Do you enjoy your job?

I am working as an actuarial trainee at a pensions consultancy doing mainly triennial and annual valuations, and to be honest I am so bored. The work involves no thinking or mathematics. I enjoy studying and the subjects that we have to study. I have passed CT1, 2, 3 and 7, and sat 4 and 5, and did honestly enjoy them, but I find the actual work I have to do although may be based on these, requires none of this knowledge. Does anyone else find this with their jobs? Did anyone else find this at first but their jobs got more interesting? I'm not sure if I need to stick with it, change company or change job.

 

I'd say little of my job (life reporting) directly relates to work in the exams but the odd bit has come up. Use of the concepts rather than the detail is the rule rather than the exception from what I know.

It depends how long you've been working though. If you're a month or 2 in then I'd say stick it out. If you're 6 months to a year then you may want to start rethinking things.

My thoughts are that the first month or so may not be the most interesting but your boss needs to find out what you're capable of and how you work. You're going to be the newest and/or the least experienced member of your team and you may get more of the boring jobs (such is life).

This should change assuming you do good work and get familiar with things. If you're in a job for a while and it doesn't change then you either need to start looking for more advanced work or consider moving company/sector.

It's quite possible that pensions consultancy just isn't for you, so it's better to try and sort the problem than stick with something you don't enjoy.

And yes, I enjoy my job to answer that part of the question..

 

In my experience, the later exams are far more relevant to your actual work than the earlier ones. It's hard to give advice on what must always be a personal decision but there are two questions I would be inclined to ask:

1. Are you learning? You may be being given some fairly formulaic tasks, especially at first, but are you also being invited to meetings where higher-level considerations are discussed? That way you will pick up some important ideas and maybe come out with a few good questions to ask.
2. Can you see someone doing stuff you want to do? I work in non-life capital modelling. It wasn't the first thing I did. I started out in reserving and that was OK, but I could see people who were doing capital work and knew that was what I wanted to do. I started being quite vocal about this and eventually got my opportunity and, yes, I do enjoy it.

My guess is you're part way through your second year. You'd be justified in making a switch fairly soon if you wanted to. You might find a non-consultancy environment more to your liking. You wouldn't have to complete a timesheet for one thing!

 

Having worked in Pensions, Investments/ALM and GI personal lines retail pricing, the most technical, model-heavy and mathematical is GI retail pricing. The major difference is that

• In pensions valuation high level technical decisions do not change regularly so little modelling is required. It is very long term, making monitoring, modelling and assumptions redevelopment also long term and less frequent
• In investment, there is more modelling but lots of subjective judgement in applying it in the real world which limits the extent of the model influence. This is partly to do with the future, in terms of investment returns, being difficult to predict...vis-a-vis Efficient market hypothesis
• Whilst in GI pricing particularly retail pricing (demand modelling) you have to develop or re-develop models every 1 to 2 months since experience is monitored month by month. The future is easier to predict using models so there is less subjective judgement

So for me the most mathematical and technical is GI retail pricing.

 

Thanks for your advice everyone. You are correct that I am part way through my 2nd year, so I'm going to look at switching from pensions. Thanks

 

I've been having a quick look around, and I'm not sure what I should be applying for. Coz I would be looking at going into an area which I don't have experience in, so should I apply for entry level. Or should I apply for part qualified, but they do all seem to want experience. I don't mind taking a pay cut for something I would enjoy more, as the salary would build back up again, but I don't think they would want someone with 4 (potentially 6) exam passes for a graduate role??

 

At you stage I would just get in touch with the bigger recruitment firms directly, explain your situation and what you want and let them do the legwork.

 

I think your exams passes will be the bigest bonus, if u decide to change....I mean think abt it this way...if you're a manager interviewing prospective candidates, will u rather have someone who already knows how to navigate his way through the tricky exams or somebody new??

I entered the actuarial field as a late starter, after working initially as a Highways Traffic modeller for 5 yrs, I had 2 exams passes, and I think that was a bonus.

I initially started in Reserving, then moved to GI Pricing, and I can honestly tell u that GI Pricing is alot more exciting for somebody who likes modelling like yourself. I don't think u'll be bored at all in GI Pricing.

 

I have more than a decade experience in Actuary and I found the lack of mathematics and application of exam material to persist for all this time. When I see how the Profession sells itself to graduates it makes me angry. Sure, they want mathematical people but they oversell the use of maths in the career. Sure you need it in the exams but in the workplace? Mostly not.

Another thing people need to remember is that, mostly, it's very hard to get the experience you want. Others control what you do. Sure you can ask to move to a different area or apply for jobs elsewhere but it's not easy. Years ago I wanted to do Prophet programming and they kept promising to move me onto intense Prophet work but 2 years later they kept making me do their dull spreadsheet work. Just got to accept that people will lie to you in this world, sadly.

This is why I find it so blatantly unfair when you apply for jobs and they complain you don't have the 'right' or 'appropriate' experience. They don't seem to appreciate that you've been a success in what you have done, or that the work you've done is what you've been asked to do and that managers have the power to decide what you do not you.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Hiring managers also like cheap people. Lack of exams is a great way to pay people, or the same ability, less.

 

How you can be in the profession for ten years and write such an ungrammatical sentence I don't know. I don't wish to get personal but frankly, you're not shy of taking a swipe at everything and everyone but yourself.

You are clearly not enjoying the career. Whether that is because of unrealistic expectations or whatever, I don't know, but I suggest you either start playing the same game as everyone else if you actually want to get what you feel you deserve, or you should move on. And if you complain like this to prospective employers, it's no wonder you don't get anywhere.

