Is the DW simpson salary survey accurate?

[SweetSassyMolassey!]

Originally Posted by Corn Row

The B-school name-dropping was to clarify that 500k 3-years after B-school isn't unheard of if it's a top-10 program.

Yea, I wasn't disputing the point...I really have no idea. I just find it incredible...as much as Wall St. bonuses have fallen, I get the sense there's much much further to go.

[joni308]

What a joke. I'm sure there are people who make 500K and 3million a year on Wall Street but I happen to know 2 people with an MBA and 1 with a PhD. One MBA has 3 years of experience, the other 5 and the PhD 4. None of the 3 is making anywhere close to 500K.

They are making way more than the little actuary who's still miserably struggling to pass MFE, C, VEE or whatever else you call it but let's not lose our heads here. In this image, http://dwsimpson.com/actuary-salary-graph.gif, I see a dot at 7 years at 300K. Do you see it too, do ya, do ya? Do ya? Cause 300K is more than any of the 3 people I know are making.

Next time, whoever wants to start a topic like that also tell us where you are getting your numbers from.

[Elsaball]

Originally Posted by Not Mike

Are you talking about a 40 hour week or a 50 hour week? Huge difference.

Not a huge difference but my coworkers work 40 hours most weeks but up to 50 during peak seasons.

[Corn Row]

Originally Posted by joni308

What a joke. I'm sure there are people who make 500K and 3million a year on Wall Street but I happen to know 2 people with an MBA and 1 with a PhD. One MBA has 3 years of experience, the other 5 and the PhD 4. None of the 3 is making anywhere close to 500K.

It depends where their MBAs are from, where his PhD is from, and if they were able to get sought after positions. At my old firm we turned down plenty of applicants from Wharton, Chicago, etc. (in my experience Harvard was never turned down, and sometimes our offer to a Harvard MBA would be turned down... I worked for a great asset manager, but the lure of top hedge funds or PE is stronger).

[ReserveRage]

Originally Posted by Not Mike

You're not going to be making anywhere near $250k/yr in 10 years working at a leisurely pace. You'll be lucky to bank $150k/year after 10 years working 40 hour weeks.

Some people erroneously believe just attaining Fellowship should automatically push them into the high compensation ranges. They don't get that passing all your exams is an assumed given by those above you and putting in the extra hours, going above and beyond what is expected of you, and producing quality work is how you get promotions/salary bumps.

[The President]

Originally Posted by Not Mike

I can only base my thoughts on what I've seen in my career, and it's very rare. The 40 hour per week folks just aren't really in high demand, unless they can do an exceptional amount of because they are ridiculously efficient.

Employees can add value beyond just cranking through a lot of work. Someone with the creativity to solve unique problems, constantly improve process or analysis, lead, handle talking to senior management, etc, can be successful as well without working long hours. From what I have seen in my 10 years - a well rounded actuary is still hard to find.

[Stan]

Originally Posted by Elsaball

At my firm, most of my coworkers have 40-50 hour workweeks, and some of them are doing pretty well. They are pretty efficient with their work, though.

Many actuaries can get by with only putting in 40 hours a week, but it really depends on how you calculate the total hours spent. For example, I eat my lunch at my desk usually and most often do some work at the same time. Is that work time, or lunch?

I think the difference between 40/50 hours really isn't that much, which is why I would assume that most actuarial superstars work closer to 50 hours a week after 10 years.

[Corn Row]

Originally Posted by Not Mike

I can only base my thoughts on what I've seen in my career, and it's very rare. The 40 hour per week folks just aren't really in high demand, unless they can do an exceptional amount of because they are ridiculously efficient.

I agree with you 99%, but I have worked with one actuary who is the 1%. He is ridiculously bright (I'm pretty sure he has a photographic memory), great with clients, and very valuable to the organization. He is odd in his mannerisms, but still a great guy to chat with and be around. Sometimes it was difficult to get him to work even 40 hours, but when he finally hunkered down and did some work he would do it in 1/10th of the time others could and produced significantly higher quality.

He really is odd, though. I think he spent more time collecting and recycling the office bottles and cans than he did actual working.

[Locrian]

Originally Posted by captain_epsilon

As I emphasized in a post prior to the one which you quoted, I COULDN'T take that guy's job

I believe you, I promise!

But could you try? Just give it a spin? Or maybe another career that doesn't have the same difficulty? Anything, anywhere else?

[captain_epsilon]

Originally Posted by Locrian

I believe you, I promise!

But could you try? Just give it a spin? Or maybe another career that doesn't have the same difficulty? Anything, anywhere else?

I really don't see where your sarcasm was solicited so responding to your comments feels pretty awkward. Are you insinuating that you'd like to repel me away from the insurance industry? I'm not following, and the conversation has long since progressed.