Meet the Candidates - Julie Lederer

FCAS - November 2014
ACAS - November 2012

Candidate Information

Biographical Information


Stanford University, MS in Statistics, September 2021

University of Notre Dame, MBA, summa cum laude, May 2009

University of Notre Dame, BS in Mathematics, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, May 2009

Current Employment:

Property and Casualty Actuary, Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance

CAS Activities and Publications:


Chairperson, Reserves Working Group, February 2019 – October 2020

Vice Chairperson, Reserves Working Group, September 2018 – February 2019

Member, Reserves Working Group, January 2022 – Present and November 2014 – September 2018

Copy Editor, Actuarial Review Committee, January 2022 – Present and November 2014 – January 2021

Technical Consultant, Examination Committee, January 2015 – February 2015

Speaker at CLRS in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018

Speaker at Annual Meeting in 2018


Publishing Research Through the CAS.” The Casualty Actuarial Society Roundtable (June 14, 2019). .

Recognizing Important Contributions to Property Casualty Research.” The Casualty Actuarial Society Roundtable (Dec. 20, 2018).

Reserving Research Hall of Fame Announces New Class of Inductees.” Actuarial Review (Sept./Oct. 2018): 38.

An Introduction to the Cosmos.” Actuarial Review (Jan./Feb. 2018): 42-43.

Big Ideas.” Actuarial Review (Sept./Oct. 2017): 32-33.

Big Data Meets Literature.” Actuarial Review (July/Aug. 2017): 40-41.

Ambrogio, Denise, and Julie Lederer. “CASCOR Releases Non-Technical Reserves Call Papers.” Actuarial Review (Nov./Dec. 2015): 46.

“Improving the efficiency of actuarial study time through the use of effective learning techniques.” The Future Actuary (Summer 2013).

Other Actuarial Organizations:

Director’s Representative, NAIC Casualty Actuarial and Statistical Task Force, September 2021 – Present and February 2017 – May 2020

Chair, NAIC Actuarial Opinion Working Group, June 2016 – December 2019 Member, NAIC Actuarial Opinion Working Group, January 2022 – Present, December 2019 – May 2020, and February 2014 – June 2016

Member, NAIC ORSA Implementation Subgroup, March 2016 – May 2020

Speaker at NAIC Insurance Summit in June 2018

Other Professional Designations:

Member of the American Academy of Actuaries, August 2012 – Present Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter, June 2016 – Present


Additional Biographical Information

Employment History:

Deloitte Consulting LLP; Analyst, Consultant, and Senior Consultant; July 2009 – September 2013

Civic Activities:

Usher at church, May 2022 – Present, Communion server at church, August 2018 – January 2020, Sunday school teacher, August 2017 – January 2021, Volunteer docent with over 300 hours of service, National World War I Museum and Memorial, December 2017 – February 2020, Board member, Notre Dame de Sion Alumnae Association, September 2014 – October 2017

Funded three endowed scholarships or awards over the past several years:

  • Academic scholarship at Notre Dame de Sion High School (established January 2020)
  • Scholarship at Saint Paul School of Theology (established August 2020)
  • Undergraduate math award at the University of Notre Dame (established September 2020)

Awards and Recognition:

Speaker at “Company Specific Risk Factors for SAO Users” presentation at 2018 CLRS, which was voted best session

Employee of the Quarter for the Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance, May 2015

Member of Phi Beta Kappa, 2009 – Present

Member of Beta Gamma Sigma, 2009 – Present

Why do you want to serve on the CAS Board of Directors?

I’m a regulator with the Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance (DCI). Regulators are one of the key intended users of actuarial work products. While policies and regulations vary by state, I could provide one regulator’s perspective on issues under CAS board discussion.

I am active on several NAIC committees, including the Casualty Actuarial and Statistical Task Force and the Actuarial Opinion Working Group. A few years ago, there was a proposal to revise the definition of a “Qualified Actuary” in the P&C Annual Statement Instructions (Instructions). This revision would affect appointed actuaries that sign P&C Statements of Actuarial Opinion. I served on a focus group for this project, participated in many open calls over the course of several years, and submitted four public comment letters. I acknowledged the importance of the appointed actuary’s educational background and experience while also considering the impact of this project on the Missouri insurance industry, Missouri insurance consumers, and the quality of regulation performed by the Missouri DCI. After measured consideration of the benefits and drawbacks, I recommended that the director of the Missouri DCI vote against adding the proposed language to the Annual Statement Instructions. The director agreed with me and voted in kind. The proposal passed anyway, and revised language was added to the 2019 Instructions.

Far from “taking our ball and going home,” the Missouri DCI continued to lend assistance on the project with a desire to make the implementation as smooth as possible. I was the chair of the Actuarial Opinion Working Group at the time. Our working group held open calls and sought input from industry (including the American Academy of Actuaries’ Committee on Property and Liability Financial Reporting) as we provided guidance to the appointed actuary in preparing the “qualification documentation” that the revised Instructions require. I also reviewed and provided comments on several drafts of the SOA and CAS’s proposed continuing education (CE) log. I organized internal discussions with Missouri DCI colleagues in which we designed analysis and exam procedures around the new “qualification documentation” requirements. On recent open calls of the Actuarial Opinion Working Group, I recommended that regulators assess the continued need for the enhanced requirements in the Instructions, especially now that the revisions have been in place for three year-ends.

This is how I would approach my work on the CAS board. Even if I were “outvoted” on an issue, I would still willingly, and with good cheer, engage with the process to make sure that the implementation went well, that any changes were communicated to the affected parties, and that there were a process in place to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of the project.

Candidate Issue(s) Identification and Discussion

I have personal opinions on matters that affect the CAS, but I would not join the board in an effort to advance a public position on any particular issue. I would consider the materials under board consideration, ask questions if needed, and offer recommendations that align with CAS principles.

This is similar to my position as a regulator. I have personal opinions on issues that affect state regulation, but my work as a regulator is shaped by Missouri statutes and regulations, NAIC instructions, and actuarial standards of practice. When faced with a complex situation, I lean on these governing documents as much as possible. For anything that’s not explicitly spelled out in the documents, I use professional judgment and hold discussions with department colleagues and the affected entity, always keeping in mind my department’s mission of protecting Missouri consumers while treating regulated entities fairly and impartially.

While I would not join the board with an agenda, my time as a regulator has shown me the value of seeking input from interested stakeholders. I would like to explore the option of exposing CAS leadership projects and documents for member comment along the way. CAS members work around the world for many different types of organizations, and seeking input as a project is underway may help CAS leadership craft policies that reflect the range of member viewpoints.

When I was the chair of the NAIC’s Actuarial Opinion Working Group (the group that proposes edits to the instructions for the NAIC statement of actuarial opinion), I valued the input – both informal on open calls and formal in written correspondence – from other regulators and interested parties on our working group’s proposals. The working group regularly made changes based on the input. Industry feedback was especially valuable, since a group composed of regulators may not anticipate all impacts of a proposal on insurance company operations. Since we gathered feedback along the way, our final proposals incorporated multiple stakeholders’ viewpoints, did not generate any surprises, and were more practical than they otherwise would have been.