CERA qualification - shifting goalposts!

[14099]

I am a qualified actuary who passed ST9 last October, so I am affected by the requirement coming into effect from 1st September 2012 that candidates passing or otherwise being exempt from ST9 from that day forwards would need to attend a seminar before being eligible for the CERA designation.

I would just like to let those who aren't already aware what a sorry mess this has been from the start. First of all, there was no advance warning that they were introducing this additional requirement. It was announced as a fait accompli on 1st September last year, so no-one could have brought forward the exam sitting they were planning to sit ST9 at to avoid it. At the time I wasn't overly concerned because the seminar sounded like a formality, but it seems now that that might be very far from the case.

Originally we were told that the first of these CERA seminars would be 'in the spring of 2013'. In fact the first of these seminars won't take place until 21st June. Far worse than this delay though are:

a) The £400 charge, which is more than it cost to sit ST9 in the first place (£275 as I recall).

b) The fact that delegates have to do homework and submit it in advance of the seminar. I don't know any more than this because, until the IFoA has my £400, they won't give me access to the website where I can find details of it! It sounds very much however like it's another test. We all know that tests can be failed, and presumably in that eventuality the CERA designation wouldn't be awarded. I'm alarmed about this because I don't work in ERM (although I'd like to in future) and haven't picked up my ST9 notes since the exam day last October!

To summarise, I feel that I and all the other affected candidates have been completely messed about over this matter. I wanted to warn anyone thinking of sitting ST9 either partly or solely in order to gain the CERA qualification that this seminar might not be nearly the formality that it is presented as.

Can anyone at ActED or elsewhere shed any light over this? My reading of it is that CERA has turned round to the IFoA and told them that the ST9 syllabus doesn't cut the mustard for the CERA qualification and so the poor candidates stuck in the middle of this dispute are being forced to jump through a few more hoops before CERA will award them the qualification.

It's a shame because I really enjoyed studying ST9 but right now I would hesitate to recommend it to students until the IFoA and CERA get their heads together and sort out the mess over these CERA seminars.

 

[Viki2010]

Can you attend the course before being an FIA formally? I would like to attend right after sitting ST9, if possible.

 

[14099]

Viki, I don't know and, judging by how little they appear to have thought about these seminars in advance, I doubt the IFoA has considered your question either!

I would have thought the answer would be no though, seeing as to be a CERA you need to have met the FIA qualifications and to have passed ST9.

 

[Viki2010]

In order to obtain CERA you can also be only an Associate and pass ST9.

 

[14099]

Oh OK, I stand corrected.

This has got me thinking that, in years to come, someone might pass ST9 a few sittings before the one at which they gained FIA or AIA status. In that case then having to go on a seminar to further discuss ST9 when you passed it a few years ago, and presumably have since forgotten it like all other subjects if you're not working in that area, would be a bit of a farce! It would make more sense in these circumstances to go on the seminar shortly after passing ST9, only without getting to call yourself a CERA afterwards until you also become an FIA / AIA.

My strong impression is that the IFoA really hasn't thought these seminars through very well. Inevitable I suppose given that it has only recently had to organise one for the first time.

 

[Simon James]

The reason given by the IFoA for the seminar is "The seminar was one of the recommendations of the CERA Board, when they reviewed the UK Profession’s CERA qualification. This will enable delegates to investigate and discuss more practical applications of enterprise risk management, which is not possible in the time allowed for the exam."

ActEd's understanding was that it was a one-day event with no assessment (perhaps some pre-reading of case studies to be discussed on the day).

We will try to find out the latest situation and let you know.

It could be worse. If you were part of CAS and aiming for CERA, you would have to pass ST9 and "actively participate" in a 3-day $1,600 seminar.

 

[14099]

Simon, it was also my understanding that the seminar was a one-day event with no assessment. It seems we were right on the first count but on the second it's currently unclear, which is rather unsettling for me.

In your last couple of sentences you hit on a big problem with the CERA qualification 'as is'. There are several routes to it, some of which appear demonstrably more straightforward than others. I've been in touch directly with another qualified actuary who passed ST9 in October and, as an ERM practitioner, she's most upset that university students who were exempt from ST9 by 31st January this year don't have to attend the seminar to become CERA but she does. This is typical of the anomalies that exist currently.

