Is the DW simpson salary survey accurate?

[General Apathy]

Originally Posted by Elsaball

I don't think it's that hard to make 150k base as an actuary in 10 years working 40 hr/wks

It's not. Depends on COL though.

[Smart Actuary]

Its only accurate if you can get paid it.

[Corn Row]

Originally Posted by Smart Actuary

Its only accurate if you can get paid it.

That's horrible logic.

[Smart Actuary]

You guys should re-watch About Schmidt. maybe not all of you guys are as dull as that fella, but the career, life and money of an actuary are well captured in that movie. You get your credentials, maybe switch jobs 2/3 times over 30/35 years, you have easy job, easy hours, dull life, eat at olive garden, vacation in florida, nice retirement package, and you wear the same shoes for 20 years. that is a comfy life albeit boring.

[Smart Actuary]

Originally Posted by Corn Row

That's horrible logic.

But it struck a chord with you, dinnit?

[Stan]

Originally Posted by Smart Actuary

You guys should re-watch About Schmidt. maybe not all of you guys are as dull as that fella, but the career, life and money of an actuary are well captured in that movie. You get your credentials, maybe switch jobs 2/3 times over 30/35 years, you have easy job, easy hours, dull life, eat at olive garden, vacation in florida, nice retirement package, and you wear the same shoes for 20 years. that is a comfy life albeit boring.

lol, I don't eat at olive garden, and make sure to spend all the money I make. I will die happy eventually, or at least with a lot of stuff.

[joni308]

Originally Posted by Corn Row

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).

Any ranking list I look at their schools appear in the top 20. They are not from Harvard and they are not from Yale but this is actually a good thing for whatever we are discussing here. Had they been from Harvard and Yale then we wouldn't really been comparing actuaries and bankers but actuaries and Harvard.

And one more thing. What is the definition of a banker anyways? 2 things happen. Either a banker is everyone who works for a bank, in which case the average salary is waay below 100K (ok maybe not the average because of the fat tails but the majority) so let's stop it here, or a banker is a very special title that only goes to the very few special with MBAs and PhDs from very top schools in which case yes, they make much more than ana actuary but, again, why are we comparing apples to oranges. This is not a comparison between actuaries and bankers but rather a comparision betweeen individual people and their worth in the labor market.

You want to make comparisons like that? Find a profession that requires the same skills (degree and school prestige included) and let's compare the average salaries and not 2 random data points.

My point in case it was not clear? How many times do we see EL applicants here with below 3.0 GPA (UG) from a school noone ever heard of before and who eventually get the job? These guys simply canNOT get the 500K jobs you speak of. They can't even dream about applying. So why are we comparing the 2?

[Corn Row]

Originally Posted by joni308

Any ranking list I look at their schools appear in the top 20. They are not from Harvard and they are not from Yale but this is actually a good thing for whatever we are discussing here. Had they been from Harvard and Yale then we wouldn't really been comparing actuaries and bankers but actuaries and Harvard.

And one more thing. What is the definition of a banker anyways? 2 things happen. Either a banker is everyone who works for a bank, in which case the average salary is waay below 100K (ok maybe not the average because of the fat tails but the majority) so let's stop it here, or a banker is a very special title that only goes to the very few special with MBAs and PhDs from very top schools in which case yes, they make much more than ana actuary but, again, why are we comparing apples to oranges. This is not a comparison between actuaries and bankers but rather a comparision betweeen individual people and their worth in the labor market.

You want to make comparisons like that? Find a profession that requires the same skills (degree and scool prestige included) and let's compare the average salaries and not 2 random data points.

Yale isn't that well regarded as a top B-school for finance (IBanking and asset management). There is a big difference between top-10 and top-20 B-school. For finance, there is a big difference between a handful of top schools and others in the top-10. So, top-20 isn't really enough of a filter to compare them to the MBAs that most often get offers at BB investment banks. (obviously not all BB IBankers are from top MBAs, but it's the most direct path in).

Reading you throwing Yale into the mix and comparing retail bankers to IB let's me know you really don't know what you're talking about. IB is usually considered M&A or S&T.

[Stan]

Originally Posted by joni308

Any ranking list I look at their schools appear in the top 20. They are not from Harvard and they are not from Yale but this is actually a good thing for whatever we are discussing here. Had they been from Harvard and Yale then we wouldn't really been comparing actuaries and bankers but actuaries and Harvard.

And one more thing. What is the definition of a banker anyways? 2 things happen. Either a banker is everyone who works for a bank, in which case the average salary is waay below 100K (ok maybe not the average because of the fat tails but the majority) so let's stop it here, or a banker is a very special title that only goes to the very few special with MBAs and PhDs from very top schools in which case yes, they make much more than ana actuary but, again, why are we comparing apples to oranges. This is not a comparison between actuaries and bankers but rather a comparision betweeen individual people and their worth in the labor market.

You want to make comparisons like that? Find a profession that requires the same skills (degree and scool prestige included) and let's compare the average salaries and not 2 random data points.

My point in case it was not clear? How many times do we see EL applicants here with below 3.0 GPA (UG) from a school noone ever heard before and who eventually get the job? These guys simply canNOT get the 500K jobs you speak of. They can't even dream about applying. So why are we comparing the 2?

Great analysis, and is very important in stopping this IB comparison. Why do actuarial students keep bringing this up? Just because a job is listed in Finance, doesn't mean that a mathy nerd can do it. As others have stated, these jobs require multiple skills, great communication, and impressive degrees. Most actuaries barely have one of these requirements met.

[Corn Row]

Originally Posted by Stan

Great analysis, and is very important in stopping this IB comparison. Why do actuarial students keep bringing this up? Just because a job is listed in Finance, doesn't mean that a mathy nerd can do it. As others have stated, these jobs require multiple skills, great communication, and impressive degrees. Most actuaries barely have one of these requirements met.

Totally disagree with the first bolded part - I agree with the second. However, there are actuaries in the IB and asset management world at high levels. They're almost always dealing with insurance clients, or a life actuary that has focused on derivative land, but I know more than a few FSAs and FCASs that are in 7-figures and at the managing director level.