IFoA vs SoA

[764dak]

Originally Posted by JackLee

Yup got a response, you can write IFoA exams if you have a mutual recognition with their body. But appears you need at least one yr of UK Actuarial experience.

I think the work experience criteria will be the most difficult part to gain, even though there appears to be possible short cut for some people... i.e., if you have a CFA, FRM, CPA, etc you get some exemption under UK system.

I don't think it has to be UK experience since they have students from all over the world.

And I don't see having a master's, CFA, etc. as a shortcut. Meanwhile, SOA/CAS forces someone with a PhD in Statistics to do Exam P.

[campbell]

Originally Posted by 764dak

I don't think it has to be UK experience since they have students from all over the world.

And I don't see having a master's, CFA, etc. as a shortcut. Meanwhile, SOA/CAS forces someone with a PhD in Statistics to do Exam P.

Which is no great burden.

I took old Course 1 (which was P + calculus) and basically had to do no prep at all (My prep: I took one old exam to see what the problems were like). So I doubled it up with Course 2 (which has been replaced by FM + VEEs). And that was back when exams were given only twice a year.

It was no big deal. Sure, I would have liked to have been spared the few hours and the exam fee, but it was minor.

If you have to prep a hell of a lot for P as a PhD in stats, I'm going to wonder.

[PeppermintPatty]

Originally Posted by ElDucky

So go get your free lunch and take advantage of us.

This.

The IFoA exams assume more integrated understanding of the material than US exams, and I don't think they are a joke. The US has too many universities to give credit for university work (and US universities value their independence too highly to let some outside society tell them what to teach and test) but I think that can work when there is a higher ratio of examining actuaries to actuarial programs.

And yeah, if you have a PhD in stats and have trouble with the US stats exams, there's something wrong with either you or your PhD.

[ishamael]

I am an FSA, started my actuarial career in a Commonwealth country now working in the UK.

My 2 cents (or P) on this whole IFOA/SOA/CAS pi$$ing contest is that while it is understandable for any member to display a certain level of patriotism towards their own societies, it's the IFOA members who tend to take it to extremes beyond the realm of objectivity.

When I was working in a Commonwealth country which has its insurance regulations largely based on UK regs, employers generally view fellows from any body as equivalent - UK/US/AUS. When structuring the study programmes, they make a special effort to be fair, giving an identical number of study days and exam increments.
The very rare exceptions that occur always come from actuarial departments run by FIAs who view the UK exams as harder and give more generous study time and increments.
So why not take the UK exams you may ask? Exemptions! Those of us who study in local unis usually get a grand total of zero exemptions. Think of how it's going to look to employers. On one hand a person coming back from a UK uni with a shitload of them and silly old me with none. Guess who gets hired? So yeah, we think exenptions=cheating. The only chance we got is to start sitting for SOA exams in uni and hopefully we graduate with at least 2.

Having moved to UK suffice to say that things have hardly got better. You'll be amazed at how many people here have never heard of the SOA and have asked me what an FSA is. In spite of that, they feel themselves fully qualifed to issue the SAO that US exams are easy.
My wife happens to be in GI still taking CAS exams. Her boss gives her a study day allocation half of what UK students get justifying it on the basis of US exams being less relevant in the London Market. Interestingly her boss uses papers written by the CAS as reference during work.
Snide comments such as "an FSA is someone who thinks he is an actuary" or "you have no London market experience so you have no real actuarial experience" are things you get used to.
Hate to burst your bubble but having worked in the London market it ain't as special as you fantasise.

As for the comments about the UK exams being more integrated, there is some truth to this. UK actuaries are generally better at talking at a high level about how something should theoretically be done. Just don't expect them to actually do it, you need FSAs for that.

Ps: Can any IOA member please explain to me why the IOA has seen fit to omit credibility theory and bootstrapping of spot rates from par yields from the syllabus. Anytime I mention this I get the "are you an alien from outer space" look.

[jas66Kent]

If I recall correctly, credibility theory is covered in CT6.