The ST9 syllabus, like all actuarial exam syllabuses, didn't change between the April and October 2012 sittings, but because I passed ST9 in October I have to jump through a few more hoops yet, whereas had I passed in April I'd have been home free with CERA after my name. A very illogical situation

 

[Simon James]

Having done some checking, there is no pass/fail assessment. There is some pre-work required and attendees are expected to engage with the activity on the day. You can't do nothing in advance, sleep on the day and expect to get the tick in the box

Unfortunately there are always winners and losers when these sort of things come in. I'm sure this was the best solution, even if not ideal.

Trying to put a positive spin on it ... the seminar will hopefully make you a better, more marketable CERA - good to put on your CV and should count as CPD (=£400 well spent?)

Will post again if I hear any more.....

 

[14099]

Simon, thanks very much for finding out that there'll be no formal assessment at the CERA seminar. Given that I haven't picked up my ST9 notes since the day of the October 2012 exam, nor worked in the ERM arena since, that's a bit of a weight off my mind!

I've got no problem with being expected to take the seminar seriously, and would do in any case. Indeed, despite all I've written on this thread that may suggest the contrary, I think that these seminars are a good idea. It's just the way the whole thing has been handled that has left a bad taste

I accept what you say about any change creating winners and losers but generally speaking they give some advance notice of a change so that, to an extent at least, those who might be affected can plan around it. In the case in point (to my knowledge) there was little or no advance warning, i.e.. it was already too late to sit ST9 in April 2012 to avoid the seminar requirement by the time that they announced that from September 2012 it would become a requirement.

 

[Viki2010]

Do we know how often these seminars will take place in the future?

 

[14099]

Viki, the short answer is no. As I wrote earlier, the first such seminar will be on 21st June and the IFoA even describes it as a 'trial' seminar. In the email they sent they gave a vague indication that there would be another one before the end of 2013 but no firm date or venue.

It sounds like these seminars won't be more than a couple of times a year and probably only in London. That's until such time as the number and location of delegates justifies more frequent seminars in more locations.

Remember that the only people who would want or need to attend the first seminar on 21st June are:

a) Already qualifieds who passed ST9 last October - there are 13 of us (unlucky for some eh?)

b) Students who qualified last October and passed ST9 in that sitting - who knows how many there are of them. You could find out by cross-checking the ST9 pass list against the list of qualifiers if you wanted to, but given that 60 other candidates passed ST9 last October it would be reasonable to assume that perhaps 10-20 of them also qualified in that sitting.

So currently there's a market for these seminars of only 20-30 delegates. No surprise then that the IFoA hasn't exactly pulled out all the stops to sort the first one out!

 

[14099]

Just heard some more from the IFoA about these seminars:

1. The next one after 21st June is anticipated to be in September.
2. The pre-work required for the seminar is estimated to be 7-10 hours.

Obviously that's all CPD-able time but nevertheless approximately one day's worth of preparatory work is quite substantial. With that and the cost of the seminar (£400 on 21st June i.e. more than it costs to sit ST9 in the first place) I can't see actuarial employers being keen to support ST9 over other ST subjects in the future.

 

[Jlem16]

I passed ST9 back in October but am not yet fully qualified, I am not even an associate yet, but I have still been invited to the seminar, so I don't think it is just for qualifieds. I guess I could have sat it at a later date, but to be honest I just wanted to get it out of the way as soon as possible! I managed to persuade my boss to get the company to pay for me to attend the seminar (I'm due to do a secondment into the risk department soon so sold it as a good opportunity...), which I'm glad about as not sure I could have afforded that myself!

We got sent the pre-seminar prep a few days after applying, with a deadline of this Friday - so less than two weeks to do it. I'm looking at it now and have no idea how to go about it! It involves calculating and allocating capital - and like everyone else here, I am very rusty on ST9 and don't work in ERM so it is a bit of a nightmare - more warning/preparation time would have been very much appreciated! There is also a debate that needs to be prepared for, and some extra reading, although this can be done any time before the seminar on 21st June.

I do appreciate the need for a little more in depth study beyond what a 3 hour exam can provide, but I'm now struggling to get the necessary pre-work done in time and am worried I'll look like an idiot on the day!!

 

[JayDee]

Jlem16 could you please tell me your studdying strategy since we have very few passing candidates who return to exam forums. There are very few past papers and a lot of text books to read. What was your formula? I've read acted notes and Lam. Now I'm planning on doing the flash cards first then the few past papers.

