Earn on the stock exchange crypto currency!

Specialty Syllabus Changes | MATE Seminars

asop 41 communication

ASOP 41 revision [2nd] exposure draft [Archive] - Actuarial Outpost

Dec. 21, 2016. Noon-1:30 p.m. EST Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) No. 41, Actuarial Communications, touches nearly every assignment an actuary works on, but its requirements call for professional judgment on the actuary's part. Many actuaries have questions about how to implement it, particularly around ...
March 23, 2011 12:00-1:30 p.m. Eastern The recent release of a revision of ASOP No. 41, Actuarial Communications, brought important changes to the guidance relating to how actuaries communicate their work to intended users. Because of its broad application, ASOP No. 41 affects actuaries in every practice area. Click to Play! asop 41 communication

Video

Page not found - Contingencies Magazine

Introduction. The Actuarial Standards Board (ASB) issued a revised. Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) #41, Actuarial. Communications, in December 2010. The revised. ASOP, which became effective May 1, 2011, has far reaching applications to all areas of actuarial practice and reflects significant ...
41, Actuarial Communications, in accordance with the ASB's project to standardize the 'deviation' provisions in all ASOPs.” Unlike the previous versions of the Introduction, this new document was labeled as an ASOP, making clear the guidance it contains is binding. Precept 3 of the Code of Professional Conduct requires.

Click to Play!

ASOP 23 – Data Quality. Documentation. ▫ Actuary should comply with documentation preparation and retention according to ASOP 41 (Actuarial Communication). ▫ Documentation should include: ▫Process used to evaluate the data. ▫Consideration or review of prior data, if any. ▫Material defects in the data,.
Agenda. 3. ▫ Introduction to ASOP No. 1. ▫ Where Does ASOP No. 1 Fit In. ▫ Summary ASOP No. 1. ▫ Intersection with ASOP No. 41. ▫ Conclusion. ▫ Questions. Failure to follow “must” or “should” actions constitute deviation from the guidance, in which case the actuary is directed to ASOP 41, Actuarial. Communications.
ASOP 41 and clear communication There is an article in the September/October issue of Contingenicies regarding Actuarial Standard of Practice 41 on Actuarial Communications which became effective on...
13.3.18 ASOP #41: ACTUARIAL COMMUNICATIONS This ASOP replaces the old Interpretative Opinion No. 3 on Professional Communications of Actuaries. The standard was written to comply with the current Code of Conduct of the five US based actuarial organizations and applies to all actuarial communications that are ...

Click to Play!

Professionalism - Tactical Ideas Around Client Communication (ASOP 41 in Practice) June 13, 2012 12:30 PM - 1:45 PM. We all issue actuarial reports, but we also issue actuarial communications in many other forms. Do we all know what should - and shouldn't - be in them? When the auditor comes calling, what is he ...
All Actuaries Subject to Requirements of ASOP 41. ▫ Every communication (whether written or verbal) containing an actuarial finding, must also include specified disclosures. ▫ Disclosures include items such as: ➢ intended user. ➢ scope and purpose. ➢ qualifications. ➢ cautions on risk and uncertainty.
Other ASOPs of a more general nature might apply as well, such as ASOP #11 on Financial Statement Treatment of Reinsurance Transactions Involving Life or Health Insurance, ASOP #23 on Data Quality, and ASOP #41 on Actuarial Communications. Copies of these and other ASOPs are available on the website of the ...
http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.org/pdf/exposure/asop41_secondexposure.pdf. Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 41. Actuarial Communications Comment Deadline: March 31, 2010.. Background The current version of ASOP No. 41 has been in effect for seven years, and applies to all U.S. actuaries ...

Click to Play!

Actuarial Aspects of Individual Life insurance and Annuity Contracts, 3rd ... - Albert Easton, FSA, MAAA, Timothy Harris, FSA, MAAA, Noel Abkemeier, FSA, MAAA - Google Books

