Michael Mateja

  • 1995 0905 – LC – Ferguson v. Crown Life and William Casteel – V14of23 – 244p  —  [BonkNote]
    • MICHAEL E. MATEJA (Continued)
      • Direct Examination (Contd.) by Mr. Becker———2740
      • Cross-Examination by Mr. Bostwick—————-2790
      • Cross-Examination (Contd.) by Mr. Bostwick——-2826
      • Redirect Examination by Mr. Becker—————-2870
  • 1998 – LC – Crown Life v. Casteel – 98-0218  —  [BonkNote]
  • 1987 – SOA – Research of the Committee on Valuation and Related Areas, rsa87v13n4b11 – Society of Actuaries – 28p
    • Reports were given by the chairmen of the following Task Forces:
      o C-I Risk – Irwin Vanderhoof
      o C-2 Risk – Dan McCarthy
      o C-3 Risk – Pete Deakins
      o Combination of Risks – Mike Mateja
  • Michael MATEJA: I’d like to make two points.
    • First, I’m going to use the words actuarial science and say I think your charge is to provide SOP with regard to the implementation of actuarial science by the members of the profession. If I’m wrong in that regard, then maybe what I have to say would not be appropriate.
      • When regulators, in their wisdom, find ways to implement public policy and they, in effect, put down something that is not actuarial science, then I don’t think it’s your job to implement it by promoting standards.
      • What I see embedded in this sales illustration regulation is nothing like actuarial science. I would tell you to steer clear of it. We have no reason to have a standard for it.
      • You have great leverage, by virtue of your position. You can say, “No, we’re not going to tell actuaries to practice in such a way because it really doesn’t make sense.” I think you need to use that leverage at appropriate times and, in effect, could influence the conduct of the regulators.

1995 – SOA – Actuarial Standards Board (ASB): Current Hot Topics, rsa95v21n4a32 – Society of Actuaries – 18p