Editorial
How to Catch a Wild Hog

by C.K. Stan Khury

A trapper, who became disenchanted with the messiness and cruelty of the usual trapping methods, found an ingenious way for catching wild hogs. He located an area in which wild hogs were known to roam, put out a few bushels of corn, and stood back about 50 feet to watch. The hogs spotted the corn and for a few days simply looked at it, sniffed and snorted suspiciously, eyed the trapper standing some distance away, and kept their distance from the corn. On occasion during this period of discovery, a young hog would charge out and snatch an ear of corn and race back for cover. After a few days, some of the older hogs figured out that if it was safe for the young ones to eat the corn (and wild hogs are very protective of their young) then it must be safe for them too. And they began to do likewise. The trapper kept refreshing the corn supply and the hogs were enjoying it immensely.

A few weeks later the trapper showed up with fence posts and wire. He piled up the posts and wire within the line of sight of the hogs. The hogs kept on showing up for their daily ration of corn—and in the process they got used not only to the sight of the trapper moving about, but also to the sight of fence posts and wire. A few days later the trapper began to put up a few posts and worked right within the sight of the hogs. The hogs grumbled a bit but eventually ignored the activity of the trapper, because their food supply was not affected at all. The trapper continued this way until a substantial fence was built, complete with a rather wide gate that the trapper kept open. The hogs would come in through the open gate, eat the corn and leave. The number of hogs coming to the regular feast increased daily. One day, when all the hogs were busy enjoying the corn, the trapper walked up to the gate and closed it.

Until the trapper closed the gate, the wild hogs were free—and if they only had eyes to see and minds to perceive, they would have simply stopped being engaged by the trapper.

During the past two years there have been a number of interesting developments at the Society of Actuaries (SOA) that brought this story to mind. In this column we will focus on just two of them: the establishment of the North American Actuarial Journal (NAAJ) and the establishment of the SOA Foundation (SOAF). The NAAJ, a replacement publication for the Transactions (the SOA equivalent to our Proceedings), unabashedly announced that its scope will include property and casualty topics. The CAS board of directors declined an invitation to co-sponsor the NAAJ, seeing no reason to co-sponsor a publication intended to compete directly with its own Proceedings. As a matter of fact this publishing activity engages the SOA in a subject matter in which it has no competence. If it were possible for an actuarial organization to be accused of professional misconduct, we believe one could reasonably argue that the SOA should be so charged— as it intends to practice in an area in which it has no qualification, training, or experience. It will be interesting to watch and see what kinds of articles the NAAJ generates in the p&c area. And, one more thing, just exactly why did the SOA broaden the scope of its Transactions to include property/casualty topics in the first place?

The SOAF, on the other hand, was simply formed two years ago without any consultation with the CAS. In addition to research, the SOAF has as one of its aims interfacing with the public which, in a way, takes it into the territory of the American Academy of Actuaries (a different kind of fence for a different prey). After it was created, the SOAF became interested in discussing the possibilities of a merger with the Actuarial Education and Research Foundation (AERF). For those who may not be aware, the CAS has been one of the principal sponsors of AERF since its founding. The CAS has been actively discussing ways in which the operations of AERF and SOAF could be brought together provided sufficient protections can be built in to assure the CAS of the independence of the SOAF from the SOA. The first attempt to resolve these issues failed after several months' work. Another attempt is about to begin with a fresh team of "negotiators" for the SOAF.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots and see the possibility of the NAAJ and the SOAF serving as two posts of a fence that is under construction. And to make the parallel even more plausible, the CAS has been engaged by the SOA in collegial consultations that taste sweeter than Iowa corn.

A recent graphic illustration of the level of sophistication to which that "engagement" has risen is given in a letter that our president, Bob Anker, received from the president of the SOA, David Holland, in response to Anker's letter of protest over the actions of the SOA in connection with the distribution of the NAAJ to CAS members and the solicitation of members of the CAS for articles for the NAAJ. Quoting from Holland's letter: "...an organization (you can read CAS) exists because it meets the needs of its members. As long as the members feel that their needs are best served by retaining individual sovereignty of their organization, it is futile for anyone (you can read SOA) to even think about anything else. (Editors note: In the preceding sentence, the words in parenthesis are part of the direct quote.)

While this thought is intended to allay our concerns, it is very difficult for us not to interpret it as saying "...don't worry about all the fuss and noise we're making with the fence posts and wire."

Fellow hogs, are we being had? And just who is being piggy anyway?