Certified Actuarial Analyst

What are the exams like for this new category of membership? Is it basically the CTs in different combinations for different qualifications?

For example, the Finance and Financial Mathematics Analyst qualification. Would one be studying CT1 and CT2? Would there be different core readings?

 

I had a quick read of some of the material on the website:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/becoming-actuary/pages/certified-actuarial-analyst

My understanding is that it's a separate branch, not a step to fellowship (unlike the DAT, diploma in actuarial techniques). This is shown graphically in one of their charts.

Also, I believe there will be a new syllabus and exams similar to the CTs.
The final modelling exam is equivalent to CA2.

Having the relevant CT(s) will get you exemptions in the certified actuarial analyst exams, but not vice-versa.

 

I had a brief look at this on the website - I probably need to read it more thoroughly but my initial feeling or response was negative. It just feels like a dilution of the actual qualification in the sense that "outsiders" might mistakenly misinterpret the qualification as one standing for a qualified actuary. This feels unfair to those who've worked hard to earned the qualfied actuary designations. I think you need to be an associate or fellow to vote on this. Pity I'm not quite there yet..

 

That's ok, I won't be able to vote either, and I'd vote for it, so our votes cancel anyway

I know a lot of people who work in the financial services who would like a professional framework in which to work. Some of them end up taking accounting or financial planning exams, when really their work would most benefit from actuarial knowledge.


You can always specify on your CV that you are a "proper actuary"

 

The Institute has published details of exemption arrangement.

You can access that here.

 

Curious

Thanks for the video, but I'm a little confused about the purpose of this new qualification.

Apparently it's supposed to meet the 'demand' for analysts, but there isn't even a demand for new graduates.

Each company seems to let in a couple people each year. How many CAA positions are there actually going to be - considering the hundreds of people that seems to be writing these exams?

 

If THAT's the case, good luck to the graduates who have traditionally been expected to do the hard lifting and number crunching. They already have a tough-enough time securing entry-level jobs. I know I did! I guess the best graduates will either have or attempt to find things that give themselves an edge over other graduates

 

My personal sense is that I don't see this being a massive number of people - I don't think there are that many actuarial workstreams where what you really want is the equivalent of part-qualified people working permanently. As far as recruitment goes, I think companies mostly want potential actuaries - why wouldn't you want to recruit talent with the most potential to grow? And as for the employee, why wouldn't you prefer the more prestigious qualification?

The main audience for CAA then seems to be people who end up in actuarial teams by happenstance and don't want to take the full qualification.

 

Perhaps you have a point here - although I must say, if I were to eventually qualify and, say, set up my own consultancy, I'd probably partner with with one (more than one later on?) actuary and then limit new recruits to university graduates with numerate degrees and who are willing to take the CAA route given study support. That way I get all of the work that normal actuarial graduates and graduates on the fellowship route normally get done whilst paying less not only now but even in the future as, I guess, CAA salaries would be relatively capped. In my relatively short lived experience I think I've seen a number of consultancies that are top heavy with more qualified actuaries than they actually need. Perhaps it's situational though. Don't know. Time will unravel all!

 

Yes, though I suspect you would soon find you are (a) recruiting the second tier of graduates and (b) losing all your staff who are realising if they want to earn serious money they need to go somewhere that will pay for fellowship training.

 

Offshoring Spreadsheets

I suspect that it would be even cheaper to outsource crunching to countries where people expect a lower wage. If the CAA qualification facilitates this, I'm not sure how UK based analysts would be able to compete. I'd imagine the IFoA and the education industry are making decent profits at the moment, but, for the rest of us, employment is unfortunately a zero sum game.

Does anybody have an estimate of how many new positions would likely be created here in the UK?

There's a considerable barrier to entry at present, and it's only getting worse. The exam process isn't cheap, and requires hours of time and effort. If you're one of the few who secures a position, it doesn't sound like it would be particularly lucrative - especially if your employer would prefer that you didn't pursue higher qualifications.

If you're able and willing to pass the CT exams, then you're certainly capable of doing other things. Perhaps a different career would be more rewarding.

I don't mean to come across as bitter or negative, but consider the current state of affairs. If you:

• have a first class math degree
• a surplus of charisma
• excellent programming skills
• know how to game psychometric tests
• slick answers for any competency based question imaginable

You're still going to find heavy competition in accounting. It wasn't so long ago that this was considered the classic "underachievers" route.

Good luck to all of you who are genuinely passionate about Actuarial Science, but I think I'm getting off this train now.

 

In my opinion the IFoA don't care AT ALL about employment prospects for UK Actuaries, only for THEIR continued employment. I doubt they'd care much if their members are all overseas as long as money comes into IFoA HQ to keep them in their posh London and Edinburgh offices.

If they did care about employment prospects for British members, they wouldn't have done things like :-

1. (a) Run to the Government to claim only 3 years ago that there was a 'shortage' of Actuaries in the UK and the Government needed to open UK Actuary jobs to worldwide competition.
(b) When the IFoA have been asked where is the supporting data for these shortage claims they have not produced anything at all

2.
(a) Continue the discrimination barrier of entry for British people becoming qualified in their profession by charging double the fees for exam fees and educational materials compared to people in dozens of countries

(b) Continue these discriminatory policies in the face of complaints that have gone into the Equality Commission, who have let them get away with it.

 

3. If they cared for UK job prospects for British members, where have they been on the announcement that no one has to buy an annuity? I didn't see or hear any highly-paid IFoA person on the Media defending annuities or Chief Actuaries' overseeing of the annuity rates. Why? Too embarrassed by how much Chief Actuaries have been ripping off the public and rather the public continued to not know what actuaries do? Or don't care/don't want to admit how badly this will affect job prospects for their members?

Maybe this is why they're so keen to recruit members from abroad to make up for the decline in the UK???

 

I can't find any. Probably churned out the most bland press releases as they usually do, to hide away.

Nor do I recall highly paid Chief Actuaries on the media defending the rip-off rates they've overseen for years.