Thanks.

 

[14099]

Jlem16, the reason I assumed these seminars were only for qualifieds is that I thought that to be a CERA you had to have:

a) Passed ST9 and (from last October) also attended one of these seminars
b) Already qualified as an associate or fellow

It seems a bit odd to attend what is billed as a 'CERA seminar' and (as I understand it but perhaps I'm wrong) still not be entitled to call yourself CERA after it. Then again it doesn't make much sense to wait who knows how long between passing ST9 and qualifying as an associate or fellow before attending such a seminar, because then your ST9 knowledge will probably be very rusty!

I got my firm to foot the seminar bill on the grounds that it was a CPD qualifying event but obviously that's something only applicable to qualifieds. I think that in the years to come some students will find their employers unwilling to foot the bill (£400 currently, more than it costs to sit ST9 itself)and, as a result, some candidates passing ST9 won't ever become CERAs unless they're willing to pay themselves. I doubt the IFoA has given that potential issue much thought.

I'm also rusty on ST9 because I don't work in risk and hadn't until the last few days picked up an ERM textbook or the ActEd notes since last October, but I found Chapter 26 of the notes on economic capital very helpful in preparing the submission for Session 1 on capital allocation. I wouldn't worry about appearing rusty at the seminar as, unless you're one of the minority who work in risk, chances are you won't have thought about ERM since the exam day.

I have to admit that students have it tougher than qualifieds as regards preparing for this seminar. As a student I'm sure I wouldn't have wanted the distraction of having to revisit material from a subject I'd already passed at the same time as studying a new subject or subjects for the next exam session. I know which one of those activities I'd have prioritised too!

 

[didster]

One may get the impression that you think that you deserve to be a CERA now (without the course) with the associated implications of being an expert in risk

in the same breath as

complaining about needing to know some background information for the seminar on the grounds that you don't work in risk and last studied the material over an entire 7 months ago.

I'd be a little wary about such an argument, especially as your justification doesn't get any better over time.

As Simon says it could be worse if you tried to get CERA via the CAS, and if you take the marketing material at face value, the CERA qualification is meant to be more global than any other actuarial qualification in that it is meant to be more the same (than say "fellowship") regardless of the issuing body. In a sense you have a bargain. I won't hold my breadth for the CERA board to allow the IFoA to remove the seminar requirement.

ST9 counts as a check box for FIA just as well without the seminar, doesn't it? The added costs of the seminar etc are for the additional CERA qualification. St1-8 don't come with additional qualifcations either.


[Above comments made with tongue in cheek. /troll]

It appears you got the short end of the stick with the transitional arrangements, though.

 

[14099]

Didster, I accept most of your points and have actually stated (somewhere in my lengthy tirade over several posts!) that I think these seminars are a good idea. My main bugbear is the way the IFoA has handled it, which to a degree I'm willing to forgive as these seminars are a new requirement.

The problem is that this requirement change will create two generations of CERAs, i.e. one who passed ST9 in or before April 2012 and those who passed subsequently. In a sense the latter group will be more 'worthy' of the CERA designation because they will have to go through the seminar, although they (or more likely their employers) will be £400 poorer for the privilege.

You're right that the seminar is only a requirement for the CERA qualification and that an ST9 pass alone is as good a stepping stone towards associateship or fellowship as one in any other ST subject. I suppose the problem is that, when ST9 first came out, the IFoA billed it as a way for already qualifieds to get an extra qualification. Now they, or rather CERA, has raised the bar and the cost by introducing these seminars, this will be a less attractive option, reducing take-up and therefore the (already low) profile of the CERA qualification within the actuarial arena still further in my opinion.

 

[Jlem16]

Jlem16 could you please tell me your studdying strategy since we have very few passing candidates who return to exam forums. There are very few past papers and a lot of text books to read. What was your formula? I've read acted notes and Lam. Now I'm planning on doing the flash cards first then the few past papers.

Thanks.

JayDee, to be honest I was absolutely gobsmacked that I passed! I felt like I needed way more "real-life" knowledge and experience than I had. I had passed all CTs (though was still waiting results when I started ST9), and decided to give ST9 a go even before CA1 which I couldn't really study until the winter session. It seemed slightly foolhardy, but obviously it is possible!

