Open-access content
Tuesday 3rd November 2015
—
updated 5.50pm, Wednesday 29th April 2020
Agony actuary: Musicals and The Actuaries' Code
Dear Agony actuary
I have written a musical based upon The Actuaries' Code, entitled Anything Goes, which I think has the potential to be the biggest smash hit of the century. It has five acts - one representing each of the code's values - and starts with the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche being surgically transformed into a horse following an ill-advised wager with Richard Wagner.
He then falls in love with a young actuary called Edna, who says she will marry him only if he can get all the founding members of Pink Floyd installed as members of the Pensions Board. The next acts show Nietzsche's attempts to fulfil his challenge, taking pains to comply with The Actuaries' Code. Ultimately, he fails, because he can't remember the name of the drummer, and can't Google it because of his hooves. He ends up sinking into a depression and, in the final act, commits suicide, deliberately breaking his leg at the Grand National. This has the makings of a great musical. But nobody else agrees and I can't get backing. Is it the actuarial slant that's putting them off? Can you help make it more saleable?
Yours
Name and address supplied
I have written a musical based upon The Actuaries' Code, entitled Anything Goes, which I think has the potential to be the biggest smash hit of the century. It has five acts - one representing each of the code's values - and starts with the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche being surgically transformed into a horse following an ill-advised wager with Richard Wagner.
He then falls in love with a young actuary called Edna, who says she will marry him only if he can get all the founding members of Pink Floyd installed as members of the Pensions Board. The next acts show Nietzsche's attempts to fulfil his challenge, taking pains to comply with The Actuaries' Code. Ultimately, he fails, because he can't remember the name of the drummer, and can't Google it because of his hooves. He ends up sinking into a depression and, in the final act, commits suicide, deliberately breaking his leg at the Grand National. This has the makings of a great musical. But nobody else agrees and I can't get backing. Is it the actuarial slant that's putting them off? Can you help make it more saleable?
Yours
Name and address supplied
Well, it's difficult to know where to start really. Have you been drinking? I have received some unusual questions in the past few months, but yours wins the prize for sheer lunacy. However, for what it is worth, here is my advice.
First, it's important that you embrace the spirit of professionalism embedded within the Code, and call your musical something other than Anything Goes. This name implies our profession is a modern-day Wild West rather than the slick, well regulated body of financial experts that we are.
Second, five acts is excessive and you should just pick the most important three values. People like the number three - you will know that when giving pension scheme trustees options for their actuarial assumptions, you always give them three. And they always pick the one on the left.
It is not easy to prioritise the values, but I would say probably the least important are compliance and communication, as clients are better off being advised by law-breaking poor communicators than by immoral incompetents. You may have different views (in which case, please write a letter to the editor to explain why).
Incidentally, I deduce from your summary that Nietzsche is also an actuary in the musical, as he tries to comply with The Actuaries' Code. Unless you know something I don't, and the latest draft of TAS 100 has extended the definition of 'actuarial work' to include all projects carried out by anyone ever?
Turning to your question, "Is it the actuarial slant that is putting them off?", I have much confidence in saying no.
I have spent some considerable time puzzling out what your Nietzsche/horse transmogrification can possibly mean, and have concluded that it must be an allusion to Nietzsche's idea of the Übermensch. Perhaps you are saying that, just as Nietzsche could not be transformed into a successful horse, the human cannot reach the lofty ideal of the Übermensch, or 'superhuman'. You think Nietzsche was wrong to hold us to such high standards, fallibility being an essential part of human nature?
If so, you must forgive Nietzsche this failing, as he was around before the profession had risk management as one of its core disciplines, so the inevitability of human error was not drummed into him. He also probably never read APS X2.
Or maybe you are implying that, just as the horse is the personification of anatomical beauty and animalistic strength, and just as the Übermensch is the ultimate human, the Code-compliant actuary is the ultimate in professionalism and excellence? In which case, I would agree with you. One can never be too compliant, competent, careful and impartial. And the more one exhibits high integrity and good communication skills, the better, I say. Or, possibly, you just really like horses.
Anyway, I wish you luck in getting your actuarial musical onto the stage. I give you my word that if ever it gets performed, I will be in the audience with all my friends. We may bring vegetables. Possibly some sugar lumps for Nietzsche.
Your sincerely,
Agony actuary
First, it's important that you embrace the spirit of professionalism embedded within the Code, and call your musical something other than Anything Goes. This name implies our profession is a modern-day Wild West rather than the slick, well regulated body of financial experts that we are.
Second, five acts is excessive and you should just pick the most important three values. People like the number three - you will know that when giving pension scheme trustees options for their actuarial assumptions, you always give them three. And they always pick the one on the left.
It is not easy to prioritise the values, but I would say probably the least important are compliance and communication, as clients are better off being advised by law-breaking poor communicators than by immoral incompetents. You may have different views (in which case, please write a letter to the editor to explain why).
Incidentally, I deduce from your summary that Nietzsche is also an actuary in the musical, as he tries to comply with The Actuaries' Code. Unless you know something I don't, and the latest draft of TAS 100 has extended the definition of 'actuarial work' to include all projects carried out by anyone ever?
Turning to your question, "Is it the actuarial slant that is putting them off?", I have much confidence in saying no.
I have spent some considerable time puzzling out what your Nietzsche/horse transmogrification can possibly mean, and have concluded that it must be an allusion to Nietzsche's idea of the Übermensch. Perhaps you are saying that, just as Nietzsche could not be transformed into a successful horse, the human cannot reach the lofty ideal of the Übermensch, or 'superhuman'. You think Nietzsche was wrong to hold us to such high standards, fallibility being an essential part of human nature?
If so, you must forgive Nietzsche this failing, as he was around before the profession had risk management as one of its core disciplines, so the inevitability of human error was not drummed into him. He also probably never read APS X2.
Or maybe you are implying that, just as the horse is the personification of anatomical beauty and animalistic strength, and just as the Übermensch is the ultimate human, the Code-compliant actuary is the ultimate in professionalism and excellence? In which case, I would agree with you. One can never be too compliant, competent, careful and impartial. And the more one exhibits high integrity and good communication skills, the better, I say. Or, possibly, you just really like horses.
Anyway, I wish you luck in getting your actuarial musical onto the stage. I give you my word that if ever it gets performed, I will be in the audience with all my friends. We may bring vegetables. Possibly some sugar lumps for Nietzsche.
Your sincerely,
Agony actuary
Filed in: