Date of this Version
Journal of Actuarial Practice 5 (1997), pp. 139-147
This interesting but controversial paper studies a subject I too have seriously considered. Nearly a decade ago I was commissioned to prepare a monograph that appeared in 1989 under the auspices of the Actuarial Education and Research Fund under the title Fundamental Concepts of Actuarial Science. 1 Chapter VII of this work, "Classification, Selection, and Antiselection," claims that the cluster of ideas surrounding these three words form a fundamental actuarial concept. I have recently reviewed this monograph (hereinafter FCAS) and am struck by the dissimilarities between the two treatments. The authors of "The Right to Underwrite?" (RTU) were unaware of my work, and I mean this in no derogatory sense. FCAS does not appear in the usual literature search, particularly one undertaken from overseas. This discussion will be an outline of the points at which FCAS and RTU differ. I will paraphrase, avoiding detail and concentrating on the essentials. I highlight the important differences by considering only the three questions stated below.
Accounting Commons, Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Corporate Finance Commons, Finance and Financial Management Commons, Insurance Commons, Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons