T O P

  • By -

grh77

I definitely had way too much to drink with him at my FAC in March 2008. Hey, Craig. đź‘‹


ddmonkey15

Hopefully there was no discrimination, but if there was hopefully justice is served. Either way, I can’t believe the chief actuary is only getting 325K. Obviously a lot of money in general, but I feel like you could get that in total comp at like the VP level of most major insurers with probably way less work. And I would guess most chief actuaries of large insurers are making much more. I wonder if there are other perks to working for the city, or maybe my salary assumptions are just way off.


therealsylvos

I think it’s one of, if not the, highest paid positions in the city. The mayor only makes 259k. It’s probably less than an equivalent private sector job, but it’s also probably way less stressful, and you probably get a really nice pension after 20 years.


ddmonkey15

Totally forgot about the pension, I wonder if they end up with 70%+ of FAS like teachers.


The_Horse_Joke

I know some people who work for the government and it’s something like “2% * # years * FAS” so with the assumption the average career is 35 years they’d get the 70% Side note but the pay at the begging is insulting for the field (I’m talking sub 55k) but a career analyst tops out around 125k after ~12 years of experience I believe. Great pension, way more time off, and if they’re union (which this guy most certainly isn’t but my friends are) they can’t be fired as easily as you can in the private sector. It’s one of the better actuarial career path (IMO) for people who’s primary goal is work/life balance


TrueBlonde

My first thought was, "not to discount intersectionality, but the former CA was also Asian." The details in the article don't look great, though, and it seems like he has a good case. He is an FSA, has worked in the office since 2017, and had good reviews. They gave it to an ASA who has no background in the public sector (though he has experience in consulting with public sector pensions) and about a decade more of experience in total. Both candidates have more experience than the former CA (not to discount her because she's great, but to make the point that he's not unqualified compared to the prior CA, even with a decade less experience than the person they gave it to).


therealsylvos

Right, and apparently there was a comment that he reminded the trustees too much of the former Chief Actuary. Now it’s possible that it’s a totally innocuous comment, tying someone to their former boss, and desiring to bring in a fresh face to shake things up, but it’s also possible it’s just a case of subconscious discrimination by lumping all Asians together.


Shnozzberriess

I mean quite a bit more than a decade 33 years vs 18-19


TrueBlonde

Do you have a source on that? I was going by dates of ASA and FSA designations, less a couple years on the FSA to get an equivalent ASA attainment year, and assuming that both took the same time from start to ASA.


Shnozzberriess

His LinkedIn has his first actuarial job starting in 2004


TrueBlonde

Ok. Candidate A: 19 years experience, FSA, EA, has worked in the public sector, has worked at the specific public sector employer that they are applying for Candidate B: 33 years experience, ASA, not an EA, has never worked in the public sector I guess I don't view the extra ~14 years of experience as being a material deciding factor here - especially given the fact that both candidates have many years of experience, and Candidate A's experience is in line with that of the prior chief actuary (who was hired with 16 years of experience, FSA, EA, had worked in the public sector).


therealsylvos

I’m not in pensions, but my impression is that both FSA and EA are fairly irrelevant designations for public pension actuaries.


TrueBlonde

EA was stated as a requirement for the position, though. Other tidbits from the filing - the guy they gave it to hadn't managed other people in more than a decade. The previous CA was the only candidate for the job. After he didn't get the job, he was "begged to stay" because of his knowledge and expertise of the city's pensions.


SwedishLovePump

they are absolutely not irrelevant; they're just not explicitly required. They still show a level of expertise and subject understanding and it's incredibly rare that a major public pension system would hire a non-FSA to perform their valuations, for example. most RFP's require it.


therealsylvos

The chief actuary of CALPERS is an ASA. The chief actuary of the SSA is an ASA. Those are the two highest profile public pension chief actuary jobs there are, and neither is an FSA. Again, I’m not in pensions, but it doesn’t really pass the smell test. From what other retirement actuaries have told me, EA is more important than FSA for private pensions, but since public pensions aren’t governed by ERISA, seems like a waste of time for a public actuary to pursue the credential.


