A
almost_there
Member
https://news.sky.com/story/audit-watchdog-chief-haddrill-bows-out-amid-government-probe-11537232
FRC provide 'oversight' to IFoA.
FRC provide 'oversight' to IFoA.
-
We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
DYH
Member
Ok... so....?
Is there something wrong with IFoA financial reports?
Is there something wrong with IFoA financial reports?
A
almost_there
Member
I don't think that's in the FRC's oversight remit
A
almost_there
Member
He's actually stepped down now.
A
almost_there
Member
Erm... maybe not. Next year the press are now saying.
I
Infinity
Member
Ok... so....?
Is there something wrong with IFoA financial reports?
Yes I’ve found a lie in black and white stated by the ceo of the ifoa. They don’t want to do anything about it. The FRC ceo has had to step down in shame and is the subject of a government investigation (Kingman review) which also covers the Ifoa. The Kingman review made a public call for information about the FRC and the IFOA but the IFoa only advised its members about the possibility to submit information once the deadline had passed
Last edited by a moderator:
A
almost_there
Member
The Kingman review made a public call for information about the FRC and the IFOA but the IFoa only advised its members about the possibility to submit information once the deadline had passed
Indeed and the IFoA's submission to the Kingman Review was basically they were happy with the current arrangements with FRC. FRC are in crisis with CEO having to leave and is subject to criticisms from all kinds of directions.
The FRC's oversight of IFoA sounded wonderful on the FRC website. However when people actually put complaints to them about IFoA then FRC claim to operate within a remit that is so narrow as to be worthless- to check if IFoA carried out their complaints process properly, not to examine any of the underlying complaint details. I believe this falls very short of the needs of the Lord Morris Review. Especially when the IFoA complaints process has major limitations with numerous get out clauses to not even bother addressing the complaint. Even worse - the FRC have said they can't look into IFoA's handling of a complaint until their process is completed. Therefore all IFoA have to do is simply to ignore or never bring to a conclusion any complaint then FRC won't even get involved- what a joke!
The FRC are widely criticised for failing to be transparent and won't even release details of how many complaints they've had about IFoA they've received & upheld.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
almost_there
Member
After stating that no one is impacted by the curriculum change, the ifoa claim “majority or average student” won’t be impacted by the curriculum changes.
Who will now believe anything IFoA and specifically their CEO says? They're making all kinds of promises on the Chartered Actuary qualification too.
It's not the first time the IFoA CEO has had his statements come back to haunt him. He went to the UK Govt in/around 2011 to claim there was a shortage of actuaries in the UK but upon asking him directly and IFoA several times how they came to this conclusion, what the underlying data was, nothing was produced. A year later IFoA didn't turn up to say anything one way or the other when the UK Govt opened the consultation to others, and as a result actuaries were removed from the shortage occupation list. IFoA Council meetings & The Actuary magazine mentioned actuaries being added onto the list but no mention was made of this removal.
A
almost_there
Member
Upon digging through thousands of pages of useless rubbish sent to me by the ifoa, I found that 10,000 out of 16.000 students will be impacted, it is hardly a minority!
Given its a numerate profession, there is no excuse for IFoA to get confused between the terms no one, majority, average, from etc.
Mr Derek Cribb is a qualified accountant, who should also know the difference.
I'm guessing this matter is not in FRC's remit...
I
Infinity
Member
Given its a numerate profession, there is no excuse for IFoA to get confused between the terms no one, majority, average, from etc.
Mr Derek Cribb is a qualified accountant, who should also know the difference.
I'm guessing this matter is not in FRC's remit...
No this complaint was not even taken up by the ifoa or mr cribb’s own qualifications body or the FRC
I
Infinity
Member
Who will now believe anything IFoA and specifically their CEO says? They're making all kinds of promises on the Chartered Actuary qualification too.
It's not the first time the IFoA CEO has had his statements come back to haunt him. He went to the UK Govt in/around 2011 to claim there was a shortage of actuaries in the UK but upon asking him directly and IFoA several times how they came to this conclusion, what the underlying data was, nothing was produced. A year later IFoA didn't turn up to say anything one way or the other when the UK Govt opened the consultation to others, and as a result actuaries were removed from the shortage occupation list. IFoA Council meetings & The Actuary magazine mentioned actuaries being added onto the list but no mention was made of this removal.
It is a shame what is happening to the profession under the control of the current leadership. It’s clear from the membership statistics that there are many more younger actuaries now but the roles currently being pursued by more experienced members have not increased. This limits and career progression for the younger generation and the claims about financial reward and shortage of Labour are not true. There’s just going to be a lot of people stuck In dead end jobs
Last edited by a moderator:
A
almost_there
Member
No this complaint was not even taken up by the ifoa or mr cribb’s own qualifications body or the FRC
Something just not right here. Far less serious matters have been punished by these regulators. FRC totally failing.
I
Infinity
Member
http://www.pensions-expert.com/Law-...eatens-to-impact-actuarial-profession?ct=true
Here you go... this demonstrates how the IFoA will be implicated in this FRC scandal...
