Restoring the Credibility of Casualty Actuaries Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar Boston, MA Panelists: Members of the Joint Task Force on Enhancing the Reputation of Casualty Actuaries
With you today…. • Mary D. Miller – American Academy of Actuaries, VP Casualty Practice Council • Mary Frances Miller – Actuarial Standards Board • Mike Toothman – Actuarial Board for Counseling & Discipline • Pat Teufel – Chair – CAS Board Task Force on Actuarial Credibility – CAS Representative to Joint Task Force
Objectives for the Session • Provide Information – Background leading to commissioning of the CAS Task Force on Actuarial Credibility – Recommendations of the CAS Task Force – Active Involvement of other US organizations representing casualty actuaries • HEAR WHAT YOU THINK • ENCOURAGE YOUR PARTICIPATION!
Setting the Stage….
Actuaries Under Attack: Is the Profession Living Up to Its Responsibilities? • Standard & Poors – “Whether through knavery or naiveté…. ” • Morris Review – “Profession that has been too introspective, not forwardlooking enough and slow to modernize” • Litigation Against Actuaries On Rise – “Professional negligence and malpractice, misrepresentation and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties”
Turbulence is life force. It is opportunity. Let’s embrace turbulence and use it for change.
CAS Board Response • Meetings with Standard & Poors and other rating agencies • Board Retreat to discuss possible responses • Task Force on Actuarial Credibility charged to: “Identify, prioritize and investigate the feasibility of possible strategies for enhancing the perceived credibility of the casualty actuarial profession and develop action plans for implementation of those strategies considered to have the greatest potential for high impact. ”
CAS Task Force on Actuarial Credibility
Recommendations 1. To enhance the transparency of the actuary’s conclusions by clearly identifying within the statement of actuarial opinion differences, if any, that exist between management’s “best estimate” of the loss and loss adjustment expense reserves as of a valuation date and the actuary’s “best estimate” of the reserve need as of the valuation date.
Recommendations 2. To enhance the public’s understanding of actuarial estimates, including the “best estimate” and the range of reasonable reserve outcomes, as well as estimates of the range of all possible settlement outcomes. To refine actuarial methodologies for estimating the underlying probability distributions for the range of loss and loss adjustment expense reserves, facilitating greater consistency in the approaches used by actuaries and improved transparency of financial reporting disclosures.
Recommendations 3. To improve the transparency of disclosures by requiring that the actuarial report contain an exhibit that summarizes changes in the actuary’s estimates from one period to the next, with extended discussion of significant factors underlying the changes.
Recommendations 4. To enhance the quality of corporate governance for property/casualty insurers by educating audit committees or boards of directors or both on the roles and responsibilities of the appointed actuary. To increase the visibility of the appointed actuary within the corporate governance arena.
Recommendations 5. To enhance the self-governance of the actuarial profession with respect to property/casualty loss and loss adjustment expense reserve opinions by requiring the appointed actuary to provide an explanatory document with the Actuarial Board for Counseling and Discipline (ABCD) whenever the change in the actuary’s reserve estimates over a defined period exceeds certain predetermined thresholds. The explanatory document would discuss the changes in the actuary’s estimates, as well as the significant factors underlying the changes.
Recommendations 6. To elevate the unique role of the appointed actuary within the statutory financial reporting environment by incorporating an Actuarial Statement within the Jurat Page of each property/casualty insurance company’s Annual Statement.
CAS Leadership Actuarial Standards Board
ASB Process on ASOP Changes 1. Recommendation to ASB to initiate review 2. ASB charges Casualty Committee to review 3. Casualty Committee or Subcommittee develops exposure draft for ASB review 4. ASB votes to expose to members for comments
ASB Process on ASOP Changes (continued) 5. Casualty Committee receives and reviews comments – considers and responds to all of the comments 6. Casualty Committee considers and responds to all of the input and revises draft accordingly 7. ASB reviews revision and comments. – – If changes are significant, draft ASOP is re-exposed (step 4). If not significantly changed, ASB can vote to adopt.
