General Debate about Institute/ Faculty.

[veeko]

Is there any reason why we have 2 bodies regulating the actuarial professsion in this country i.e. why do we the Institute and Faculty? Wouldn't it be better to have just one merged regulating body, since their functions are effectively the same.

Another question I'd like to pose is: why did the CT series subjects have to have such a different form following the new education strategy which came about because of the Morris Review? Fair enough, the introduction of CT9 the Business Awareness Module seemed a good justification, but for other subjects like CT4. Is there any specific reason why the old 103 and 104 should be combined? Seems that the previous system was better. Also, moving Time Series to CT6 doesn't seem like a fair justification. Time Series assumes knowledge from Stochastic Processes and was better off in conjunction with that. The whole of CT6 seems to flow well about the technical stuff in GI, but as soon as you reach Time Series it seems like this flow has stopped.

Last but not least - why are the subscription fees for joining the Profession quite high? (Fair enough, your employer may cover this for you, but one will only realise the cost if it came out of your own pocket!). A reason that this seems to be the case is because those in the UK subsidise the overseas fees. Does this seem fair??
Should we actually be getting more from the Institute/ Faculty for the rates that we pay (apart from 11 copies of The Actuary magazine every year)? If so, what more can the Institute/ Faculty offer us? For all we know, this could just be a subtle way to reduce the deficit in their pension scheme!!!

 

[Gareth]

the IOA/FOA sponsor a lot of research and employ a lot of people, I don't think the fees are worse than other professional bodies?

Personally, I think the new CT exams are easier than the 100 series, especially with the toning down of the 103 material (who recalls Levy processes and complex expectations...)

 

[Dha]

"moving Time Series to CT6 doesn't seem like a fair justification. Time Series assumes knowledge from Stochastic Processes and was better off in conjunction with that. The whole of CT6 seems to flow well about the technical stuff in GI, but as soon as you reach Time Series it seems like this flow has stopped.
"

Time series doesn't fit in with the whole general insurance theme of the rest of the course alright, but the topic is all about statistics, so from a technical point of view, it fits in fine. You don't really need any knowledge of stochastic processes to study the time series material. In the system before the the 100 series, subject C2 had much the same syllabus as CT6 has now (i.e. time series and general insurance statistics).

 

[olly]

If so, what more can the Institute/ Faculty offer us? For all we know, this could just be a subtle way to reduce the deficit in their pension scheme!!!

I believe this issue was addressed in an issue of the Actuary about 8-12 months or so ago when the Institute took the decision to almost double the subs. They cited the factors of increased time and cost spent on reviewing procedures and guidance notes as a result of the Morris review and snowballing pensions legislation. If I remember correctly they also admitted to significantly increased pension Scheme costs which had to be met out of subs.

 

[jeaneu]

Is there any reason why we have 2 bodies regulating the actuarial professsion in this country i.e. why do we the Institute and Faculty? Wouldn't it be better to have just one merged regulating body, since their functions are effectively the same.

Apparently (so I've been told), if the Institute and Faculty were to combine, the combined regulatory body would be based in London.

Apparently, the Scottish don't like that idea.....