Letters: Paul Haines

In your April issue you published two letters concerning the proposal to elect Andrew Smith as a fellow of the Institute. Both letters were, in different ways, critical of those who had voted against this proposal. As one who did just that, I would appreciate the opportunity to respond.

I voted against the proposal because, as a basic principle, I do not think that fellows should be elected. I considered the case put by Council, and it was not sufficient for me to make Andrew Smith an exception to this principle. In particular, I cannot share a vision for the future of the profession, as espoused by Nick Dumbreck, that is so dependent on one person, however brilliant, however gifted.

Nick Dumbreck’s letter may well have persuaded some that they voted the wrong way but I very much doubt that any of those that voted ‘no’ will have been similarly persuaded by the diatribe produced by Icki Iqbal. Indeed, I hope that many who voted ‘yes’ will wish to distance themselves from the manner in which Iqbal expressed his views. For example, those that did not agree with the Council’s proposal are “small-minded” (and we are all men, apparently). Andrew Smith single-handedly saved the actuarial profession, which I suspect is news to many actuaries.

Andrew Smith’s “style” has made “enemies” among “EB actuaries”, which may be correct but should not be allowed to disguise the fact that there are actuaries who have legitimate disagreements with some of what Andrew Smith has said, for instance on DB investment.

“Nemesis may yet strike his kind” — I can only speak for myself, but in the context of a discussion on professional issues I find this language distasteful, if not actually offensive. Iqbal is clearly aggrieved by this affair, but it is difficult to see what positive effect he can have by favouring invective and hyperbole over the actuarial tradition of rational analysis.

Paul Haines
2 April 2008