While IFoA have told me that they have held conversations with people who hold UK actuaries in high regard, I can't believe that opinion is widely held. Looking back at the 1970s and earlier, that was certainly the case when most life offices were headed by actuaries; that is not seen nowadays.

Back in 1975, the then Controller of Inland Revenue SFO (predecessor to Pension Schemes Office) instructed examiners to believe anything an actuary said; successors discovered this was not safe (personal experience).

In my view, the death of DB pension schemes is certainly due to actuaries who raucously advocated mark-to-market or just went with the flow. In practice and in theory, this has been an abject failure.

Over the years, IFoA (or its predecessors) said nothing about either the long-term ripping-off of loyal insurance customers or the mis-selling of personal pensions from the late 1980s onwards.

Following the collapse of Equitable Life, the profession lost control of technical standards, which were passed to FRC. In April 2023, it is presumed that the current TASs will be taken on by ARGA, the successor to FRC but few details are available yet.

Most recently, we’ve had the LDI developments (Autumn 2022), which have certainly not enhanced the profession’s standing.

Given all of that, how can the profession claim to possess or deserve a high reputation? In any case, if one were truly to believe that actuaries already have a high reputation, why do they need something better?