What do people think is the future for pensions actuaries? This is actually something I explicitly asked a pensions actuary during an interview I had for a graduate trainee position with Aon (unfortunately I was unsuccessful), and his answer was that there would still be a significant demand for them in the future. He cited reasons such as new legislation which would require significant actuarial involvement to implement, and the fact that pension schemes take years to wind up, as to why the future is still fairly bright for pensions actuaries. I have heard, though, from other sources that the future in pensions for actuaries is actually rather bleak. Which assessment of the situation do you agree with? If most companies do finish up converting to Defined Contributions Schemes, will there not still be a demand for actuaries, or do DC schemes require far less actuarial involvement than DB schemes? Forgive my ignorance, but I still haven’t managed to secure an actuarial trainee position and I’m predominantly interested in going into the consultancy aspect of actuarial work. I realise that there are opportunities in consultancy to work in Life or General, but these roles are even harder to obtain given the smaller number available.
As a pensions actuary who has moved to GI you could say I'm biased but I'd lean more towards the "future is bleak" side....(note comments might be a few years out of date - sure someone will correct me if so) there has been a lot of legislation coming through that requires considerable actuarial work in the short-term. However as I see it the aim of the legislation is to simplyfy the pensions landscape (not saying whether it will achieve this) - so long-term I would expect there to be less work. Definitely true - but from my experience I would say that run-off schemes are extremely boring to look after. That's definitely not to say there probably won't still be interesting pension jobs out there in the future - M&A work etc. I would say that consultancy work in pensions vs consultancy work in GI/Life are quite different in my experience - the key point being pensions consultancy clients are almost all not experts (trustees etc.) whereas GI/Life consultancy clients are (actuaries, UWs etc.). I'm not saying which is better - just that they are likely to be very different experiences - so choose which you think you would prefer
a couple of previous discussions: http://www.acted.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=214 http://www.acted.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=94
I'm also in the moved from pensions to general insurance category. My reasons for moving were a) pensions are boring and require little maths beyond GCSE level b) I felt more like a pensions lawyer than a pensions actuary c) future looked bleak (wake up call was when colleagues got made redundant at Mercer a few year ago)
Thanks for the inputs so far, it’s been very interesting. I am now in two minds as to what my preference area actually is. That said, irrespective of what area I was offered a graduate actuarial trainee position in, I would accept it in a millisecond because I still don’t actually have a job yet. I have had 5 interviews and got through to 3 assessment centres, but unfortunately I’ve never made it past the final hurdle. I am actually in a perpetual state of disbelief regarding my job situation. It has become a never ending nightmare to say the very least. I guess the reason I am so interested in going into consultancy is because of the varied nature of the work and the opportunity to travel and visit clients. How does being an actuary in GI consultancy compare to being one in pensions? What are the issues facing the GI world now too? I am trying to do as much research as possible in an attempt to improve my success in obtaining a job. Thanks for any information.
I, too, came from a pensions consulting background and switched to GI. Very different. Much more interesting. There was a good article in "The Actuary" in the last year, by the way, on the future of pensions actuaries that you may want to look up. Don't have the link, but maybe someone else has. In terms of two of your reasons for working at a consultancy (travel and seeing clients), don't get your hopes up. Firstly: you are likely to have very little client exposure in your early years. Secondly: it's overrated, anyway. Thirdly: in terms of the travel, this can be minimal. Fourthly: Work travel isn't fun AT ALL. Forget business class, it's no fun when you have a presentation to give etc. and no time for viewing any more than the inside of your hotel room. Although I am extremely happy working for a consultancy, I would advise you not to be seduced by the perceived glamour: at the end of the day, you're still a cubicle monkey with lots of paper on your desk, as you would be in any job. As long as you're aware of that reality, you won't be disappointed. You're right, though, with regard to variety of work. Also, they tend to be good places to train, offering good study support and the prestige of a decent brand name for future career moves.
Thanks for that brief insight into life as an actuarial consultant. Vis-à-vis your first reason, this is undeniable, and also depends to an extent on the company. I, now, luckily have an interview with a small actuarial consulting firm that actually promises client exposure at a relatively early stage. So hopefully, it won't be all that bad. I think that having client exposure would also increase my confidence and improve my communication skills, more so than just working in an office. With regards to your fourth reason, I guess a substantial amount of it is subjective. I have spoken to a couple of people who had travelled extensively in their careers and heard slightly conflicting views. No doubts about it though, that is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea. I happen to love travelling though, but have never experienced the work/travel aspect. There's no better way to find out about it than from someone who has done it, like you. I will certainly bear your comments in mind. Essentially, it all boils down to the fact whether the pros outweigh the cons. There is only way to find out, and I sincerely hope I get that opportunity. This company that I have an interview for specialise in investment as well as pensions, so not matter how bleak the future is in pensions, I won't hopefully have limited my career options too much. What are people's views on investment actuaries?
