On 05 December, before the debate started, I wrote to IFoA, formally resigning from that body. This was distressing but I felt it was necessary to do so; here are my reasons.

When I qualified as an FIA in 1977, I felt very proud, both of the achievement and of being part of a lustrous profession. The pride lasted for around 30 years, when I became increasingly disillusioned with how the UK profession was being run. This started with the merger discussions around 15 years ago, which revealed that the Institute and Faculty had been operating together far more closely than generally known to members. The merger process was notable for the one-sided nature of the communications issued by IoA and FoA, which we have seen repeatedly ever since, not least over seeking chartered actuary status, the latest straw.

We have recently been subject to a bullying campaign about actuaries seeking to be labelled “chartered”, for which the evidence offered by IFoA has been slight indeed. There may, indeed, be better reasons for pursuing such a designation than published. However, if they exist, one must wonder why those reasons have not been shared with members. Instead, Council members have written short unsupported blog pieces on LinkedIn and refrained from engaging with questions,  simply refusing to do so. On www.jonactuary.com, I set out my views about the proposal, inviting IFoA to correct any mistakes; silence so far.

When I originally suggested a debate, IFoA told me it would be inappropriate to have anything confrontational, which surprised me. So, for midday today, I organised an uncensored Zoom debate as an alternative, to which IFoA have been formally invited to state their case fully and freely. At Staple Inn for a volunteers’ reception on 01 December, I took the opportunity of asking Matt Saker and Stephen Mann, yet again, to send a Council member to press the case but they told me they saw no point in doing so. Although I suggested that was misguided, it was their call rather than mine. So far, no non-Council member in favour of the proposal has volunteered to participate either, a real shame.

Given the navel-gazing inwards-looking nature of how IFoA has developed (regressed, rather) over quite some time, that is why I have resigned from IFoA. For a profession which claims to understand risk without mentioning reward, I remain amazed that so much attention is paid to scalars in long-term financial planning.

After 53 years of membership, I do feel somewhat sad about it. During my time as a member, I met and worked with some great people, fondly recalled, to whom I remain grateful’ thanks to all of you. There were also a very much smaller number of people whom I’m happy mostly to have forgotten.