My point, however, is that such a reference should be backup for a more concise statement. I did not (and do not) believe that most abstracts explain enough of the underlying issues to convey meaningful useful information, at least not for a chat line. They are meant as a teaser and a flag, to pique interest in a potential audience so the interested party will read the full paper. In the future, I would greatly appreciate a paraphrasing of the arguments by those most knowledgable on the paper at issue, i.e. the author. Otherwise, the author risks one of three reactions:
1 - Total apathy by those unwilling to look at the paper,
2 - Potential misuse of the findings by those unwilling to look at the paper, but immediately willing to rely on their understanding of the stated conclusion (even if their understanding is not tested and is inaccurate). This reaction is most recognizable in some media responses to scientific papers.
3 - Alienation by one who doesn't agree with the findings, but unwilling to look at the paper, therefore the belief that whatever is in the paper must be wrong and therefore (by questionable but sometimes used logic) that everything the author produces is wrong.
The preferred reaction is clearly that the party read the referenced paper, and provide feedback to the author. Unfortunately, my experience as an actuary (especially as one who deals frequently with non-actuaries) is that the risk of misinterpretation and/or misuse and/or parties totally ignoring value technical work is very real and unfortunately too frequent, hence my above comments.
I have another concern with the paper from Mr Phillips, one that greatly influenced my initial response. That concern is the statement in the abstract that said:
"Because the owners of the group have the option to allow individual subsidiaries to fail, insurance groups with assets and liabilities widely dispersed amount subsidiaries are predicted to lower prices than otherwise identical insurers where assets and liabilities are concentrated in one or a few corporate entities. Empirical tests using data on publicly traded property-liability insurers support the hypothesis...".
A cursory read of the statement could lead one to believe that multi-company groups price reflecting the ability to "walk away" from companies. This is a highly sensitive and accusatory statement, one that should not be left hanging other than through reference to a long paper. I don't want to shut off ANY theories, but feel that accusatory statements such as that one, especially one that cites empirical evidence as support, demand a more thorough statement. (By the way, I disagree strongly with the statement. Most of the highly rated property-casualty groups are multi-company groups, and strongly doubt whether they have any intention of walking away from their obligations - despite the inadvertent implication in the paper abstract quoted above.)
In retrospect, it is probably best to either leave out abstracts when referencing a paper in a public chat line, or to first check them for potentially accusatory statements. Even when one appears to be responding to a strictly academic or professional research request, the statement is heard by many others, including those with political motives, hence the call for additional caution.
In parting, I thank Mr. Phillips for his contribution, and encourage him to paraphrase it so that any potential misunderstanding can be avoided.
Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
===============================================
To subscribe or unsubscribe from CASNET:
Send an e-mail to caslists@lists.casact.org
Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
or leave casnet to unsubscribe.