Bootstrapping in the context of modelling is covered in ST7 (a GI based exam)

[ishamael]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

If I recall correctly, credibility theory is covered in CT6.

Bootstrapping in the context of modelling is covered in ST7 (a GI based exam)

Credibility- Well, if true they certainly did very well in eradicating it from their memories. The responses I get from every UK actuary is of the "never ever heard of it variety", not the "remember studying it but can't recall the details" variety. I am referring to classical credibility, as well as Buhlmann and Buhlmann-Straub.

Bootstrap- I have heard of my GI colleagues talking about that bootstrap but I am referring to the Asset space. Given a par rate curve, recover the corresponding spot rate curve. An FIA once did surmise that it's pretty much unknown in UK because BoE publishes spot rate curves whereas many other jurisdictions' central banks publish par rate curves. Therefore UK actuaries typically don't need to know it.

[jas66Kent]

Yes, the BOE publishes spot rate curves.

I think you'll find that a lot of Actuaries forget what they studied during the preliminary exams if they do not use it in their jobs.

[GargoyleWaiting]

Originally Posted by jas66Kent

I think you'll find that a lot of Actuaries forget what they studied during the preliminary exams if they do not use it in their jobs.

I think we've at least established why actuaries look more favourably on people doing the exams relevant to the country they are working in.

[PeppermintPatty]

Originally Posted by GargoyleWaiting

I think we've at least established why actuaries look more favourably on people doing the exams relevant to the country they are working in.

And also why US casualty actuaries are suspicious of anyone doing SoA exams.

[IroningBoard]

Originally Posted by ishamael

I am an FSA, started my actuarial career in a Commonwealth country now working in the UK.

My 2 cents (or P) on this whole IFOA/SOA/CAS pi$$ing contest is that while it is understandable for any member to display a certain level of patriotism towards their own societies, it's the IFOA members who tend to take it to extremes beyond the realm of objectivity.

When I was working in a Commonwealth country which has its insurance regulations largely based on UK regs, employers generally view fellows from any body as equivalent - UK/US/AUS. When structuring the study programmes, they make a special effort to be fair, giving an identical number of study days and exam increments.
The very rare exceptions that occur always come from actuarial departments run by FIAs who view the UK exams as harder and give more generous study time and increments.
So why not take the UK exams you may ask? Exemptions! Those of us who study in local unis usually get a grand total of zero exemptions. Think of how it's going to look to employers. On one hand a person coming back from a UK uni with a shitload of them and silly old me with none. Guess who gets hired? So yeah, we think exenptions=cheating. The only chance we got is to start sitting for SOA exams in uni and hopefully we graduate with at least 2.

Having moved to UK suffice to say that things have hardly got better. You'll be amazed at how many people here have never heard of the SOA and have asked me what an FSA is. In spite of that, they feel themselves fully qualifed to issue the SAO that US exams are easy.
My wife happens to be in GI still taking CAS exams. Her boss gives her a study day allocation half of what UK students get justifying it on the basis of US exams being less relevant in the London Market. Interestingly her boss uses papers written by the CAS as reference during work.
Snide comments such as "an FSA is someone who thinks he is an actuary" or "you have no London market experience so you have no real actuarial experience" are things you get used to.
Hate to burst your bubble but having worked in the London market it ain't as special as you fantasise.

As for the comments about the UK exams being more integrated, there is some truth to this. UK actuaries are generally better at talking at a high level about how something should theoretically be done. Just don't expect them to actually do it, you need FSAs for that.

Ps: Can any IOA member please explain to me why the IOA has seen fit to omit credibility theory and bootstrapping of spot rates from par yields from the syllabus. Anytime I mention this I get the "are you an alien from outer space" look.

I do remember credibility theory from CT6, and also vaguely remember bootstrapping (of the yield curve variety) from ST6. I've got a feeling bootstrapping is covered in Hull's "Options, futures and other derivatives", which forms part of ST6 core reading. Don't quote me on that though!

Most of our yield curves are based on the rates provided to us by the BoE or EIOPA anyway so bootstrapping is not something we have to think about regularly.