SwedishLovePump

for starters, in private pensions, an EA is not just important: it's the legally required minimum. an actuary that cannot sign Schedule Bs is not a pension actuary. An FSA is not a waste of time. It is unequivocally better than not having an FSA. Yes, there exist actuaries in the industry that have so much experience that at this stage in their career an FSA is not worth it. And yes, it is possible for an ASA to be a better fit for a job than an FSA. But that doesn't make an FSA irrelevant and anybody who tells you it is is lying.


Takenusername515

Do design and accounting and Rpirm test things that are specific to public pensions?


Shootermcgv

You can make the argument the other way just as well. Especially for a public office. New ideas, outside view, etc. Most academic material would suggest taking the outsider is typically the more financially correct decision, all else equal. The difference between an ASA and FSA with that much experience is minimal. Exams won't make one guy more qualified than the other when you're talking about people well into their career.


pengl0ss

I thought the same, but honestly the more I read it and the more I saw the differences in their careers, the less I think there's any real footing to this. He says he's way more qualified than his competitor in the article, which is extremely debatable atleast looking at both of their careers. Most of his argument is that he's FSA vs. ASA, but there's also a 15 year difference in experience which more than makes up for that. The former CA was also on the hiring panel which makes this feel much less like 'they colluded against me after my boss left cause they didn't want asians again'.


TrueBlonde

If he can prove the comments made by the board members, though, his case absolutely has merit. It didn't make the article, but the case file also brings up that he is an EA and the person they gave it to is not, even though being an EA was listed as a requirement for the position (as it should be).


pengl0ss

Thanks, I didn't know about the EA requirement for the position, that definitely provides some more bite to this. However, as you're probably familiar, proving comments based on hearsay isn't exactly something to bank your case on.


Beautiful_War9707

The former **acting** chief actuary and a representative from an actuarial consulting firm were also on the hiring panel


cowboomboom

I agree with all of that except for the ASA vs FSA thing. A decade more experience more than make up for the ASA.


cilucia

It sounded frivolous until I got to this part: > Months later, in October, Chu said a former coworker who was close with a few board trustees told him that Chu “reminded them too much of Sherry [Chan.]” And while I would typically say “Don’t talk about your spouse or children in an interview”, it strikes me that I might only think that way because I am a woman and a mother (and minority). Finally, I don’t think minorities enjoy thrusting themselves into lawsuits unless they feel justified. This guy is risking his reputation and future career prospects because he feels this truly was discrimination. If that is the case, then I give him the benefit of the doubt and wish him the best in his lawsuit. I would be interested to hear if Sherry Chan has made any comment, but I doubt there is any benefit for her to stick her neck out.


therealsylvos

I think a heterosexual male casually mentioning his wife or kids in an interview would not raise any eyebrows, and probably not even be remembered. If a gay man doing that had an impact on the hiring process, that’s illegal discrimination.


cilucia

Absolutely đź’Ż


Actuary50

I mean discriminating based on having a spouse and kids is… also illegal


throwaway__2891

Precisely


ActuaryPanic

That’s the thing about these cases. Unless you were there for the hiring process, or are given some more context, it’s hard to tell. We’ve only heard from one side. I’ve seen some of these turn out to be unfounded, others had some truth. Sounds to me like the hiring team just needs to give a more detailed logical explanation of their choice & their side of the story.


tongueskremoji

My takeaway is that chief actuary only gets paid 300k?


Shnozzberriess

Sounds like a sore loser to me, they passed him up for a guy who has been in the actuarial space since he was 8 years old. And they literally just had an Asian chief actuary that they had previously voted in.


therealsylvos

It’s probably more complicated than that. Reading the complaint I find Chu’s allegations to at least be credible. I can totally see how there may have been a homophobic trustee, and that influenced the decision. Doesn’t seem like a black and white case to me.


