Actuarial Review Return to Main Page

25 Years Ago in The Actuarial Review

by Walter C. Wright

We continue to be struck by the unchanging nature of many of the issues that The AR tackles. Keeping in mind the article by Clive Keatinge of this current issue, look at what Stan Khury had to say in an October 1976 opinion piece.

And Now, Amalgamation?
The Subcommittee on Organization Structure of the Actuarial Profession, in its final report to the Joint Committee on Organizational Coordination, identified six reasons why reorganization should be considered. Viewed closely, the Subcommittee's reason fall into three categories:

Clarification. Amalgamation would make clear to our public—government, employers, educational institutions, business in general—what an actuary is and what an actuary does. It would also clarify the differences between the various actuarial specialties. And it would strengthen the actuarial profession's position on accreditation.

Economy. Amalgamation would presumably eliminate most of the current duplication in administration, meetings, clubs, publications, etc.

Consistency. Amalgamation would assure greater consistency in the treatment of the issue of professional conduct, as well as in examination and other educational standards.

However one may view the reasons for studying the issue of amalgamation, its serious consideration by each CAS member remains one of the most pressing assignments in a long time.