First withdrawal
The US firm has finally stopped making assertions and properly addressed our queries on a particular part of the accounting standard.
Remember the analogy I presented earlier? Well, the accounting standard says that if it's a crocodile, then use method B but if it's a hippo, use method A. The problem arises when the creature is a hippo, wears a hat but cannot twirl. This apparently causes a diversity in views (and methods) among actuaries.
The actuary did express his uneasiness over this grey area (note that he thought it was a grey area i.e. both method A and B were viable) and stated that if we had been the first team to perform calculation, he would have chosen method A (previous actuary used method B) and yet strangely, to me, he left up to the US firm (who is signing off the report, it seems) to decide whether to terminate our subcontract or to get us to continue and use method B. The US firm, predictably, chose the latter to "avoid disruption to client".
However, due to the way the accounting standard is written, it's clear to me that if the creature it's not a crocodile, then the default method is A i.e. the "crocodile" section is meant to be an exception. I may not agree with the standard but until it's changed, we are bound by it. Since this is the case, personally and professionally (section 4.2.2, 4.7.1 and 7(a)(ii) of the Code of Professional Conduct) I couldn't continue to participate in this project and therefore withdrew from it.
The actuary, understandably, was disappointed in my decision but he wasn't angry, I think. In fact, he thanked me for my contributions to the project thus far and compensated me for it.
The actuary believed that professionally he couldn't and wouldn't leave the US firm in the lurch as he had given his word to help them this year. That's fine because he was ok with either method A or B although he preferred A, whereas I believed only A is the method intended by the accounting standard. So I told him that "we are both doing what we believe to be right personally and professionally, and that's how it should be."
Remember the analogy I presented earlier? Well, the accounting standard says that if it's a crocodile, then use method B but if it's a hippo, use method A. The problem arises when the creature is a hippo, wears a hat but cannot twirl. This apparently causes a diversity in views (and methods) among actuaries.
The actuary did express his uneasiness over this grey area (note that he thought it was a grey area i.e. both method A and B were viable) and stated that if we had been the first team to perform calculation, he would have chosen method A (previous actuary used method B) and yet strangely, to me, he left up to the US firm (who is signing off the report, it seems) to decide whether to terminate our subcontract or to get us to continue and use method B. The US firm, predictably, chose the latter to "avoid disruption to client".
However, due to the way the accounting standard is written, it's clear to me that if the creature it's not a crocodile, then the default method is A i.e. the "crocodile" section is meant to be an exception. I may not agree with the standard but until it's changed, we are bound by it. Since this is the case, personally and professionally (section 4.2.2, 4.7.1 and 7(a)(ii) of the Code of Professional Conduct) I couldn't continue to participate in this project and therefore withdrew from it.
The actuary, understandably, was disappointed in my decision but he wasn't angry, I think. In fact, he thanked me for my contributions to the project thus far and compensated me for it.
The actuary believed that professionally he couldn't and wouldn't leave the US firm in the lurch as he had given his word to help them this year. That's fine because he was ok with either method A or B although he preferred A, whereas I believed only A is the method intended by the accounting standard. So I told him that "we are both doing what we believe to be right personally and professionally, and that's how it should be."
Comments