American Academy of Actuaries
This is not the only game in town ! • August 2001 – Casualty Actuarial Task Force (CATF) formed Actuarial Opinion Instructions Working Group (AOIWG) • Monthly calls with input from AAA and other industry representatives • Result – Revised content and format for 2004 Opinions
This is not the only game in town ! • Result – AOS required in 2005 • Result – Regulatory Guidance Briefs are published annually starting in 2004 in AAA P&C Practice Note • Result – Specific Requirement for auditor to consult with actuary regarding data relied on
This is not the only game in town ! • Result – Increased regulator involvement in CLRS and other professional meetings • Result – Better Opinions - More Disclosures
This is not the only game in town ! • CAS Committee on Reserves URIL Subcommittee and AAA Financial Soundness and Risk Management Committees both researching company failures and large reserve increases • AAA sponsoring 1 st Opinion ‘Boot Camp’ next month – sold out quickly – 2 nd day added
This is not the only game in town ! • Unprecedented AAA/CAS/CATF cooperation on Risk Transfer Project • Increased COPLFR and CATF presence at regional affiliate meetings • New Standard on Unpaid Claim Liabilities on the horizon
Actuarial Board for Counseling & Discipline
Code of Professional Conduct The Code of Professional Conduct identifies the professional and ethical standards required of actuaries who belong to the Academy. The SOA, ASPA, the CAS, and the CCA have adopted identical codes. Code of Professional Conduct • Professional Integrity - Precept 1 • Confidentiality – Precept 9 • Qualification Standards - Precept 2 • Courtesy and Cooperation – Precept 10 • Standards of Practice - Precept 3 • Communications and Disclosure Precepts 4, 5, and 6 • Conflict of Interest - Precept 7 • Advertising – Precept 11 • Titles and Designations – Precept 12 • Violations of the Code of Professional Conduct – Precepts 13 • Control of Work Product – Precept 8 and 14
Counseling and Discipline Overview Actuarial Organizations AAA ASPA CAS CCA Code of Professional Conduct Drafted Qualification Standards ASB “Standard Setter” ABCD “Interpreter“ “Enforcer” Professional Integrity Qualification Standards of Practice Communications and Disclosure Conflict of Interest Control of Work Product Confidentiality Courtesy and Cooperation Advertising Titles and Designations Violations of the Code Actuarial Standards of Practice (Develop, Revise, and Adopt) Violations of the Code of Professional Conduct SOA
Role of the ASB AAA ASPA CAS CCA SOA Areas of Practice: Casualty, Health, Life, Pension, and General • The ASB is an independent entity established in 1988 as the single board promulgating standards of practice for the entire actuarial profession in the US. • The ASB has the sole authority to develop, obtain comment on, revise, and adopt standards of practice in the actuarial profession. • The ASB is comprised of nine persons representing a broad range of backgrounds and areas of actuarial practice, with members from the AAA, ASPA, CAS, CCA, and SOA. • Members of the ASB are appointed by a selection committee composed of the Presidents and Presidents-Elect of the AAA, ASPA, CAS, CCA, and SOA.
Role of the ABCD CIA Members “practicing” in the US AAA ASPA CAS CCA SOA • The ABCD was formed to serve the five US-based organizations representing actuaries. • The ABCD also serves the CIA relative to practice by its members in the US. • These organizations have delegated authority for counseling and discipline to the ABCD. • This includes the authority to investigate and evaluate possible violations of the Code of Professional Conduct. – Counseling – Discipline – Requests for guidance – Mediation
ABCD Board Members Current ABCD Board Members William J. Falk, Chairperson Frank S. Irish, Vice Chairperson Lawrence A. Johansen, Vice Chairperson Linda L. Bell Edward E. Burrows Julia T. Philips Richard S. Robertson Carol R. Sears Michael L. Toothman Staff Liaison: Thomas C. Griffin n The ABCD’s board members represent all main areas of actuarial practice. n Members of the ABCD are appointed by a Selection Committee composed of the Presidents and Presidents-Elect of the AAA, ASPA, CAS, CCA, and SOA.
Details of Counseling and Discipline Process
How Cases/Complaints Arise The ABCD addresses complaints of possible Code violations, but also answers informal inquiries and requests for guidance from actuaries who have questions concerning professional matters. Informal Inquiries and Requests for Guidance In many cases, requests of the ABCD are informal: • Generally answered by individual ABCD member. • Response represents individual ABCD member’s opinion and not necessarily the ABCD’s view. ABCD also responds to formal requests for guidance: • These matters are considered by the ABCD as a whole. • If appropriate, written formal guidance is provided. Complaints and Matters for Inquiry Process for addressing formal complaints: • Complaints may come from an actuary or others using actuarial services. • ABCD staff completes the initial review. • If not dismissed, staff refers complaint to the “subject actuary”. • The ABCD Chairs review the subject actuary’s response and either dismiss the case or appoint a mediator or investigator. • Investigation can take many months.
