Am I bound to working for a company after they put me through my actuarial exams?

I am currently in my last year of university and am looking to find a career as an actuary. On average, starting salaries for actuarial graduate schemes are £27,000 to £30,000.

I am currently looking at a potential opportunity with a well-established firm, who would put me through the necessary examinations to become a chartered actuary. However, this role only pays £23,000. Furthermore, a quick look on glass door returned a long list of critical reviews for this firm, which mostly outlined 'poor salaries and bad career progression'.

Would it be a good idea to take this opportunity, stick with it until I am a qualified actuary, and then leave for a firm who would offer a better salary and more opportunities to progress? Or would I be forced to work for this firm after I had taken my actuarial examinations?

 

It depends on the contractual agreement. For example, my employer pays my exam fees but expects that I stay at the company for a few years after the qualification. However, once you pass the exams, a new hypothetical employer would probably have no problems of paying the exam fees that could be due to your hypothetical past employer. As long as they consider you a good prospect for their team. Once qualiifed, even your salary at the current employer could be substantially higher.

 

In the UK companies can't lock you in. You can always resign. However most contracts will contain a clause about recovering some or all recent training costs ...I'm being vague because the wording isn't unique but often last 12-24 months. It's to incentivise staying but isn't a hard barrier. Some new employers will pay the 'penalty' for you.

Some people don't stay with an employer until qualified. Being part qualified gives you scope to move. It's often harder to get the first foot on the ladder than to get a second job.

I'm interested you say to train as chartered. That title for now strictly does not exist in the UK so I'm not 100 % sure what you are being offered. Is it the CAA exams? £4K isn't a big difference to be honest. Remember there will be geographical differences and look at the overall package - study leave, fees, pension etc. It all has a value.

As for Glass door, I prefer to make my own mind up. It's like hotel reviews - they aren't always reliable and you have to factor in what's important to you.

So, the choice is yours. But be encouraged that someone wants to make you an offer!

 

My company is quite good to work for with pay and progression, albeit out in the country, yet a significant minority qualify on the graduate scheme and then immediately get a job in London! You are certainly not forced to stay, the only issue you would have is a potential moral/ loyalty one - but if they have poor salaries and progression that is even less of an issue.

 

We must wonder how the IFoA have a "Recent graduate" on £32,825 on its website. Just a quick search on job postings for graduate actuarial trainee shows £21-24k outside London for big companies. I don't think it's right to give people false expectations.

 

Thank you for your response. It is the ACII qualification (by the IFoA) that is offered by most of the jobs that I have been looking at.

 

That's interesting to know, and perhaps I was misinformed. However, speaking to recent graduates who have gone into less technical careers and have done less rigorous degrees, the consensus seems to be that £23k p.a. would be slight stretch to live on (implying that they earn higher salaries than this).

 

Indeed. A quick look on glass door shows a host of scathing reviews (and an average score of 2.5/5), most stating that their employees are treated as a 'brick in the wall'. I don't think there would be much of a moral issue when it comes to jumping that ship.

 

The source of any surveys on salaries is always quoted on professions website. Posts on glass door are sometimes by disgruntled former employers and it is difficult to interpret for example the job they did. Only you know what you want for a standard of living and where benefits in kind are important to you. The greater benefits in kind, (for the same geography) typically will be the lower salary.

I think your biggest problem is understanding which exams employers are offering. ACII is NOT by Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. It is from a body called Chartered Insurance Institute and there is no connection between the two.

 

Just go on a job site such as Reed and type in "graduate actuarial". You'll see adverts showing salaries in the mid or low 20s.... that's some distance from the £33k figure used by IFoA...

 

You can always explain to your new employer that you are incurring a cost upon leaving and that you would like to be compensated with a signing on bonus covering the cost. These type of signing on bonuses are also used to compensate people for leaving bonuses when they leave. Depends on the company whether they will do it, also on your bargaining power

 

I'd recommend having a look at your study policy/contract in the short/medium term to see if there are any clauses or contractual aspects that keep you there for a period. I know some people who have wanted to move on but have been stung by these kind of things. Depending on who is making you the offer, you could negotiate it into your welcome package. In my opinion, you've got to balance any offer against how much money your current company has invested into your exams.

Also-ask around and test the water. Hope that helps.

 

I don't know any real life examples of people getting anywhere near 30K as a grad.
The job adverts often quote very high figures to attract more applicants. However, in the end of the day when you get a job offer, the figure is much less than advertised. In the end, that may lead to rejection of the offer.
I'm surprised that the IFOA puts up info about 32K at a grad level.....is it real?

 

In London 30k to start is fairly gettable, but I appreciate it will be lower in other UK cities.