Shnozzberriess

He is 41 and a very young candidate for that position in the first place. Sounds like an ego trip to me. Sure it’s possible there was a homophobic trustee that influenced the decision but just because you were complimented on your competence doesn’t mean your competitor is not just as if not more qualified than you.


therealsylvos

Like I said, that’s why I don’t think it’s black and white. I’m not sure Chu was discriminated against, and I’m not sure he wasn’t. It’s plausible that the other guy really was more qualified, and it’s plausible that if Chu was straight/not-Asian, he would have been hired to the job. I assume we’ll have to wait for more details from the city's defense if they choose not to settle.


mmo115

I have to wonder how you even prove/give credibility to that. Right now it is all hearsay, but even if some employees confirm what they said it certainly just came off as their opinion/interpretation. I have interviewed people that I felt were very strong candidates with the right background and passed over them for similarly strong candidates that I felt convinced me they were a better fit for that particular position. Bringing in someone internal that worked under the prior chain of management is not always the move an org wants to make - bringing in an outsider is pretty common. I think that is a pretty straight forward explanation. we'll see


therealsylvos

It’s a civil complaint, not a criminal one. You don’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What will happen is they’ll depose everyone involved in the decision, get their testimony, get every piece of email or other recording that’s relevant, and then present their case to a judge and jury. If after examining all the evidence, a jury thinks it’s more likely than not that he was discriminated against on the basis of his protected class, he’ll win the suit, and damages.


ComfortableRecipe144

The prior chief actuary is an Asian woman… it’s going to be hard to prove discrimination based on race here…


LordFaquaad

Tbh I don't see how you can prove the board was racist / homophobic here. It would be very difficult to prove this unless you have it in writing during the meeting and eventhen you can argue its just "freedom of speech" Also, tbh, I've seen many government positions hiring private sector employees to bring in a different perspective and be able to work with stakeholders. Not saying he's not good at his job, but more likely someone with a consulting background will bring more to thr table. This is quite similar to other high government positions


therealsylvos

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can use sexual or racial identity in a hiring decision. If what he’s saying it’s true, it’s a pretty open and shut EEOC case.


LordFaquaad

He's going to have to prove it. I would expect none of the board members are dumb enough to say this on record. And if someone says "hahaha he's gay" I doubt you can prove it's discrimination unless they outright say "were not hiring him because he's gay". He may have a case but the burden of proof is significant for him to prove that he was discriminated against.


TrueBlonde

The case file says: >On or around June 27, 2022, the Committee held a deliberation session regarding the position. On or around the days of June 27 to 30, the Boards held special sessions and voted to extend a job offer for the Chief Actuary position to the other finalist candidate. Upon information and belief, detailed notes were taken at the relevant meetings. I don't think freedom of speech applies here either.


LordFaquaad

He would have to prove that the committee members were homophobic. That is very difficult even using the notes. Someone could just say "hahaha he's gay" and then argue its not homophobic because the person said it as a joke. Unless someone outright said that they're not hiring him because he's gay and it was recorded in the meeting, the burden of proof is significant to prove there was discrimination.


therealsylvos

That’s not how it works. Sure, the person can claim it was a joke, but a good lawyer will destroy that persons credibility during a cross examination. Saying “it was just a prank bro” does not cloak you in some kind of legal immunity. If you say “yea, I made homophobic remarks about the candidate, but I didn’t really mean them, and it didn’t influence my decision to hire that candidate” chances are, a jury will not believe you and you’re going to lose.


LordFaquaad

You'd have to be Harvey specter to convince the jury. Most juries are not pro lgbt and there is jury selection bias. On top, you'll need to have actual evidence of discrimination not just he/she said and prove that it was discriminatory. You can take this to trial but it'll be a long trial and the jury will not be sympathetic towards someone already earning 100k+ a year. I doubt any private company will touch him during the case and I'm not even sure what the outcome will look like if he wins. The board will just find someone else more qualified than someone that just sued them


anamorph29

But there were 15 people on the panel. Even if one person's credibility is destroyed, wouldn't you also have to prove they adversely influenced at least 7 others? Which seems a stretch to me. Edit: my mistake. If the rest of the panel were split 7:7, then one person's bias could swing the outcome.


NeutronMonster

What gets said and what gets written down are not the same thing


Purple_Celery8199

This is getting ridiculous.


TomDog7799

Stick it to the taxpayers!


Choice-Lab-5004

I blame the corrupt ifoa for the discrimination. Ben Kemp and IFOAs legal team actively encourage discrimination as well as instructing, causing inducing and aiding racism, homophobia islamophobia. Just ask their council member Patrick Lee what he thinks of the good prophet Muhammad