Becoming a trainee late in career; should I take exams first?

Apologies for the long post. Lots more detail below, but my basic questions are:

1. what is the rough difference in salary between someone with no (actuarial) experience and no exemptions, and someone with no experience but has passed CM,CS,CB exams 1 and 2?
2. how much would quantitative, analytical but non-actuarial experience count for someone entering the industry in a later stage?
3. any general advice for someone converting later in their career?

I want to train to become an actuary, but am quite a few years into my career. Even if actuaries are generally better paid than those in my current sector (I’m a researcher/analyst for a charity basically) because I’d inevitably be going from a relatively senior to a relatively junior role, I’ll probably end up taking a significant pay cut. My plan to mitigate this has been to do as many exams as possible in my current job, in the expectation that this would reduce the amount of time I’d be working at a lower salary, and that there is probably a salary increment for each exam passed.

Hence questions 1 and 2. I’m betting on the idea that someone who has passed lots of exams and has years of experience (even if non-actuarial) would start at a significantly higher salary than someone fresh out of Uni and progress much quicker into less junior roles.

Am I roughly right? Or should I just bite the bullet and try and find a trainee position now, accepting that there is not much I can do to mitigate the drop in salary so no point incurring the costs of exams myself?

(On the salary increment, that obviously relies on the increment being higher than the cost to me. I think that is almost certainly true though, so far I’m doing OK taking a bare bones approach, and I’ve worked out than on average, I can do the above 6 exams for at around £450 per exam (given reading material, student membership fee and exam cost and assuming no failure), some of which has been incurred already. I'm less sure about the others given different structure. Given all the tutorship and study days advertised, I’m guessing it costs companies far more, so even if not all is reflected in salary increments, enough would be for it to be worth it if I’m confident of passing on my own. )

 

I switched careers after 12 years as a teacher. I passed two exams before getting a job. There was some discussion about whether I would be awarded the associated pay rises or have them treated as exemptions that would be unlocked as I passed further exams. In the end they decided to give me the pay rises but I don't think they would have done so for many more exams. So bear in mind that you may not get the salary increments for passing exams straight away though it would shorter the time before you qualify.

I took a £15,000 per year pay cut and it took me three years to get back to my previous level.

 

The way a lot of companies deal with exemptions/passes with no actuarial experience is to start you on the same salary as someone with no exams (or maybe 1 or 2) but have a steeper scaling of pay for exam passes.

If you're planning on joining the profession to do the exams, I think you'll need to get a couple of professionals to sign off your application and there will also be PPD requirements (like CPD, but tailored for student actuaries) that may be challenging to do outside of an actuarial job.

Experience generally matters more than the passes in terms of starting pay - if you have no actuarial experience at all then it's likely you'll start at the same salary as a standard graduate entry - though there may be room for some negotiation

In my opinion, you're probably better off biting the bullet and getting an actuarial job now, rather than doing exams - at the very least your costs will be paid for by the company and if you progress fast enough you can qualify in 3 years

 

I think the PPD requirements are relaxed for someone who is not in current actuarial employment.

 

Thanks for these responses, really appreciate it. I think you can actually do the exams with the student membership, and that you don't need PPD for that.

Interesting to hear you think I should just go for it. My thinking wasn't just about the increments (although noted that my assumption was wrong there) but also about how long it would to do the exams. My understanding is that to qualify as an associate, you need two years experience for the PPD requirement, so that's the minimum time I'd spend as a trainee. If I could do all of the exams in two years then it wouldn't be worth trying to do any before switching.

However, given what I have seen/heard so far I think doing all of the exams in 2 years would be very ambitious (to the point of not being feasible). Say I do three exams a year: i would do six in the period when I'm also getting experience. The remaining three (I've got CM1) would take one more year. So my thinking was that my choice is basically where I spend that year: EITHER in my current role which has a higher salary but I'd need to incur the costs of three exams myself (including the student membership fee) OR in an entry-level actuarial role, where I'd get costs covered but earn less.

If I'm right about that choice then even without any salary increments from exam passes, it would make sense to stay put for a year and pay for exams myself until I know I can do the rest in two years. Perhaps PPD could take longer, which would change all of that?

@mavvj it would be great to hear more about your experience if you are up for it, sounds like you were in a very similar position to me.

Otherwise, very much appreciate both of your responses so far!

 

I think experience is at least as important as exam passes in career progress as an actuary, and delaying getting an actuarial job by definition delays you gaining direct actuarial experience (I’m not referring to PPD here but more to having relevant experience to be able to put on your CV!) I understand that your thoughts behind delaying the move until you get some exams under your belt are financially related, though ..,.however I’m out of touch with starting salaries now and in particular how they deal with new entrants with exam exemptions (but the previous two people who replied to your post have already covered that it seems).

It’s not clear to me what kind of analysis you are doing in your current career and the extent to which those skills could ‘translate’ quickly in an actuarial role but obviously the more you can show that your existing experience is transferable (eg. to an interviewer), the easier it will be getting that first (actuarial) job and progressing in it. (Never under-estimate the power of showing a highly motivated attitude either!)

I’d be inclined to agree with Kamina that you should just bite the bullet and get an actuarial job now. However, the advantage of trying it the way mavvj did is that if you study for a couple of exams prior to “officially” changing your career (ie. quitting your current job), then if you find after a few months of studying that actually it bores you stiff, you can easily just drop the idea without having lost your existing career.

Another thing I’d do is talk to some actuarial recruitment agents about how easy/ hard it is to get into the market as a mature new entrant, and see if they have any opinion on how having/ not having a few exams under your belt already would/wouldn’t make a difference. They will likely push you to apply for jobs now as its in their interests to earn commission on placing you ASAP, so keep that in mind too. However, it’s good to get an idea of the job market…. If you don't know of them already, you can find the names of the commonly used agents in the recruitment section of the Actuary magazine / www.theactuaryjobs.com )

Good luck whatever you decide!

 

Happy to answer any questions you have, just PM me.

 

I have found that with a few exams passed and moving around will generate a much higher pay rise than just passing exams. (GI)