Why am I not pushing for a working party to pursue my investigations?

Some actuaries have asked why I am not simply pushing for a working party to conduct my investigations – surely that would be a more appropriate route than my unorthodox election pitch?

I would normally agree with this position but the experience from my past activity has proven to me that this approach would likely be fruitless. The immediate issue which undermines the Working Party route is that it depends on me persuading the IFoA that this activity is worthy of investigation: however, I have struggled to convince the IFoA in the past that this area warrants attention, so why would this be different now?

For the avoidance of doubt, I want to acknowledge that the IFoA is well within its rights to judge that my suggested activity is not worthy of attention – who is to say that I am right and they are wrong? Fortunately there is a way of answering that question and this is what my bid for IFoA Council will determine: a democratic mandate will objectively show that there is a groundswell of support among the IFoA’s membership that the three proposed SMART investigations are worthy of attention and this will enable me to pursue them. Equally if there is a rejection of my manifesto then I promise to accept the decision with good grace!

However even if elected I believe it is better for me to avoid a working party for the purposes of pursuing Investigation 1 and Investigation 2. In particular I note the following reasons:

• This activity covers a sensitive and divisive area. I believe that I am uniquely placed to carry out the work: my track record of past activity (as shown in my presentation) gives me credibility in this area. Involving others might dilute this, therefore I am keen to drive the work on my own.

• The activity does not need support from other actuaries to produce the main deliverables. Whilst I will need some help from others (particularly when it comes to checking my work), I am confident that I can complete the first two investigations independently. I think that a working party would unnecessarily complicate this activity.

• I also cannot vouch that other actuaries would want to serve on a working party so I am reluctant to commit to this route without knowing I can deliver it, whereas I can be much more confident making promises about my own time!

My assessment for Investigation 3 is slightly different, as I can see that this work may benefit significantly from the input of other actuaries. Consequently I am open to exploring the possibility of a working party for this investigation. I believe I will be in a better position to judge this once I have made substantial progress on Investigation 1 and Investigation 2.

I also wish to stress that I have a high opinion of the working party activities of the IFoA. The working parties are worthy endeavours and my reluctance to go down this route should not be misinterpreted as criticism of these activities. Moreover, whilst I have not favoured the working party approach for my initial investigations I would be delighted if my activity prompted other actuaries to push for working parties concerning the Covid response: remember that my primary motivation is to facilitate a meaningful evaluation of the Covid crisis!