PDA

View Full Version : PD Waiver


Farmer Mac
03-28-2006, 11:39 AM
I have credit for 1-4, 6, 8. If I pass 7 and the modules 1-5 + FAP Exam 1, I should be eligible to complete PD to get credit for CSP.

Otherwise I am getting really screwed. I know I've been a bit vehement in previous posts, but this is really outrageous. I don't know what else to do.

Its a shame so few are in my position, otherwise we could hopefully convince the SOA of our situation. I am afraid of Exam CSP under a new format. I have very limited time and I can't afford to take an exam this size multiple times until they figure out what they want.

This conversion is such a shame for me. Be thankful you are not in my position.

Kel
03-30-2006, 07:48 AM
My coworker and I are in the same boat as you. We are writing to the SOA to see if they will grant us a "PD waiver". All the SOA needs to do is back-convert the FAP modules 1-5 into Course 5, and then we're golden. I'd suggest writing to them as well. There's strength in numbers!

wooHoo
03-30-2006, 09:35 AM
I have credit for 1-4, 6, 8. If I pass 7 and the modules 1-5 + FAP Exam 1, I should be eligible to complete PD to get credit for CSP.



Why?

Old system - Preliminary Exams, Course 5 and 6 to ASA, Course 7, Course 8 and PD
New System - Preliminary exams, FAP Modules to ASA, FSA Modules + CSP + DP for fellowship.

Under old system, you could not take PD until you were done with 1-8.

Due to transition, people who have old transition credits, can do PD earlier.
Due to a course 8 snafus people who sat this time can start PD earlier.

PD under the transition maps to CSP/ DP. You chose to do course 8 which gets out of one of those exams. You also chose to do models. Had instead of taking course 8 last fall you could have taken course 5. Then you would have 1-6 (assuming you passed), take course 8 next fall, then PD and you would be done. You had that option but decided to take course 8. (this is assuming you took course 8 this past fall)

Farmer Mac
03-30-2006, 10:35 AM
Here I respectfully disagree.

Under the old system we would need 5 and PD for our FSA.
Under the new system we need Modules 1-5, FAP Exam #1 (this process takes about 400 hours) and Exam CSP (difficulty of a C8).

I felt it was better to take Course 8 last fall instead of C5 to leave myself two attempts at this monster - you never know what will go wrong (e.g., family member death, bad sitting, extraneous factors). As an aside, I was proud of myself for buckling down and passing 6 and 8 in the same year (passing at this rate is rare for me), but unfortunately it did not help much.

We have it the hardest because we will have to take 9 exams to become an FSA (two of which are at the Course 8 level). To me something should be done to assist us. I feel allowing the few of us unfortunate enough to find ourselves in this situation to do PD is fair in this situation.

JJ_Franch
03-30-2006, 11:03 AM
I have credit for 1-4, 6, 8. If I pass 7 and the modules 1-5 + FAP Exam 1, I should be eligible to complete PD to get credit for CSP.

Otherwise I am getting really screwed. I know I've been a bit vehement in previous posts, but this is really outrageous. I don't know what else to do.

Its a shame so few are in my position, otherwise we could hopefully convince the SOA of our situation. I am afraid of Exam CSP under a new format. I have very limited time and I can't afford to take an exam this size multiple times until they figure out what they want.

This conversion is such a shame for me. Be thankful you are not in my position.

What you are suggesting will discriminate against me and the people who didn't give themselves a second chance at 8 and instead went after 5. Regardless, I feel for you. I don't thing you will go anywhere with what you are proposing. I think a better approach is to argue that anyone with 7 exams under the old system should deserve PD waiver immediately. This is a lot more equitable. If a person has 3 upper level exams, that will guarantee at least 2 hard 5 1/2 hour exams were passed which makes adding 6 1/2 hour exam to it "outrageous"! So, if we are going to complain, lets complain as a group, not just looking at you particular circumstances, and ask that everyone with 7 exams under the old system receives PD waiver!

wooHoo
03-30-2006, 11:05 AM
Yes, but you knew the rules coming in. You made a decision based on those rules. Yes, it is not ideal for you but that is the way the SOA has decided to go. Perhaps your request is legitimate but the transition rules are just that - transition rules. You are trying to match old and new requirements. (e.g. get an FSA under the old system, except use Modules 1-5 and FAP Exam #1 instead of course 5). My understanding was that the transition is not a two way street.

wooHoo
03-30-2006, 11:12 AM
FWIW- The US pension people generally take two extra exams. and under the new system, those exams are required.

asdfasdf
03-30-2006, 11:16 AM
woohoo - you're really a buzzkill, why?

twig93
03-30-2006, 12:03 PM
I agree that with the transition being phased in so slowly, the credits should move both backward or forward. But they don't. So for example, my coworker will have 1-4, 6 and FAP1, but that will not equate to an ASA under either system, so she will have to get FAP2 or Course 8 before she can be an ASA - one more exam than most people need to have. Similarly, she will not be eligible for Course 7 (doesn't qualify for the experience waiver) with that sequence of exams - even though she's got 6 exams. She sat for Course 5 this last time but failed, so it's not like she wasn't trying to move in the right direction. Believe me, LOTS of people are getting screwed by this transition!

