Certified Actuarial Analyst

[Gamma.alpha.lambda]

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?

 

[tiger]

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.

 

[tatos]

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..

 

[LazyLinePainterJane]

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"

 

[Anna Walklate]

It's a completely separate qualification - a bit like the AAT accountancy qualification. Don't worry - I don't think there will be many people who mix the two up!

Details are still somewhat up in the air, but here are the current plans:

Module 0 - This will be based around ActEd's FAC and Statspack

Module 1 - Finance and Financial Mathematics (CT1 and a small amount of CT2)

Module 2 - Statistics and Models (CT3, CT4 and a tiny bit of CT6)

Module 3 - Long-term Actuarial Mathematics (CT5)

Module 4 - Short-term Actuarial Mathematics (CT6)

Module 5 - Models and Audit Trails (CA2)

While much of the material will be the same (and probably similar to the Core Reading for the existing CTs), the focus will be taken off "deriving and applying" and put on to "defining and using".

We understand that these modules will be targeted at students who have just finished their A-levels, rather than those who have degrees.

Transition between this qualification and the existing CTs is currently unclear. It is thought that you will be able to convert your existing CTs for the new qualification (at least, for a temporary period of time), however I don't believe there will be a way of converting from the new qualification to the CTs. Not yet anyway. This may depend on demand and the development of a suitable "conversion course" ...

Examination methods may also be different, eg computer-based assessment.

I think LazyLinePainterJane has a point that there are definitely people who would benefit from this qualification. I don't think it will have much effect on people who decide to take the conventional route to fellowship (other than the fact that the people who they delegate their work to will be actuarially educated, even if they're not taking the CT/CA/ST/SA route!)

 

[John Lee]

If anyone is interested in taking the Certified Actuarial Analyst exam then details can be found on our website:

http://www.bppacted.com/

I'm creating a YouTube video shortly for those who prefer having someone explain it to them...

 

[bapan]

The Institute has published details of exemption arrangement.

You can access that here.

 

[John Lee]

I've created a quick YouTube videos on the CAA and how it compares to the Fellowship route.

Hope you find them helpful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKWUE06vdUg

 

[Cedrick]

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?

 

[John Lee]

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?

Graduates are expensive, analysts are cheaper. So there may be a demand for employing cheaper people to do the crunching...

 

[Geraldine]

Graduates are expensive, analysts are cheaper. So there may be a demand for employing cheaper people to do the crunching...

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

 

[John Lee]

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

That's a very worrying thought...

 

[Calum]

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.

 

[Geraldine]

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!

 

[Calum]

limit new recruits to university graduates with numerate degrees and who are willing to take the CAA route given study support.

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.

 

[Cedrick]

Offshoring Spreadsheets

Graduates are expensive, analysts are cheaper. So there may be a demand for employing cheaper people to do the crunching...

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.

 

[mpyan1]

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.

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.

 

[mpyan1]

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???

 

[John Lee]

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 think you are a little confused. The announcement for annuities was from the chancellor was done without consultation with the Profession. Post the announcement the Profession has issued a number of statements. What you see in the Media is what those outlets deem important and at the moment anything that gives people money is considered more important than people warning them of the consequences.

There isn't a decline in the UK. The new CAA qualification was developed for the Apprenticeship route in the UK and to meet demand from students/employers as I understand.

 

[mpyan1]

I think you are a little confused. The announcement for annuities was from the chancellor was done without consultation with the Profession. Post the announcement the Profession has issued a number of statements.

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.

 

[John Lee]

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

Try the news section on the Profession's website - there were three press releases posted in March on this.

Also actuarial post had comments on this, and I found numerous articles on the BBC website though they chose to take comments from L&G and other annuity providers direct.

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

I'm very confused - I presume you're on these forums because you are studying to be an actuary. In which case you'll know that rates are low because of the low interest rate environment that we have experienced for over 10 years and increasing longevity.

However the issue (as mentioned in the many press releases) was that people didn't shop around for rates but just took it from their pension provider which may not have always been the best deal. Therefore there was a need to help individuals to shop around on this financial product like they do on all other forms of insurance.