Asop 41 communication The current version of ASOP No.
During that time, the ASB has received comments regarding a lack of clarity in the document and confusion in respect to its wording and structural arrangement.
In September 2008 the ASB approved the first exposure draft of a revised ASOP No.
Twenty-three comment letters were received.
Most had multiple comments, many were substantive.
The majority of commentators were supportive of the effort to revise this ASOP, and most comments were positive in nature, but some indicated that the first draft had some serious deficiencies.
The result of their efforts combined with further ASB review is this second exposure draft.
Because of the extent of the revisions and some key changes in direction from the prior draft, the ASB has decided to re-expose this draft for review and comment by members of the profession and other interested parties.
The ASB is issuing this revised version of ASOP No.
While all comments will be considered, the committee is particularly interested in the following questions: 1.
Is the revised concept of an actuarial report reflected in this draft both clear and appropriate?
Is the revised ASB position on documentation appropriate?
Does this revised draft incorporate an appropriate emphasis on the need for the actuary to consider the needs of the intended users?
The ASB reviewed this draft at the December 2009 meeting and approved its exposure.
The more ambiguous the ASOP's are the better it is for us.
If that's the case, then we might as well not have ASOPs.
I love kabuki as much as the next theater enthusiast, but I would rather not have it as part of my profession.
There was a session at the Boston meeting which reported on the status of this ASOP update.
I haven't read the new draft yet, but obviously I intend to do so.
And FWIW, I was one of the elite 23 people who commented on the previous draft.
According to a blurb I just received from the SOA, a virtual session from the annual meeting is set to cover "newly adopted Actuarial Standards Board standards, including ASOP 41 on actuarial communications.
I'm looking forward to seeing whether they dealt with our concerns or just brushed them aside.
Sorry, I'm feeling a bit cynical today.
Having reviewed the handouts for the meeting, it appears that these "newly adopted" standards are not actually adopted at all, but merely a list of pending proposed changes.
The handouts do not clarify this point, but the nature of the the casino guildford entry price can list is of pending stuff, some of it fairly old.
Maybe in the actual presentation, the pending nature of these standards will be clarified.
Actuaries asop 41 communication such good communicators.
They are made well in advance of the meeting, usually.
And sometimes an assumption is made that certain decisions will have article source completed by the time of the talk.
This happens with NAIC stuff all the time, I've found.
Revised slides can be posted after the meeting.
Here is a problem when making these slides.
They are made well in advance of the meeting, usually.
And sometimes an assumption is made that certain decisions will have been completed by the time of the talk.
This happens with NAIC stuff all the time, I've found.
Revised slides can be posted after the meeting.
Oh, I agree with you on that.
But when all the "new" ones on the list are actually ones that are pending, I have to say it would this web page been much better to substitute the word "anticipated" or some such thing for "new".
She's talking in the SOA session like we need to already need to know what the changes are, a little wierd given that they're not final yet.
She's http://promocode-slot.win/price/encore-beach-club-cabana-prices-2018.html in the SOA session like we need to already need to know what the changes are, a little wierd given that they're not final yet.
Of course, in consulting one has to keep an eye on these things, since the final product needs to comply with the rules as they exist when it is presented, not when the development took place.
This draft expands the scope of the ASOP to all practice areas.
Comment deadline: July 15, 2006 " Some time after the exposure period expired, the authors of the revision kicked this back to the Casualty committee.
So far as I can determine, nobody has ever stated that this ASOP will not be expanded to other practice areas, but it clearly has died and isn't on the casualty committees project list at all.
The prior actuary only needed to "consider" rather than to actually do something.
OK, final version has been published.
The prior actuary only needed to "consider" rather than to actually do something.
Success despite such obstacles has asop 41 communication meant great kudos.
But failures have asop 41 communication me jobs: "Waddya mean, you can't figure it out?
Most seem to be pretty generic though, with lots of leeway for actuarila judgment.
I do think that in this case, they should have used a bit stronger wording.
Yes, the documentation effort needs to be proportionate with the activity being documented.
And I would have no problem with recognizing this in the standard.
But remember, "The job's not finished until the paperwork is asop 41 communication />Eastern The recent release of a revision of ASOP No.
Because of its broad application, ASOP No.
It is imperative for actuaries to understand this standard and the changes that gh mumm cordon rouge price go into effect on May 1.
Join us on March 23 to learn more about ASOP No.
Don't miss this timely discussion of ASOP No.
This webinar is sponsored by the American Academy of Actuaries and is co-sponsored by ASPPA, CAS, CCA, and SOA.
I'm sitting in on this today.
Will slides be available afterward?
The SOA puts them on its website, not sure how the Academy handles it.
Make sure audience aware of what led to our conclusions.