I'd be very surprised if the SoA backed down from their unreasonable stance.

wooHoo
03-30-2006, 12:23 PM
woohoo - you're really a buzzkill, why?

I don't like that people are saying they are "getting screwed". There was more than enough time pre-transition to prepare for the situation at hand.

I am not debating whether the rules are fair but that is the rules that were established and the rules that everyone is playing with. There will be winners and losers under transition. I guess I am lucky that I had both 100 and 110 at the 2000 transition.

asdfasdf
03-30-2006, 01:08 PM
Yeah.... you realize that the rules WEREN'T decided at conversion, they have been changed since then, if the rules hadn't changed for this special waiver I wouldn't complain because then what you're saying would be true. BUT the rules changed because the SOA screwed up course 8 last sitting.

wat?
03-30-2006, 01:58 PM
Yeah.... you realize that the rules WEREN'T decided at conversion, they have been changed since then, if the rules hadn't changed for this special waiver I wouldn't complain because then what you're saying would be true. BUT the rules changed because the SOA screwed up course 8 last sitting.

Oh no.

Okay - this I won't argue as much as the other thread. I can see the disappointment. To be honest, though, it's not just you guys that opted for Course 8 instead of Course 5 that are "being shafted". We'll all end up with 9 exams if we don't finish before the conversion's up.

I agree that with the transition being phased in so slowly, the credits should move both backward or forward. But they don't. So for example, my coworker will have 1-4, 6 and FAP1, but that will not equate to an ASA under either system, so she will have to get FAP2 or Course 8 before she can be an ASA - one more exam than most people need to have. Similarly, she will not be eligible for Course 7 (doesn't qualify for the experience waiver) with that sequence of exams - even though she's got 6 exams. She sat for Course 5 this last time but failed, so it's not like she wasn't trying to move in the right direction. Believe me, LOTS of people are getting screwed by this transition!

I'd be very surprised if the SoA backed down from their unreasonable stance.

For the record, twig - I'm not entirely sure the SOA should make any amends for FAP 1 counting for Course 7. As is, there are a very limited number of seminars left, and the only one that your co-worker and others in a similar situation would be allowed to be in would be the December 2006 one. And I wish them the best of luck in getting in that one, because you will have quite a few individuals that will already qualify for Course 7 through traditional means (i.e. 6 exams under the 2000 system).

And addressing in general - where do we draw the line? JJ_Franch brings up a good point. If you'd like to argue from basic principles about the requirements to participate in something, what becomes the minimum? Exactly what you have, so that you'll be able to participate? Then the individuals that are left right outside the boundaries may ask for an exception, which moves out the boundary again. Rinse and repeat. Pretty soon, we'll be allowing people to file their PD plans along with their VEE applications. (I'm just kidding.)

Farmer Mac, when you say "us few in this situation", how do you quantify your situation? I.e., if the SOA were to announce another waiver/"change" in requirements, how would they word it and who would they include? More importantly, who would you exclude?

Farmer Mac
03-30-2006, 01:59 PM
There was not enough time pre-conversion to deal with the issues at hand given the inflexibility of the exam system. Plus, the conversion was not well-fleshed out until very recently.

Obviously, woohoo is the beneficiary of a very generous (and horrible)loophole in the transition system. Had this not been the case, she would be on our side.

The exam system is over-taxing as it is. The SOA should not want a group of FSAs who were cheated. If so, many FSAs will project this feeling onto those who work under them and there will be bigger problems later on. Trust me on this last point.

wat?
03-30-2006, 02:01 PM
Yeah.... you realize that the rules WEREN'T decided at conversion, they have been changed since then, if the rules hadn't changed for this special waiver I wouldn't complain because then what you're saying would be true. BUT the rules changed because the SOA screwed up course 8 last sitting.

And I can see wooHoo's point - it's sort of the point I tried to make in the other thread. There haven't been any rule changes made regarding the conversion. For this rule to affect you, you would've had to have taken both 5 & 8. Now, asdfasdf, I think, has already mentioned he (she?) might've done this. What about those of us not in pensions? Would you have taken 5 and 8G together? Suppose for a minute you're not Vincent Rupp (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=72813&highlight=Vincent+Rupp).

wat?
03-30-2006, 02:04 PM
Obviously, woohoo is the beneficiary of a very generous (and horrible)loophole in the transition system. Had this not been the case, she would be on our side.

wooHoo's a she?

