Our Actuarial future

[Actueire]

I was just wondering about what everyone's opinions on the future outlook of our actuarial careers, given the progression of machine learning and data science.

Speaking from my own experience and thoughts, I can't seem to shake this hunch that the actuarial exams are becoming less relevant in a commercial context. This is not something borne out of contempt for the exams but more of a niggling feeling I can't seem to shake off. Don't get me wrong, I notice the benefits of the exams in terms of developing how we think and our understanding of risk etc. However at what point will employers turn their back to our profession if they notice they don't need our skills from these exams? Granted what may be keeping us in our jobs is the Institute's leverage over the regulator, insurance companies and whoever else but is that the strongest 'buffer' to protect our careers? All it might take is for one company to snub the need for actuaries and show how the impact on their business hasn't changed. Will that win over the regulator? How many other companies will follow suit? It's already happening to an extent in some companies where data scientists and pure maths grads are replacing actuaries. Management seem to be realising that grads from these disciplines are cheaper to hire (as they don't need to compensate them for completing actuary exams) and overall seem to bring the same benefits as a part or fully qualified actuary.

I'm curious what the Institute are doing to address these new developments and in some respect to fight our corner. Will the new syllabus address these developments? What can we do to keep ourselves upskilled? I can imagine a future where there will only be a need for qualified actuaries in signing roles and senior risk management functions and very little need for analysts. I struggle to see where the thousands of actuarial students on the pass lists will fit in around 10-20 years time. Very pessimistic I know, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this and hopefully change my viewpoint!

 

[almost_there]

I'm curious what the Institute are doing to address these new developments and in some respect to fight our corner.

Utterly failing at usual. Too busy looking after themselves.

 

[Uroš]

From my perspective, I consider the future of actuaries quite promising.
The actuary of the future is someone that can effectively combine the technical knowledge (eg stochastics and various IT systems) with the broad business knowledge. For example, IFRS 17 standard will require many additional actuaries based solely on the fact that they will be the only one to connect the modelling side with the accounting and business one.
As far as the IFoA study is concerned, they are slowly moving into new spheres - eg introducing R programming and big data analysis. Nevertheless, they might be a bit slow. I think another area that needs to be covered are new accounting measures based on cashflows and appropriate IT infrastructure to handle enormous amount of data.

 

[John Lee]

Machine learning is being included in the CS2 exam and will have an R component applying it.

 

[antzlck]

Having worked alongside data scientists for the last year, I definitely do not share the OPs view. Actuaries just need to upskill themselves but it won't be hard for most to do that; they have the fundamental technical/ modelling skills and are more than capable of learning a few more machine learning algorithms (most are already well familiar with GLMs and they feature in the actuarial syllabus) and how to create models in R or Python. If they do that they will have what the data scientists have plus a deep knowledge of insurance, something a data scientist will never be able to compete with.

 

[qnehl1]

"An Actuary must be a mathematician, but a mere mathematician will be a very incompetent actuary" Arthur Bailey 1881.
A quote from the CP3 course notes.

There will evolution's to the role of an actuary of course, and some roles may be lost (for example data based roles) but they will be replaced (for example risk roles)

But at the end of the day, according to the below slide show, 1.2 Trillion EUROs worth of business was written in Europe in 2015.
Given the size, I think all the stakeholders, will be happy for actuary's to remain in a job.
(https://www.insuranceeurope.eu/site...opean Insurance - Key Facts - August 2016.pdf)

Also, I don't see machines developing and implementing a process for IFRS 17 or the New Solvency III which i am sure is just around the corner.

 

[Sweetactuarialprincess]

How many court cases have the institute got going against them currently??

 

[Sweetactuarialprincess]

I'm curious what the Institute are doing to address these new developments and in some respect to fight our corner. Will the new syllabus address these developments? What can we do to keep ourselves upskilled?

The best thing you can do to keep upskilled is to litigate against them.

