The Ethical Issues Forum: Revisiting
"A Case for the ABCD"

Editor’s Note: This article is part of a series written by members of the CAS Committee on Professionalism Education (COPE) and the Actuarial Board for Counseling and Discipline (ABCD). The opinions expressed by readers and authors are for discussion purposes only and should not be used to prejudge the disposition of any actual case or modify published professional standards as they may apply in real life fact situations. A Case For The ABCD? is available online.

The last issue of the Actuarial Review hypothesized a dilemma faced by an ABCD member with regard to the origin of a complaint. Recall that Mae Day, the ABCD member, read about a possible violation of the Code of Conduct by Phil Harmonic, FCAS, MAAA, in a newspaper article quoting Insurance Commissioner Livingstone I. Presume. The questions in that article cited alternative ways in which the ABCD comes to know of possible Code violations and asked whether the source of information had any effect on how the ABCD would treat the matter.

A reader pointed out that actuaries have the ability to detect the misuse of actuarial knowledge and it does not matter how other actuaries find out about such misuse. The real question that should guide the ABCD, the reader contends, is "what response best serves society?"

The reader goes on to say that "another issue raised in this case study is very real—someone who must choose between individual profit and the greater good. We as a profession have a conflict of interest in policing ourselves. The CAS exists to further the interests of its members. In fact, as a member I count on it to do so. While the CAS may find it wise to punish members who cause harm, we are under no obligation (other than moral) to do so.

"Regulators have no conflict of interest in judging the abuse of [the] franchise" granted to actuaries by society in the use of their specialized knowledge," the reader adds. He further states, "The least we actuaries can do is make our expertise available to regulators in fulfilling their role without hindrance. [M]aintenance of high standards of practice adds value to our franchise."

These articles are intended to be a discussion forum. Comments on these or any other ethics issues such as the Proposed Actuarial "Bill of Rights", are welcome and will be summarized in the next issue of the Actuarial Review. You may send comments by letter to the Actuarial Review at the CAS Office, by E-mail to actuaryjoe@aol.com or by fax to (715) 845-0935. Your name won’t be used unless you specifically request it.