The exam system is over-taxing as it is. The SOA should not want a group of FSAs who were cheated. If so, many FSAs will project this feeling onto those who work under them and there will be bigger problems later on. Trust me on this last point.

So what happens a few years down the line when you might be discussing some issues and some nation-specific information comes up, and you're thinking, "I don't remember covering this..."?

Okay, a long shot, but still.

twig93
03-30-2006, 02:40 PM
And addressing in general - where do we draw the line? JJ_Franch brings up a good point. If you'd like to argue from basic principles about the requirements to participate in something, what becomes the minimum?

I would propose keeping the line exactly where it always had been: you needed to have no other exams left but PD to complete PD (unless using it for your ASA) and you need to have all the preliminary stuff (including VEE) and 2 upper-level exams for Course 7 with an experience waiver available if you have only one upper-level exam.

Right now you can count Course 5 as either Course 5 OR FAP1 - whichever is to your benefit. The same cannot be said of FAP1. If they're going to phase in a transition, the credits need to move both backwards AND forwards. I don't see that as lowering any standards anywhere; just being blind to whether you earned credits under the new system or the old system.

I realize it's never going to happen. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't.

asdfasdf
03-30-2006, 02:46 PM
Wat? I think we have a difference of opinion on what "changing the rules" means, I was mainly just nitpicking WooHoo's comment that the rules had at some point been set in stone. As I see it they weren't set in stone, whether they are fair is something I've given up trying to argue for now.

asdfasdf is not a she

wooHoo
03-30-2006, 02:53 PM
woohoo is not a she

JJ_Franch
03-30-2006, 03:12 PM
woohoo is not a she

And "You'll Never Walk Alone", right? Are you big Stevie G. fan?

flora77
03-30-2006, 04:09 PM
I agree with what JJ Franch said in an earlier post that the best and most equitable solution for everyone is that those who have 6 Exams + C7 be allowed to do PD.

I understand your situation Farmer Mac but like JJ Franch mentions what you are proposing discrimates against me too since I have 1-6. I decided to have 1 attempt at each rather than 2 attempts at 8.

What I find annoying is that people who have C1-4 and like 5 PD credits from the 2000 transition can start doing PD.

twig93
03-30-2006, 04:24 PM
What I find annoying is that people who have C1-4 and like 5 PD credits from the 2000 transition can start doing PD.

Actually, that's the one thing I think they got right. I think it's generally acknowledged that with a transition, the best you can hope for is to break even. Most people seem to lose in a transition because the ones who are doing the transitioning don't place as high a value on the old system (or they wouldn't be changing it.) I think about how much I hate this transition, and thank my lucky stars that, with any luck, it will be the only transition that I experience in any meaningful way. (I attempted Course 100 once, got a 5, and walked away from actuarial exams for years - so I don't really consider myself the victim of the Year 2000 redesign.)

Well, how about those folks for whom this is their second transition? Keep in mind that to get those lousy 5 or 10 PD credits they had to pass rigorous exams under FES. To not give them the option to complete PD would essentially say to them "yeah, it's nice that you passed Course 110 6 years ago, but it gets you exactly bupkis now. You'd be in exactly the same place if you failed it. Aren't you glad you studied really hard for it?"

There's a limit to how much you can screw people over, and not allowing folks to finish their PD would be way, way past that limit. (Not to say there aren't other things in this transition that are over the line, but this would be really really far over the line.)

flora77
03-30-2006, 04:59 PM
I see what you are saying.

The President
03-30-2006, 05:41 PM
I have credit for 1-4, 6, 8. If I pass 7 and the modules 1-5 + FAP Exam 1, I should be eligible to complete PD to get credit for CSP.If they allowed this you would have gone through an easier system than someone who completed 1-8 and PD if you operate under the assumption that modules 1-5 + FAP1 are easier than the old course 5. I am not sure that would be fair either.

Farmer Mac
03-30-2006, 06:08 PM
That point is debatable.

However, if they do not grant this exception, then the system I go through is considerably more difficult.

The President
03-31-2006, 01:50 PM
That point is debatable.

However, if they do not grant this exception, then the system I go through is considerably more difficult.

I wouldn't get your hopes up, I asked for them to allow me to simply file an initial PD plan as I waited for exam results in light of them offering waivers for other groups, and they refused to even consider that.

One thing you may have on your side is the ability to cash in on an additional exam raise, and likely a big one. Most programs I have seen did not have an exam raise for completing PD, only for gaining letters and passing exams.

BlueFJR
04-20-2006, 10:43 AM
I don't like that people are saying they are "getting screwed". There was more than enough time pre-transition to prepare for the situation at hand.

I am not debating whether the rules are fair but that is the rules that were established and the rules that everyone is playing with. There will be winners and losers under transition. I guess I am lucky that I had both 100 and 110 at the 2000 transition.

Enough time? What about those of us who don't get to take course 7 because the SOA didn't have enough sessions this year?