 

[almost_there]

I was reading up the latest about PPD and found there are fines for non-compliance with it...
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/studying/personal-and-professional-development-ppd
Compliance
Students will be required to submit their PPD on an annual basis. PPD cannot be respectively logged so it must be done within your PPD year. If you miss your PPD deadline you maybe subject to a fine. Repeated missed deadlines and non-compliance may result in more sanctions.

You are required to discuss the activities you record with your line manager or supervisor. If you are selected for the audit process the IFoA may contact them for confirmation the PPD record you provided is accurate and correct.

We recommend you record and store the name and contact details of your line manager or supervisor.

I find that rather 1984 Orwellian and completely excludes say contractors from being able to qualify in this profession. I don't see why they need the names of your bosses at work and personally I would not volunteer it unless they told me the exact purpose they would use it for.

 

[almost_there]

Granted what may be keeping us in our jobs is the Institute's leverage over the regulator, insurance companies and whoever else but is that the strongest 'buffer' to protect our careers?

I don't see how the IFoA have protected our careers, quite the opposite! A new graduate student or newly qualified actuary don't get close to what they used to earn when I first started out. I started out early 2000s on £20k salary, outside London. I now see graduate salaries at similar places starting from £20-24k. Meanwhile the remuneration of say the CEO of the IFoA has outstripped inflation massively over the years.

 

[shdh]

The best thing you can do to keep upskilled is to litigate against them.

It is a redundant idea to go against the institute in court. The institute has strict policies that if you are not able to accept the changes that the board brings, then you may rescind your agreement with the institute and they will no longer serve you.

It is a plain and stupid move to move against the institute. Some of you have been all negative about the changes that the institute is bringing. You do not want to go forward with change. Instead of trying to file suits and take legal actions, you should already focus on clearing your papers, and should spend lesser time on this forum, simply whining and complaining about how bad you think the situation is.

 

[Infinity]

I was just wondering about what everyone's opinions on the future outlook of our actuarial careers, given the progression of machine learning and data science.

Speaking from my own experience and thoughts, I can't seem to shake this hunch that the actuarial exams are becoming less relevant in a commercial context. This is not something borne out of contempt for the exams but more of a niggling feeling I can't seem to shake off. Don't get me wrong, I notice the benefits of the exams in terms of developing how we think and our understanding of risk etc. However at what point will employers turn their back to our profession if they notice they don't need our skills from these exams? Granted what may be keeping us in our jobs is the Institute's leverage over the regulator, insurance companies and whoever else but is that the strongest 'buffer' to protect our careers? All it might take is for one company to snub the need for actuaries and show how the impact on their business hasn't changed. Will that win over the regulator? How many other companies will follow suit? It's already happening to an extent in some companies where data scientists and pure maths grads are replacing actuaries. Management seem to be realising that grads from these disciplines are cheaper to hire (as they don't need to compensate them for completing actuary exams) and overall seem to bring the same benefits as a part or fully qualified actuary.

I'm curious what the Institute are doing to address these new developments and in some respect to fight our corner. Will the new syllabus address these developments? What can we do to keep ourselves upskilled? I can imagine a future where there will only be a need for qualified actuaries in signing roles and senior risk management functions and very little need for analysts. I struggle to see where the thousands of actuarial students on the pass lists will fit in around 10-20 years time. Very pessimistic I know, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this and hopefully change my viewpoint!

You’re an actuary. Do the maths. The IFoA has sought to increase student numbers massively. Why did they do this is there if there not a similar increase in the requirement for Actuaries. With the advent of automisation combined with the increase in labour, my prediction is not positive. The IFoA is meant to be a not for profit Organisation. I’m struggling to believe this is true.

 

[Infinity]

It is a redundant idea to go against the institute in court. The institute has strict policies that if you are not able to accept the changes that the board brings, then you may rescind your agreement with the institute and they will no longer serve you.

