A Merging of Minds
Characters:
Connor: Finance Director of X-OR who sits on the Board of Trustees.
Ellis: An Actuary and member of X-OR’s Finance Team reporting to Connor – advising on accounting and budgeting issues and has investment experience and expertise.
Fredrica: Senior Manager – specialist on climate change and ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) who heads up a team tasked with reviewing the company’s sustainability strategy
Naga: Scheme Actuary for X-OR’s pension scheme (formally appointed to advise the trustees).
Tamsin: Chair of Trustees for X-OR’s pension scheme.
Synopsis: This scenario involves a conflict between two actuaries, when ‘advising’ the trustees on investment strategy, which comes to a head at a Trustee board meeting. One of the actuaries didn’t set out to ‘advise’ and initially thought they were just explaining actuarial concepts in a generic context.
Discussion points:
- Should actuaries refuse to explain technical jargon without it being formal advice?
- Should Ellis have taken a step back when Connor, the Financial Director, asked him to take a look at the scheme’s assets?
- At Connor and Ellis’ first meeting, Ellis was asked to comment on a defined benefit pension scheme. What could Ellis have done differently and how could the requirements of APS P1 help?
- Is there anything Naga should have considered, given that she’s the Scheme Actuary?
- Both Ellis and Naga have followed their instructions and provided the information requested but, from the viewpoint of the trustees, it looks like they’ve given different advice. Have either of them been unprofessional?
- What can Ellis and Naga do now?
- Considering their advice—is it likely to be so different?