I’m ok with the case being dismissed by the ABCD. But egregious cases certainly can cost you your letters even in non-actuarial contexts.
Cheating on your spouse probably wouldn’t, but holding up the local 7-11 probably would.
2 Likes
I thought that DUIs and similar did have the potential for ABCD actions?
I know I’ve read that they don’t really address “I was driving at a 0.10 and got arrested”. But I could definitely see “I got my 4th DUI while on a suspended license” being disciplined.
Edited to remove the accident portion of my hypothetical, to be more precise.
To me it should be “is this likely to carry over to actuarial work”?
While a case could be made for DUIs and adultery (certainly not acting with integrity in either case), things that are financial in nature are certainly different and more closely related. Stealing for personal gain is more directly problematic.
I think a gray area would be assault. Is it up to the ABCD to say that if you assaulted someone then you are dangerous and they need to protect other actuaries from working with you?
This case is closer to assault IMO. I know of another case where an actuary was arrested for assault and did not lose their letters. And that case was probably more serious than this one, so it seems logically consistent that the ABCD would dismiss.
I expect the the line is very close to that between a misdemeanor and felony.
I would absolutely NOT think that.
If you sneak several $100 bills out of the cash register at the grocery store when the cashier isn’t looking and you’re caught on the store’s security camera, that’s a misdemeanor in my state and probably most others.
I would have a much bigger problem with that than, say, a felony drug charge or prostitution.
1 Like
Drunk driving is NOT an inevitable consequence of being an alcoholic.
1 Like
A DUI isn’t a disability. Some epileptics aren’t allowed to drive because their disability is a danger to others; that’s not discrimination either.
1 Like
Aren’t all those things you listed “very close to the line between misdemeanor and felony” and in the gray area we would find ourselves debating? 
I think we would further debate if those things should be felonies generally.
I would argue no in that situation. You would certainly lose your job and go to jail, but I don’t see why you should lose your letters.
My reasoning is that once you do your prison sentence, has that really impacted your ability to do actuarial work properly if a company will hire you (even with a record)?
I would say “no” here. You can still do your job competently.
The main type of felony that can get you booted is financial crime.
Then you’re pretty much screwed because it speaks to your competency as an Actuary (how do they know you won’t fudge the numbers for financial reasons?)
The bar for losing your credentials should be high or else you will get all sorts of people being booted for non-important to actuarial job reasons.
First, I should clarify that I was reacting to the notion that actuaries should not be punished for things not having to do with their actuarial work.
I think ABCD review was warranted for two reasons:
First, part of the reason actuaries are trusted in the US, and part of the reason we are still mostly a self-regulated profession in the US, is the perception that actuaries are, by and large, honest and ethical people. We tell the truth (as we see it), even when the truth is uncomfortable.
When that image is damaged, even if that damage comes from events outside “actuarial work”, all of us are impacted, and we need to take corrective action.
Second, the profession has collectively agreed that inappropriate bias is a problem that we should be striving to address, although opinions vary as to what exactly that means.
Much like the honesty point…if someone does something particularly egregious that impairs the profession’s credibility to work on such matters, it merits review.
Offsetting that, I’m also aware that the viral aspect of some news stories often omit certain details and context. It’s entirely possible that, with that additional information and context, ABCD review would have revealed the situation didn’t merit action, merited only counseling, etc.
But if, hypothetically, it was revealed that Pat Doe, FCAS, FSA, MAAA was the Grand Dragon of the Klan, and had been caught making false criminal complaints against brown people, I wouldn’t seeing a problem with Pat’s credentials being pulled even if their Klan activity were strictly extracurricular, because of the impact on the image and credibility of the profession.
1 Like
To my mind the consideration for the ABCD originated in her willingness to lie to officials. I am not sure where I would have landed were I on the ABCD.
3 Likes
Just a reminder about this page:
And some of the people who were expelled under Precept 1 – it had absolutely nothing to do with actuarial work, per se.
In general, if you see someone who was expelled solely due to Precept 1, I’m going to guess it had nothing to do with their actuarial work, and probably due to egregious behavior.
I can link to specific ones, but why not pick up a little professional CE on your own, American actuaries, by going through the annals of public discipline, and researching what got these people removed from the Academy.
4 Likes
Oof, I was curiously poking around, saw Robert Scheiring and he was just expelled for “felony charges”… Yep, child p**n. I’m cool with that expulsion.
1 Like
Sounds like he was testing the limits…
You guys seem way harsher in the US about this sort of problem.
An Actuary murdered someone over here in the UK (got 23 year prison sentence), and all he got was a 5 year ban from the profession.
1 Like
Do they let you work remotely from jail?
1 Like
Yeah working from jail is fine
Sneaking a flip phone past security in your prison purse is much easier than a 13 inch laptop though
the disciplinary list is relatively short
lots of Jail house lawyers, Andy Dufresne was a jailhouse accountant, why not jailhouse actuaries
1 Like
I’m surprised one person only got a public reprimand despite findings of securities fraud.