It is a plain and stupid move to move against the institute. Some of you have been all negative about the changes that the institute is bringing. You do not want to go forward with change. Instead of trying to file suits and take legal actions, you should already focus on clearing your papers, and should spend lesser time on this forum, simply whining and complaining about how bad you think the situation is.

If there is no proper complaints process, what else are you meant to do? I have tried to focus on clearing my papers, they keep introducing new ones or changing the exam dates on me at the last minute. I am not whining and complaining, I am taking action. If no one had taken any action, you wouldn't know what the pass marks were for the exams, CA1 would be held on one day rather than split in two. If I hadn't complained to the IFoA, there would be a lot of contradictory information on the internet about Curriculum 2019. In fact even after complaining there still is. Mr Cribb still says in the annual report that current students will not be disadvantaged by the new exam system. 6,700 students are potentially impacted. It is only now when people start realising they haven't got the right combinations of exams that they come out of the woodwork... realising now rather than 2 years ago is the sign of a poor actuary.... the greatest actuarial failures have come about since actuaries do not speak up. Sitting there and doing nothing is a trait which you should perhaps try to dissuade rather than promote.

I would recommend reading the Actuaries Code

Also, the most recent development is that the government has ordered an investigation into the FRC who are the "regulator" of the IFoA. The manner in which the FRC has not spoken out against the wrong doings of the accountancy profession is why they are in this situation. This will also impact the IFoA. The FRC have done a very poor job of investigating my complaints against the IFoA and it is ironic that the FRC are now the subject of the latest scandal.

Google the latest news on the FRC or take a look at the Financial Times. Rather than learning obsolete material in CT6 and take the exam several times over, perhaps it is a better idea to read something more topical.

 

[almost_there]

It is a redundant idea to go against the institute in court. The institute has strict policies that if you are not able to accept the changes that the board brings, then you may rescind your agreement with the institute and they will no longer serve you.

The IFoA are subject to the laws of the land just like everyone else. Section 53 of the Equality Act is dedicated to Qualification bodies like the IFoA. Discrimination claims against qualification bodies are now handled by the Employment Tribunals, where no fees exist for bringing a claim.

 

[Infinity]

It is a redundant idea to go against the institute in court. The institute has strict policies that if you are not able to accept the changes that the board brings, then you may rescind your agreement with the institute and they will no longer serve you.

It is a plain and stupid move to move against the institute. Some of you have been all negative about the changes that the institute is bringing. You do not want to go forward with change. Instead of trying to file suits and take legal actions, you should already focus on clearing your papers, and should spend lesser time on this forum, simply whining and complaining about how bad you think the situation is.

Strict polices. That made me laugh. One day they write one thing and the next day they write another. They invent policies to victimize students. When I tired to make a complaint to the SCF they changed the Policy governing what can be discussed at the SCF. When I made a putting things right complaint they changed the guidelines for making complaints. They’ve doctored curriculum 2019 several times over and you can’t even distinguish the original document from the latest one as despite trying educate us on audit trail, they don’t understand what version control means. They published the PPD guidelines and had to revisit them a few weeks later. They publish a document for long term exam planning until 2020 but are simultaneously working on curriculum 2019 and delete the planning document without telling anyone. In curriculum 2019 and stakeholder consultations, they said there would be no increase in exams, exam, study time, time to qualification. All of these claims have proved false. In curriculum 2019, they’ve also said there was no specific order to complete exams, A few months later they publish the chartered actuary proposal which says you have to become a CAct first before moving on to the fellowship exams. The list is endless. If there is such a strict policy, why can they not explain after being asked 35 times to put down on a piece of paper the impact on me personally of the new PPD requirements they seek to impose on me. They don’t want to put things in writing to me as them they can’t doctor these statements a few weeks down the line. The only thing consistent is the level of incompetence. I’m looking forward to the results of the government enquiry into the FRC which will no doubt impact the IFoA.

If you have issues with the IFoA and have tried to complain to the FRC and no doubt failed, there is a public call for evidence about the failure of the FRC.