ABCD Formal Complaint Process Flow Complainant Matters for Inquiry Dismiss Mediate Gather Further Information Dismiss Complaints Initial Processing ABCD Information Received Subject Actuary ABCD “Chairs Committee” ABCD “Full Group” Response by Subject Actuary Reviewed by Chairs Committee Investigate
ABCD Formal Complaint Process Flow Complainant Mediate ABCD Provide Counsel Dismiss Subject Actuary Response by Subject Actuary ABCD “Chairs Committee” ABCD “Full Group” Dismiss Investigate Reviewed by Full ABCD Recommend Discipline
ABCD Case Resolution ABCD cases considered during 2004: Type of Case Pending from 2003 and Earlier Received in 2004 Total Conduct 6 6 12 Practice 4 4 8 Conduct & Practice 4 1 5 Requests for Guidance 2 44 46 Total 16 55 71 Pending from 2003 and Earlier Received in 2004 Total Casualty 5 14 19 Health 2 9 11 Life 2 11 13 Pension 7 21 28 Total 16 55 71 Cases by Practice Area
ABCD Case Resolution ABCD cases considered during 2004: CASES CLOSED Action by Individual ABCD members Replied to requests for guidance Disposition by Chairperson and Vice Chairpersons Dismissed (Referred to Investigators in 2004— 4) Disposition by Whole ABCD after investigation Dismissed with guidance Counseled after hearing Recommended suspension Total CASES IN PROGRESS (as of 12/31/03) Pending investigation Pending hearing Pending receipt of more information Request for Guidance pending Total 46 4 1 2 1 0 0 54 3 7 3 4 17
ABCD Case Resolution Since its inception in 1992, the ABCD completed its cases as follows: Dispositions 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 12 24 9 11 8 11 13 10 5 20 16 7 5 151 6 10 3 __ 5 1 5 2 8 5 4 2 2 53 Counseled __ 2 8 1 6 2 5 __ 2 3 2 4 1 36 Mediated 3 1 1 __ __ 1 __ 4 __ 11 Recommended private reprimand __ __ 1 1 __ __ __ 2 Recommended public discipline __ 1 2 __ 3 __ 1 __ 3 __ __ 11 8 8 8 10 28 31 22 31 36 21 47 30 46 326 29 46 31 22 50 45 46 44 55 54 69 45 54 590 Dismissed with guidance Replied to requests for guidance Total
Challenges/Weakness in the Current System Challenges/ Weakness 1. Lack of understanding within the profession of the counseling and discipline process and the role of the ABCD (exacerbated by confidentiality issues) 2. Reliance on practitioners to self-police in many cases 3. Timing of the process
Questions? ? ?
Joint Task Force for Enhancing the Reputation of Casualty Actuaries
Role & Responsibilities • Oversee implementation of Task Force recommendations by the various organizations representing casualty actuaries • Communicate progress to each of the actuarial organizations • Work through “hurdles”, if any, encountered during implementation
Progress to Date • Confirmed agreement of all organizations on general direction for the initiative • Changed Name for Task Force from: – Joint Task Force for Restoring Actuarial Credibility to – Joint Task Force for Enhancing the Reputation of Casualty Actuaries • Discussed recommendation for public disclosure of “best estimate” at length • Preparing Survey of Opinion Writers
NOW IT’S YOUR TURN
In your opinion, based on facts and circumstances that were known or knowable as of the valuation date, was the property/casualty insurance industry under-reserved as of December 31, 2004? A. Yes, by more than 10% of the industry’s carried reserves B. Yes, by 1 - 9% of the industry’s carried reserves C. No D. No Opinion. I don’t have enough facts.
In your opinion, would a thorough reading of the statements of actuarial opinion rendered as of December 31, 2004 have identified to the users of those opinions those companies that contributed most significantly to the industry’s overall reserve position (either favorably or unfavorably)? A. Yes B. No C. No Opinion. I don’t have enough facts.
The following factors have been identified as potential contributing factors to the property/casualty industry’s perceived reserve deficiency position. In your opinion, what is the most significant factor contributing to industry’s perceived US reserve deficiency? A. B. C. D. E. F. Vague Accounting Terms and Guidance Corporate Governance Issues (Dominance Risk) Quality and/or Clarity of Actuarial Conclusions Earnings Pressure Unforeseeable events There isn’t a problem; Why are we wasting so much time on this topic?
The following factors have been suggested as potential contributing factors to the perceived decline in the reputation of casualty actuaries with respect to the actuary’s role in determining appropriate reserve levels and in evaluating the reasonableness/adequacy of reserves recorded by management. In your opinion, what is the most significant factor contributing to the perceived decline in the reputation of casualty actuaries with respect to reserves? A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Lack of clarity on what the actuarial estimate means Need for further refinement of actuarial models Inexperience of the appointed actuary Insufficient or ineffective communication by the actuary to management and/or Audit Committee/Board “Reasonableness” standard allows the actuary to sign off on reserves that he/she believes likely may be deficient Accounting standards need to be revised to minimize adverse reserve emergence Other
Agree or Disagree? • Clarifying the term “best estimate” and differentiating the actuarial point estimate from management’s recorded “best estimate” will help to provide increased clarity with respect to the actuary’s conclusions on reserves. • The Actuarial Standards Board should consider a revision to ASOP 36, requiring that the carried reserve be at least equal to the actuary’s estimate of the indicated reserves in order for the reserves to be considered reasonable.
Agree or Disagree? • Management of public companies is more likely today to record at its actuary’s point estimate, due to the Sarbanes Oxley Act requirement for public companies to document and test the adequacy of their internal controls. • Most actuaries today develop a point estimate for the reserves, whether or not that point estimate is displayed in the actuarial report.
Agree or Disagree? • Public disclosure of differences between the actuary’s point estimate and management’s recorded reserve likely will place additional pressures on the actuary to change his/her estimate. • A procedure for periodic, independent peer review of actuarial workpapers supporting the statements of actuarial opinion, with formal reports of the peer reviewer’s conclusions and/or observations to be made either to the regulator or to an independent actuarial review board, should be implemented.