 

Couldnt have said it better myself Calum!

 

Congratulations to you for finding one little example. Of course you're not being personal, I can tell.

 

What does playing the same game mean exactly?

The general issue I have is that the Profession is being marketed in a way that doesn't coincide with people's experiences once they're in it. The previous discussion on use of maths in the job is one example. Maybe you enjoy being mis-sold things but many of us don't.

 

I don't actually. I do what everyone else does, playing the game as you might call it. I put on that professional smile and tell the prospective employer how interested I am in working for their boring insurance company, how I've geared my life towards such an honour, and how interesting and unique I find their website and their products and their company goals... despite the fact they sound exactly like the other company I interviewed with the day before.

The mickey mouse interviews nowadays are very intellectually stimulating. I particularly enjoy being asked to do numerical tests. Just because one has passed zillions of actuarial exams by our respected profession and have years of being stuck into spreadsheets and programming doesn't mean we're any good with numbers, oh no! These numerical tests are a must.

 

I feel like I having the experience that the Profession is marketing.

The standard of the exams results in working with intellectual professionals. It also keeps my salary high! Not very many people manage to get through the exams without the ability to do their job relatively well. My job is challenging and I get stretched on a daily (if not weekly) basis.

In a different profession, without the difficult exams and changing nature of the job, I would be thoroughly bored.

If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen!

 

I have more than a decade experience in Actuary and I found the lack of mathematics and application of exam material to persist for all this time. When I see how the Profession sells itself to graduates it makes me angry. Sure, they want mathematical people but they oversell the use of maths in the career. Sure you need it in the exams but in the workplace? Mostly not.

Hello, Most workplaces contribute to mathematical atrophy. You learn about the office politics, how to deal with archaic IT and "issues" instead. In a certain life office qualified actuaries recorded CPD for a talk given in-house on matrix multiplication. I guess the only way out is to start 6 to 11 doing something else after your 9 -5.

 

Whilst I think that sometime mpyan1 goes a little overboard in his negativity towards the profession I think he does have some good points regarding the exams.

I think that the exams probably started out with the best of intentions, the Institute needed some way of regulating those joining the profession to ensure that they have a broad foundation in the matters relevant to actuaries. I reckon that over the years this motive has changed, I now see the exams as a way of regulating the brand of the profession. They're not difficult exams, but they're hard enough so that lots of people fail. Enough of these failures add credibility to the profession with lots of people telling stories of how hard the exams are blah blah blah.

In my experience, actuaries are not the smartest chaps in the room (but they like to think so). I object to the way in which moving between industries is hampered by experience, especially considering the very simple maths/concepts behind lots of actuarial work.

As far as enjoying my job. It's OK. I wouldn't say that I am stimulated much and I am very fearful that the most interesting projects I could do in it are behind me. I think that actuaries need to develop their managing skills more (take some blinkin' courses) as my experience so far is that they are not very good at managing their staff.

 

Thanks for your reply. In my view CPD is just a cash-flow excuse for the Profession of little value to members or employers.

 

You Will Be Robust!

Brilliant answer, let me add.

Professions also can be Barbelled;-something very safe then something very speculative and highly risky

On the one hand an anxiety free profession with few intellectual demands and high job security and salary, the kind of low risk job that ceases to exist when you leave the office. On the other hand a sinecure-cum-activity with a double dose of randomess and the freedom to do whatever one wants to do and at their own spare-time, usually what one finds most interesting and valuable.

I understand what you saying mpayn1, infact I agree with you and I spoke with a friend recently about this. To discover why Actuaries aren't the smartest profession even though people think we are, just consider how specialized our domain is.

Interview a random MBA graduate about any simple global topic, then go on and interview an Actuary. So my advise to you is see if you can't trade derivatives as a side activity during your free time, then be an Actuary during the day. You will get a guaranteed high salary from your Actuarial job (preferably make sure you qualify as an Actuary) and a lot of boredom during the day, then once you leave the office, you are free to think about what you want and find interesting...in this case, the markets, volatility, randomness, opacity, Mathematics (Monte Carlo methods, Black Scholes etc) you will be challenged to the brink of insanity and you will have a good sleep. Then see how you can bring skills from one end to another.

Solution to pinkpoodel2820's problem;-

BARBELL, Actuary during the day, trader (or something similar you find interesting) at night i.e during your free time. YOU WILL BE ROBUST!

 

I think this is the compromise many come to with regards to Actuary jobs, also other jobs in insurance companies or other office jobs.

They think fine, this doesn't really interest me anymore, it doesn't make great use of my educational efforts, there's a lack of meritocracy here, it's not what I was sold when I was an ambitious graduate etc. BUT I'm here now so I'll just pick up the cash and amuse myself more outside working hours.

For some that might be studying Black Scholes, for others sports, music, religion or arts, others may turn to drink and drugs and other vices, or a combination of all these things.

The main problem I'm finding as I get older is that Actuarial experience and qualifications are very restrictive for any non-actuarial job and it doesn't allow many options to create work for yourself, so you are always reliant on insurance companies recruiting and investing in projects or expanding.

When I compare to other Professions I might have gone into it is lacking in this regard. Take teaching for example. If I was a qualified teacher and couldn't get a job in a school, you can still set yourself up as a tutor. As an Actuary what could you do? I've seen people become recruitment agents perhaps, or work for Acted, but what else?