How are smaller companies viewed?

I've been offered an entry level role at a smaller P/C reinsurance firm in London(about £1bill GWP per year) and I'm a little hesitant to accept because of its size. I'm aspiring to gain some experience in a large consulting firm (ie big 4, willis, etc) before I qualify and while this particular role will include pricing, reserving and capital modelling, I'm unsure about how the large consultancies will view this experience when I try to move to one after about 2-3 years. This may be complete naivety on my part though so I'd like to get some advise?

 

Being in a smaller company means typically you can be more involved and potentially see and learn more in terms of breadth of experience than with consultancy. Also consultancies do work for smaller firms so I don't see this as a negative at all.

 

I don't think this is necessarily true all the time. My first job was at small company and I worked there for just over 5 years whilst getting close to qualification. Yes, you're exposed to a lot within the space that you're in, but that's part of the problem - i.e. the space itself can be fairly confined. So even though you're taking care of projects from start to end and having to consider and communicate with a much wider range of stakeholders than you might do if you're in a large company and have fairly structured, defined roles, you're somewhat handicapped by what sorts of problems and tasks you might tackle. I would further disagree in that, if you actually worked in a large consultancy (as opposed to merely working in a large insurance company for example), you're almost certain to be exposed to a very wide range of tasks. You'll have different clients to work with and they'll all have different needs and tasks to be completed. I would think that a large consultancy provides the best opportunity for varied work.

Also, there may not be enough data always to carry out the sorts of tasks that you would typically expect actuarial analysts / graduates to get well acquainted with. (On the other hand, that sometimes means that you need to look at things in an unconventional way, which can perhaps lead to some innovative thinking.)

The other big negative I experienced was that there wasn't a solid mentor-ship plan. Sometimes in smaller companies you could be one of a few student actuarial analysts and perhaps there's a qualified actuary who's leading the team. In more extreme cases there are only students and in the most extreme, you may be the only actuarial employee. Whatever the case, the point is that you've got fewer people who've "been there and done that" to learn from. And depending on your situation, that can slow your own progress down.

Indeed, when you try to move, you'll probably be applying for a mid-to-senior analyst type of role. Potential interviewers might identify your lack of breadth (lack of exposure to products, lack of typical actuarial analysis, lack of experience in judgement with regards to the analysis you'll be expected to perform at large companies) and if their clients are large insurers etc. that might just end up working against you. This happened with me - I felt that I'd had good pricing experience only to realise ultimately that it really was quite different to what gets done by actuaries in big companies, and that was because of not having sufficient internal data and concentrating on a few products for much too long at the start of my career. So instead of moving up to a next level, I'd almost practically found myself moving into a second entry-level position (thankfully at a big company).

 

When I was talking about breadth, I was referring to mixing with non actuarial colleagues and so getting a firm commercial understanding of what is happening in that organisation.
Totally agree on the support front, it can be less than in consultancies, but likewise, there is less pressure on exam results. Speed to qualification isn't everything and I think sometimes a sensible pace to career and exam progression is better.
It has to be your decision. Do you hold out and potentially not get offered a consultancy role now or take this and get some real experience under your belt? Only you know what other applications you have pending and the likelihood your dream is likely in the timeframe you want.
Getting a foot on the ladder is often the hardest thing you will ever do.
I wish you well in your decision making and actuarial career

 

Benefits of a smaller company imo is both breadth and depth of work you get. Greater responsibility. Closer to the decision makers. Less levels so easier to try out and do more innovative things, less likely to here "this is the way we do it here". There's politics in every workplace but larger places more likely to be more political. I'd definitely rather work in an SME than a big giant vampire squid. I just imagine in a big company or consultancy at the student level you'll be pigeonholed and doing the same repetitive and easy tasks over and over e.g. scrub the data then pass on to real actuaries to produce the model or carry out the sensitivity testing of the actuaries' models (whilst passing your exams and earning decent money for it, that wouldn't be any different). Plenty of crappy actuarial jobs out there and dare I say it, plenty of second rate uninspiring qualifieds. Trust me I keep abreast of the market which means fairly half hearted interviewing and this is what I've seen.