Can't merely take assumptions given by clients and not make disclosures about reasonability.
If we don't act like professionals, then other people will come in and impose stuff on us sorry, trying to type while I'm listening.
Actuarial expert witness -- providing testimony.
Impaired ability to give all disclosures.
Context of giving testimony.
ASOP 41 requires disclosure of disagreement, not doing work with other assumptions.
Actuary's opinion is clearly understood.
Not that the work is done twice.
How can actuaries control what the intended audience is?
Various levels of requirement, based on practicality.
Unless the method or assumption was set by law or regulation.
The rules are slightly different in that case.
Sometimes I'm asked to give a rough estimate with limited data.
That's when the specific circumstance rule is supposed to kick in.
Yeah, now we'll be functioning as Word documents.
Strict adherence to this puts an absurd burden on the actuary.
Yeah, now we'll be functioning as Word documents.
Strict adherence to this puts an absurd burden on the actuary.
Please look at my previous post, about how this kind of thing was the whole reason for the addition of "specific circumstances.
Did I hear him right?
I should probably pretend I don't know what that is" Please look at my previous post, about how this kind of thing was the whole reason for the addition of "specific circumstances.
I'm thinking most people who read my blog posts aren't relying on them for actuarial opinions.
Except for the few times that I explicitly state I'm an actuary, and I'm explaining how life expectancies, etc.
Response: The reviewers did not intend this interpretation.
In rewriting the final version of ASOP No.
It is not the intention of this ASOP to impose unnecessary burdens on the internal communications of an organization.
It's not at all practical from a company standpoint.
Since the ASOP says "should" instead of "shall," most actuaries will just keep motoring along and not make any changes to what they're doing.
It was interesting that they mentioned losing credentials for not complying.
Considering the fact that you don't lose them for comitting securities fraud, I doubt you'd lose them for not issuing an actuarial report.
It's not at all practical from a company standpoint.
Since the ASOP says "should" instead of "shall," most actuaries will just keep motoring along and not make any changes to what they're doing.
That was my impression too - the changes don't really impact what I do and how I communicate on a day-to-day basis.
I don't think the strict interpretation yoyo describes asop 41 communication intended for internal oral communications.
If it's important enough, we write it down, and the procedures the ASOP describes for written communication are already expected at my company.
I'm thinking most people who read my blog posts aren't relying on them for actuarial opinions.
Except for the few times that I explicitly state I'm an actuary, and I'm explaining how life expectancies, etc.
As an aside, it's funny how often I encounter people who accept me as an authority on a subject like, say, local housing prices, because they know I'm an actuary.
I find myself making "disclosures" in all sorts of odd situations now.
Dammit, a shout-out to the Actuarial Outpost.
I must have left right before that.
I did like Al's comments about providing professional guidance and not allowing the profession to be watered down or dirtied by "just doing what I'm told".
That was my impression too - the changes don't really impact what I do and how I communicate on a day-to-day basis.
I don't think the strict interpretation yoyo describes is intended for internal oral communications.
If it's important enough, we write it down, and the procedures the ASOP describes for written communication are already expected at my company.
Unless the method or assumption was set by law or regulation.
The rules are slightly different in that case.
I believe it was explicitly noted during the webinar that in the case of something like public pensions, where the regulator is also essentially the principal, that section 4.
I can only imagine the wave of panic that set off.
By way of background, a great many of us who commented on the first and second draft of ASOP41 expressed concern about what I have been calling "proportionality.
Note this paragraph from the transmittal memorandum.
The review and revision of the second exposure draft focused on the dominant issue raised in 19 of 37 comment letters; namely, the apparent requirement for an actuary to complete an actuarial report with full disclosures in nearly all circumstances.
This was not the intent of the second exposure draft, but the reviewers were sensitive to this possible interpretation.
Accordingly, this final version reflects clarification to the guidance within this standard, in particular to recognize that in some internal and informal settings, complete disclosure of all applicable supporting information is neither practical nor necessary.
The degree of documentation needs to be in proper proportion to the degree of analysis that goes into the communication.
But if you have actually done an analysis, the report needs to disclose the applicable information, or at least point to where that additional information is located.
We are expected to use judgment.
We are expected to use judgment.
After the webcast, I was talking with a coworker about it, and we both send a lot of information to nonactuaries within the company.
He flat out said that if we put in a memo of the scope ASOP 41 would could depending on interpretation require, they would absolutely not read it.
BUT we'll probably need to send something anyways as a CYA.
So in order to be "professional" we'll produce reports which won't be read instead of doing analysis which could benefit the company.
