten note to Mr. Anker:

I'm sympathetic with the SOA's problems (unemployed members; no creative new life insurance products since universal life was introduced years ago; declining numbers of defined benefit pension plans; etc.). However, under no circumstances should we let them do what your letter describes. Their actions impact the CAS and our livelihood. Yes, you have my support.
John Pierce, FCAS