Solvency II boom

Do you really think companies and recruiters want actuary on the shortage list because they want to pay even more to import expensive Swiss or American actuaries? Do you really think you are doing work that can't be done for a fraction of the pay in a developing country?

Strange how so many still believe this experience bs, it's surprising how forgiving firms are on experience if you're going really cheap! No S2 exp outside EU (think abt it) but they want to recruit from there!

Ps. Recruiters always exaggerate rates to get people to interviews. In my experience usually tell you 25% more than what they told the firm.

 

That's right I was making quite a few points in general.

 

I think lack of UK experience is a barrier to entry in the UK. UK actuaries are more competative on the UK market.
Also, if SII is a driver of demand on the market, why would companies want to bring actuaries working outside of the EU thus having limited SII exposure and experience?

Well it seems they've told the govt they can't manage without non-EU actuaries... hence why actuary is now on the list.

 

well to be honest, there is no reason to put actuaries on the shortage list in the uk only for the purpose to import skilled actuaries from outside of the eu...


there is plenty of actuaries in the eu and they have more relevant experience than the non-eu....

 

recruiters got extra job and extra money because of it....

companies became more picky and selective...

yes, I think actuaries from outside of the EU will have limited knowledge and expousure to S2

 

Well quite.

Having read the report form the migration advisory committee http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/workingwithus/mac/skilled-shortage-sensible/

- it seems they advised the govt they need to go outside the EU to find staff as Solvency 2 affects everyone in the EU. Well, I can't believe things are that bad! But if they are, then surely the situation is as bad for all other companies all over the EU so the right thing to do is for the EU to delay the implementation of S2 as has already been hinted many times.

But being put on the list doesn't just mean they can only bring in qualified actuaries for S2 work, that project is not specified as a restriction.

I think being put on the list is a very significant development for this profession with potentially adverse ramifications for our careers and prosperity. Why?- as we can be undercut by the new competition for UK jobs as has happened in other parts of our society. Of course, some recruiters will be very happy with this for obvious reasons.

Personally I don't feel consulted about it and think some vested interests have had too much say and are using S2 as an excuse to recruit from outside EU to make cost savings or ramp up commissions.

Furthemore, I am very cross that the profession simultaneously charges Brits more than overseas people for subscription and actuary training... then now allows them to compete for our jobs over here too. Call me old fashioned but I don't find it acceptable for us to be subsidising competition for our jobs ? I just think we should put our own people first and deal with shortages by training more of our young people in advance rather than import actuaries from some countries who may need their actuaries more than us.

 

Well, you're not the one trying to recruit senior actuaries. As for delaying SII implementation, that is simply not going to happen.

Recruiters are paid based on a percentage of salary/rate, and are most heavily used when there is a supply/demand mismatch. Overseas recruitment is not neccesarily a good thing for them.

You're talking about one of the most demanding professions there is in terms of qualification and experience required. I would suggest your biggest risk is from the changing nature of the profession as a whole, not a few experienced actuaries being recruited from Australia, South Africa, and the US - which is what this is.

Lastly, you seem to think that the profession can if it chooses keep a lid on the supply of candidates. You need to realise that for many jobs done by junior actuaries, you could recruit smart school leavers and pay them little more than minimum wage. The number of roles which are reserved by law to qualified actuaries is absolutely tiny. Either we as a profession deliver the quantity and quality of personnel that the industry requires or it will go elsewhere.

 

"Recruiters are paid based on a percentage of salary/rate, and are most heavily used when there is a supply/demand mismatch. Overseas recruitment is not neccesarily a good thing for them."

Then tell me why a prominent actuarial recruiter has been lobbying the government since 2006 to put actuaries on the list? O know this as they recently emailed the world with a smug 'mission accomplished' email? Only money makes recruiters that happy! Watch them fill their databases with all these new candidates from less developed countries who are keen to move here and would work for less than you!

 

Because like all sales-driven organisations they're rubbing their hands with glee at the six-month bonanza they're about to get their hands on. I doubt they've looked beyond this to work out what their business plan is once the current backlog gets cleared.

As for them driving down salaries: [citation required]. Where is the evidence that opening up a highly skilled profession to migrants, where the local market cannot fill posts, actually drives down salaries?

 

Citation required? Read the MAC report. Says there putting actuary on the list will ease the wage inflation. Also read up on supply demand theories and what's happened in other parts of the economy. Plus if there are posts in S2 that can't be filled (doubt it myself) then the list does not restrict to S2 posts only, so they'll be allowed to import labour for any qual actuary job!

 

I seriously doubt that the imported actuaries will take away the jobs from the UK actuaries. How are the imported actuaries better for the UK market? People from outside of the EU can only compete for lower wages....as they lack UK experience. Any UK actuary is going to be preferred due to better communication, culture fit etc. Why are you so worried?

 

I'm worried because already in Insurance the call centres, admin, business analysis and IT departments have already been affected by this sort of thing, is actuary next? These folks also thought culture, communication etc would protect them but no, money talks.

Sure we have the protection of exams behind us... but people can now do these at half price in developing nations and now the UK job market door has been made open to them too!

 

I suppose it's a valid concern but globalisation is only going to become more prevalent.

Cartel like behaviour isn't going to work forever. There are limited areas where an Actuary is needed. If the profession doesn't adapt, evolve and continue to market ways we can add value, then other "professionals" will take over, not just foreign actuaries. Trying to restrict supply isn't a long term approach (by this logic we could stop promoting new membership to protect interests of exisiting actuaries, which isn't a good idea).

While there are areas where UK employees add value above non-uk people (eg UK experience), I'd find it hard to justify additional pay simply as a sole result of where you're born.

BTW, you have to live in a developing nation to get the discount, where you (almost always) earn less so it isn't that much of an advantage as you make it out to be.

 

Well didster, when it's time to move aside for this 'inevitable' course of events, then you're more than welcome to be first in line.

 

If you are displeased at actuaries being put on the shortage list, then you can complain about the migration advisory committe's decision and handling of the matter here:-

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/aboutus/contact/contactspage/?item=238965

Home Secretary is on mayt@parliament.uk

 

The question should be how was it determined that there is a shortage in the UK? And at what level there is a shortage?

 

Very good question. That MAC report seems to quote submissions from the profession and PWC only? First criticism is that the MAC have not consulted widely enough, or considered submissions from anyone who disagrees about a shortage ?! Second criticism is why it doesn't restrict for S2 posts if S2 is the reason cited for shortage. Thirdly, it doesn't restrict to short term vacancies given S2 burden is temporary. Fourthly, do the MAC really question whether those asking for occupations on the list have a vested interest?

Also from seeing other occupations put on the list eg social workers, secondary school biology teachers, special needs teachers, then in my view it doesn't seem to take much to convince the MAC. I'm just as stunned we have a shortage in those areas given how many people including graduates are on benefits in this country.

I do think the profession ought to be fully accountable and thorough to its members as to its stance on this matter, when there are serious concerns about the impact of this on our careers. I also encourage people to contact the Institute for answers, as this is too important to be passed by.