Up to Code
Want to drive greater value from your AXIS conversion?
Go with an advisor who’s been down the road before.
Steering a successful AXIS conversion takes in-depth experience and that’s what you’ll get from KPMG’s member
firms. KPMG partners and professionals have more than 200 combined years of AXIS actuarial modeling
experience and have implemented more than 100 significant conversions. So if you want to speed the return
on your investment and gain more value from AXIS’ pricing, valuation and modeling capabilities, contact us directly.
And avoid any detours.
Partner & North American Leader
416-457-8622 | email@example.com
Recognized as one the Global Leading
Actuaries 2015 by Acquisition International
KPMG in the U.S.
Partner and Business Leader
KPMG in Canada
KPMG is a global provider of solutions
For more information on how KPMG’s Actuarial Consulting service can help, contact:
Actuary and the Principal are not in perfect
alignment. Certainly, there is often room for
different points of view and different interpretations of data. And the Principal’s view might
well be reasonable—but it is different from
the Actuary’s view. As Actuarial Standard of
Practice No. 41, Actuarial Communications,
discusses in Section 3. 4. 4, unless the Principal’s
view significantly conflicts with the Actuary’s
view, the Actuary may not have a disclosure
However, I think Precept 8 is a little more
subtle—is there a risk that another party might
be misled if the Actuary does not take some
action? In other words, is there a risk of omis-
sion? For example, consider the situation where
the Actuary provides the Principal with an
analysis that supports a particular assumption.
The Principal has access to other analyses and
considers those in the ultimate selection of the
assumption (which may not be consistent with
the Actuary’s analysis). Would it be misleading
for the Actuary to write that the Principal
considered the actuarial analysis, and leave it
at that? Or would it be better for the Actuary
to mention that the Principal considered the
actuarial analysis as well as other information?
How much detail would the Actuary want to
provide regarding the “other information”?
Would the Actuary want to provide any as-
sessment of the “other information” and how
it might support or conflict with the actuarial
analysis? How much is enough? How much
is too much?
And then I got thinking. What are other situations where a
reader might be misled by (or simply misinterpret) an Actuarial
Communication—and what are reasonable steps an Actuary
can take to mitigate that risk?