Please submit complaints here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...-council-independent-review-call-for-evidence

 

[almost_there]

If there is such a strict policy, why can they not explain after being asked 35 times to put down on a piece of paper the impact on me personally of the new PPD requirements they seek to impose on me. They don’t want to put things in writing to me as them they can’t doctor these statements a few weeks down the line.

No one should be treated in that evasive and degrading manner for asking reasonable questions about how their new regime affects them. If they're bringing in new requirements they should let students know exactly where they stand and be true to public statements they've made promising not to adversely affect anyone with these changes.

 

[Viki2010]

I don't see how the IFoA have protected our careers, quite the opposite! A new graduate student or newly qualified actuary don't get close to what they used to earn when I first started out. I started out early 2000s on £20k salary, outside London. I now see graduate salaries at similar places starting from £20-24k. Meanwhile the remuneration of say the CEO of the IFoA has outstripped inflation massively over the years.

I have similar observations. Furthermore, the university costs for acquiring for example an MSc in Actuarial Science have tripled over the past 15 years but the salaries barely moved.

The data scientists think that the traditional actuarial work is going into decline.

I think the actuarial job market in the life insurance sector has fewer opportunities now-days than fear years ago in the UK. Partially due to consolidation in the UK, shrinking with profits business, cost cutting and outsourcing to places like India and Central and Eastern Europe.

 

[Sweetactuarialprincess]

Back in the day, (2004) if you had the 100 series, you could get £60k.. Now qualified Actuaries get as low as £45k... They have supported our careers in the same way that the rope supports the hanging man.

 

[Infinity]

I have similar observations. Furthermore, the university costs for acquiring for example an MSc in Actuarial Science have tripled over the past 15 years but the salaries barely moved.

The data scientists think that the traditional actuarial work is going into decline.

I think the actuarial job market in the life insurance sector has fewer opportunities now-days than fear years ago in the UK. Partially due to consolidation in the UK, shrinking with profits business, cost cutting and outsourcing to places like India and Central and Eastern Europe.

So why is it that the IFoA have been massively increasing student numbers? Over the past few years Indian students have increased to nearly 10,000. Over 80pc if the student intake is now foreign. What is the point? Why is the IFoA seeking to massively increase student numbers when there is not a massive increase in demand for Actuarial Labour? Why are the IFoA trying to have Actuaries branch out into other areas? They’ve just got some grand plan for world domination but they forget they are a not for profit organisation set up to protect the interest of their members. We have no clue where our membership money is being spent. The last council meeting was in India. I would love to know how much that cost?

 

[almost_there]

It is a plain and stupid move to move against the institute.

Back in 2011 the IFoA told the UK Government's Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) there was a shortage of actuaries. As a result, MAC added actuaries to the UK shortage occupation list. This meant UK companies weren't obliged to find actuaries in the UK to fill UK roles and could more easily recruit from outside EU. By 2013, after the MAC had consulted more widely and allowed other people to express their views the MAC removed actuaries from the shortage occupation list. However the IFoA didn't turn up to say anything. Nor did they ever publish any data, surveys, consultations or anything to back up their lobbying in 2011.

Shdh: people moved against the IFoA and the IFoA lost, didn't get their way. That wasn't a stupid move by the people. It was a positive day for UK actuaries as stopped completely a unnecessary increase in the supply of actuaries in the UK that would further damage our prospects.

 

[almost_there]

It is a plain and stupid move to move against the institute.

Back in 2011/12 the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) received complaint(s) regarding the IFoA only applying substantial discounts to members from a list of "special overseas countries". The EHRC probed the IFoA in 2012 on this matter. The EHRC would not deploy resources to investigate anyone unless there was a case to be answered. Following this probe, eventually, albeit not in a timely manner, the IFoA by Autumn 2016 changed their pricing policy such that those in the UK could also benefit from discounts as the criteria had now changed to income rather than the country you're in.

Shdh: this wasn't a plain and stupid move. Once again people moved and things improved.