Doesn't add up
In this new project, I'm having many instances of disagreement with the actuary. There are 3 parties involved: the insurance company, the US consulting firm who's the main consultant to the insurance company and there's us.
At this point, I am not comfortable with some of the things the US firm is telling us because it is not backed by the accounting standard that we're supposed to adhere to and at times contradict it. Despite asking them to address the discrepancies, they added more assertions and create rules out of nowhere!
"Their judgement would not be wrong given that they're expert in US GAAP," said the actuary. My issue is this: it is not a judgement call because the accounting standard is very clear on this particular issue (something that they have not addressed satisfactorily when queried).
As part of our job scope, we're also supposed to try to match the figures for previous financial year that was produced by the previous actuary. Naturally, we hope we can do that but we came to a snag:
Let's say there's this formula: A - B = C
Currently, figures A and B match previous figures but not C. I've tried to persuade the actuary that, in accordance to the accounting standard, A and B should be calculated differently i.e. A' and B' and these new figures will produce C' that matches previous figure but not A' and B'.
At first the actuary refused to continue point-by-point "rebuttal" (which he wouldn't need to if only he just look at the spreadsheet as I requested too and thus resulted in him misunderstanding my points) but I pleaded with him to at least read the last point. He then agreed to my point, to a small extent (you'll soon see why), and so C' should be the calculated as such...but A and B remain as they are.
Strange, isn't it? So, he wants the calculations to produce A and B but use A' and B' to calculate C'. You can't eat your cake and have it too. Haiz
At this point, I am not comfortable with some of the things the US firm is telling us because it is not backed by the accounting standard that we're supposed to adhere to and at times contradict it. Despite asking them to address the discrepancies, they added more assertions and create rules out of nowhere!
"Their judgement would not be wrong given that they're expert in US GAAP," said the actuary. My issue is this: it is not a judgement call because the accounting standard is very clear on this particular issue (something that they have not addressed satisfactorily when queried).
As part of our job scope, we're also supposed to try to match the figures for previous financial year that was produced by the previous actuary. Naturally, we hope we can do that but we came to a snag:
Let's say there's this formula: A - B = C
Currently, figures A and B match previous figures but not C. I've tried to persuade the actuary that, in accordance to the accounting standard, A and B should be calculated differently i.e. A' and B' and these new figures will produce C' that matches previous figure but not A' and B'.
At first the actuary refused to continue point-by-point "rebuttal" (which he wouldn't need to if only he just look at the spreadsheet as I requested too and thus resulted in him misunderstanding my points) but I pleaded with him to at least read the last point. He then agreed to my point, to a small extent (you'll soon see why), and so C' should be the calculated as such...but A and B remain as they are.
Strange, isn't it? So, he wants the calculations to produce A and B but use A' and B' to calculate C'. You can't eat your cake and have it too. Haiz
Comments