My strategy was to get through the notes as quickly as possible, making notes as I went (so I didn't have to go back and read all the books again!). I read Lam straight though, then started on the ActEd notes, reading each section in the relevant textbooks as they came up. I tried to make a page or two of notes for each chapter, and was quite strict on myself about trying the self-assessment questions and doing the assignments as much as possible under exam conditions (I think I kept my notes with me but did it in time as much as possible). I went to early-ish regular tutorials.

Then I went on a nice three and a half week holiday to Thailand (That was my main reason originally for getting through the course as quickly as possible!). When I got back, end of August, I was straight into revision. I made my own flashcards full of the key points, made heaps of mnemonics and tested myself on them as often as possible. I bought ASET for the first time and did each paper under exam conditions. I went back and read all of the main articles in "The Actuary" that I thought might be relevant (mainly the ones from around Aug/Sept/Oct when the examiners are setting papers ). I made loads of spider diagrams about the main topics and case studies.

Basically I absolutely beasted it, haha. So I am very glad I actually managed to pass it! I think the most important thing I learned is not to get too lost in the detail - loads of the questions I think you could give a fairly good shot at without even having read the notes. So think bigger picture as well as all of the lists etc in the notes.

Hope that helps, sorry for such a mammoth reply! I would have quite liked some guidance too when I started it - nobody in my office had ever studied it before!

Best of luck

 

[Jlem16]

Jlem16, the reason I assumed these seminars were only for qualifieds is that I thought that to be a CERA you had to have:

a) Passed ST9 and (from last October) also attended one of these seminars
b) Already qualified as an associate or fellow

It seems a bit odd to attend what is billed as a 'CERA seminar' and (as I understand it but perhaps I'm wrong) still not be entitled to call yourself CERA after it. Then again it doesn't make much sense to wait who knows how long between passing ST9 and qualifying as an associate or fellow before attending such a seminar, because then your ST9 knowledge will probably be very rusty!

Hi 14099

Yes it does seem slightly crazy (and depressing) to be attending the seminar when I still won't be entitled to call myself CERA for at least another year, and when I am trying to start studying for exams this sitting, but like you say, I didn't want to wait even longer to attend the seminar! Especially as I don't know how often they will be run, or whether I would be able to attend one in the future. So I figured I'd give it a go, and hopefully learn something useful along the way!

Thanks for the advice on the pre-seminar material. I dug into chapter 26 the other day and figured that it was probably that direction we were supposed to be headed in. Going to have another stab at it tonight...

See you there I guess!

 

[td290]

One may get the impression that you think that you deserve to be a CERA now (without the course) with the associated implications of being an expert in risk

in the same breath as

complaining about needing to know some background information for the seminar on the grounds that you don't work in risk and last studied the material over an entire 7 months ago.

I'd be a little wary about such an argument, especially as your justification doesn't get any better over time.

Come on didster. We all know that having letters after your name means you understood all this stuff once upon a time. Do you perhaps put BA, BSc or similar initials after your name? And do you think this carries associated implications that you could retake your finals tomorrow and still pass? If so, you'd be one of a very small minority that could.

 

[14099]

Report back on CERA seminar

I duly attended this event yesterday and thought you'd like to hear what it was like. It was as full-on as a tutorial: lots of interactive sessions with breakout groups followed by reporting back to everyone. From the pre-seminar blurb I received I thought it would be like this. It was a very good event though and I can see why the CERA board decided to introduce it as a requirement. My carping in previous posts has been over the way the IFoA handled this first seminar and some of the anomalies in the transitional arrangements after these seminars were introduced as a requirement, not about the value of the seminar itself.

Good and worthwhile though the seminar was, I have concerns that in the longer term it will put students off sitting ST9 due to the extra cost of attending the seminar (more than it costs to sit the exam), and therefore will hinder the growth in recognition of the CERA designation within the actuarial profession. The IFoA people there yesterday seemed to accept that this was indeed a risk, though one they could do nothing about given CERA's stipulation that the seminar was here to stay, and that they'd have to monitor the situation over the next few years.

Of course there's nothing to stop a student sitting and passing ST9 en route to qualification, never attending the seminar (perhaps due to their employer being unwilling to bear the cost or sanction the time out of the office) and so never becoming a CERA, but surely a major draw of ST9 over other ST subjects is the chance for extra letters after your name. It was for me at least, but then being already qualified my situation was different.

They didn't say when the next seminar would be but my betting would be that they'll be twice yearly, i.e. one per exam sitting.