They are currently self regulating, but are doing a very poor Job of it as well as abusing their power by spending all our membership money on useless newsletters
Here you go... this demonstrates how the IFoA will be implicated in this FRC scandal...
They are currently self regulating, but are doing a very poor Job of it as well as abusing their power by spending all our membership money on useless newsletters
A
almost_there
Member
I even have obtained a letter from FRC to IFoA checking whether IFoA were 'happy' with FRC's letter to me in response to a complaint I had made to FRC about IFoA. What a joke, that FRC are seeking IFoA's approval in that way. No wonder IFoA want current arrangements to continue.
People should be aware IFoA (ultimately us) pay money towards FRC for this oversight. Back in 2012 Council minutes somewhere if I recall correctly it was in the region of £300k...
People should be aware IFoA (ultimately us) pay money towards FRC for this oversight. Back in 2012 Council minutes somewhere if I recall correctly it was in the region of £300k...
A
almost_there
Member
July 2018 IFoA Council minutes:
13.3 It was recognised however that the Kingman review presented a potential threat to the IFoA: the Financial Reporting Council (or any successor body, should be FRC itself be closed) could be given more oversight or ultimately we may lose our self-regulation status.
I'd be all in favour of that. IFoA leadership are a laughing stock. Can't even be consistent in the manner they confer their qualifications never mind the botched roll-out of the new Curriculum and PPD. I mean this is what they do, what they're meant to be good at.
13.3 It was recognised however that the Kingman review presented a potential threat to the IFoA: the Financial Reporting Council (or any successor body, should be FRC itself be closed) could be given more oversight or ultimately we may lose our self-regulation status.
I'd be all in favour of that. IFoA leadership are a laughing stock. Can't even be consistent in the manner they confer their qualifications never mind the botched roll-out of the new Curriculum and PPD. I mean this is what they do, what they're meant to be good at.
A
almost_there
Member
Here's a submission to the Kingman review that might be of interest, from the UK Shareholder Association:
http://www.uksa.org.uk/sites/default/files/FRC_Kingman Review_Questions_and_Submission.pdf
Actuarial oversight
Q26. Have the arrangements put in place following the 2005 Morris Review stood the test of time
or is there a need for change? Should actuarial regulation be a focus for the Review’s work?
The Institute of Actuaries is the professional organisation responsible for regulating actuaries, but
this appears largely autonomous and there is no evidence that the indirect oversight by the FRC has
improved on the situation post-Equitable. For example, the IFoA did not attempt to stop the industry
lobbying for the ‘Matching Adjustment’ addition to Solvency II, even though it was objected that
‘there is not a single academic who will back the argument that discounting liabilities is a sound
economic principle’.
The Institute’s approach has also come under implicit criticism from the PRA’s
recent consultation paper 13/18.
http://www.uksa.org.uk/sites/default/files/FRC_Kingman Review_Questions_and_Submission.pdf
Actuarial oversight
Q26. Have the arrangements put in place following the 2005 Morris Review stood the test of time
or is there a need for change? Should actuarial regulation be a focus for the Review’s work?
The Institute of Actuaries is the professional organisation responsible for regulating actuaries, but
this appears largely autonomous and there is no evidence that the indirect oversight by the FRC has
improved on the situation post-Equitable. For example, the IFoA did not attempt to stop the industry
lobbying for the ‘Matching Adjustment’ addition to Solvency II, even though it was objected that
‘there is not a single academic who will back the argument that discounting liabilities is a sound
economic principle’.
The Institute’s approach has also come under implicit criticism from the PRA’s
recent consultation paper 13/18.
A
almost_there
Member
The Kingman review report has now been published and there are implications for IFoA. It's fair to say that what IFoA wanted was to keep the status quo but this is not what they got.
I
Infinity
Member
Here's a submission to the Kingman review that might be of interest, from the UK Shareholder Association:
http://www.uksa.org.uk/sites/default/files/FRC_Kingman Review_Questions_and_Submission.pdf
Actuarial oversight
Q26. Have the arrangements put in place following the 2005 Morris Review stood the test of time
or is there a need for change? Should actuarial regulation be a focus for the Review’s work?
The Institute of Actuaries is the professional organisation responsible for regulating actuaries, but
this appears largely autonomous and there is no evidence that the indirect oversight by the FRC has
improved on the situation post-Equitable. For example, the IFoA did not attempt to stop the industry
lobbying for the ‘Matching Adjustment’ addition to Solvency II, even though it was objected that
‘there is not a single academic who will back the argument that discounting liabilities is a sound
economic principle’.
The Institute’s approach has also come under implicit criticism from the PRA’s
recent consultation paper 13/18.
There is not much in the Kingman review specifically on the IFoA except except for the statement that IFoA have done nothing to regulate the profession over a period of 13 years since the Morris Review in 2005 and that regulation should be taken over by someone else. This will have huge implications for the IFoA as they will have a completely new regulator and requirements to fulfill.
The Actuary magazine fails to mention anything about this in the article they have written.
The IFoA didn't even alert members that there was a call for evidence for the Kingman review until after the deadline for evidence to be submitted...