Note this paragraph from the transmittal memorandum.
The degree of documentation needs to be in proper proportion to the degree of analysis that goes into go here communication.
But if you have actually done an analysis, the report needs to disclose the applicable information, or at least point to where that additional information is located.
We are expected to use judgment.
Did anyone else find it ironic that the webcast, sponsored by the Academy, was not considered "official statements of positions of the Academy, or any of its committees, or hte Actuarial Standards Board"?
Actually, no so much ironic as depressing.
If the actual board chairman can't speak for the board, who can?
Also, I appreciated the definition of "actuarial": dealing with the current financial impact of future contingent events.
This is not 'RISK MANAGEMENT'!
It's the financial impact of future contingent events!
Risk Management is a mile-wide, inch-deep path, that we had best not delve into right now.
Instead, actuaries should continue the inch-wide, mile-deep understanding and professional action around financial impact of future contingent events.
After the webcast, I was talking with a coworker about it, and we both send a lot of information to nonactuaries within the company.
He flat out said that if we put in a memo of the scope ASOP 41 would could depending on interpretation require, they would absolutely not read it.
BUT we'll probably need to send something anyways as a CYA.
So in order to be "professional" we'll produce reports which won't be read instead of doing analysis which could benefit the company.
It doesn't apply to me for the most part, but I imagine an internal memo with a file path to or indication of where to get most of the work and assumptions on a shared network would be sufficient CYA.
In my experience, actuaries tend to go way overboard into reading intentions in ASOPs asop 41 communication just don't exist.
For my reserve analysis for example, we have a single process documentation word file that I update annually with any new process changes, methods, or assumptions that are needed.
Unless we deviate from that, we don't redocument it for each review.
Well designed spreadsheets also are self-documenting to a large degree, IMO.
I will continue to ignore a-c, as I always have.
It's the same scope and intended purpose as the last 22 quarters I've done this.
We notify management annually that we have all met the standard, we are not going to add it to every email we send out.
Also, I appreciated the definition of "actuarial": dealing with the current financial impact of future contingent events.
This is not 'RISK MANAGEMENT'!
It's the financial impact of future contingent events!
Risk Management is a mile-wide, inch-deep path, that we had best not delve into right now.
Instead, actuaries should continue the inch-wide, mile-deep understanding and professional action around financial impact of future contingent events.
The ASOPs apply only to the members of one of the 5 actuarial societies of the U.
In my experience, actuaries tend to go way overboard into reading intentions in ASOPs that just don't exist.
For my reserve analysis for example, we have a single process documentation word file that I update annually with any new process changes, methods, or assumptions that are needed.
Unless we deviate from that, we don't redocument it for each review.
Well designed spreadsheets also are self-documenting to a large degree, IMO.
I will continue to ignore a-c, as I always have.
It's the same scope and intended purpose as the last 22 quarters I've done this.
We notify management annually that we have all met the standard, we are not going to add it to every email we send out.
Nothing is authoritative, evidently.
Except the text of the ASOP itself.
And it has a lot of qualifying words in there.
Approximately 8,000 actuaries—1,000 paid registrants with an average eight attendees at each site—tuned in to asop 41 communication to Al Beer, chairperson of the Actuarial Standards Board ASBand ASB member Jim Murphy discuss the standard that takes effect on May 1.
The webinar, which was sponsored by the Academy and co-sponsored by the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries, the Casualty Actuarial Society, the Conference of Consulting Actuaries, and the Society of Actuaries, attracted actuaries from all practice areas interested in learning how the standard will apply to communications between actuaries and their intended users.
The definition of an actuarial report also has changed.
The standard makes it clear that the actuary is responsible for all actuarial assumptions and methods used in producing the actuarial communication, unless he or she discloses otherwise.
Actuaries sometimes are required to use assumptions or methods specified here statutes or regulations, he noted, but if an actuary disagrees with an assumption or the method specified, he or she must disclose that fact either as part of the actuarial report or in a separate communication, such as a cover letter to the principal.
The deviation clause covers what actuaries should do if, in their professional judgment, they deviate from the guidance of a standard.
After reviewing the standard, Beer and Murphy fielded a number of queries submitted by webinar attendees.
They also suggested that those who have further questions about the application of the standard should seek the guidance of the Actuarial Board for Counseling and Discipline.

28 Comments “Asop 41 communication

  1. It is a pity, that now I can not express - it is compelled to leave. But I will be released - I will necessarily write that I think on this question.

  2. Reply

    Your e-mail will not be published.Required fields are marked *

    you can use HTML- Tags and attributes:

    <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>