ooh. my mistake? Am I not allowed to use ASA as a noun? There were no ethics on the actuarial exams so I have no idea
As for whether to get old textbooks for the calculus knowledge, since it had been 7 years since I finished any kind of calc course (Calc III) when I started, I went out and bought… “Calculus for Dummies”. I sh*t you not. Sounds like an oxymoron but it exists.
Didn’t bother with the trig stuff obviously, but it was a kind of jump-start to that part of my brain which had been rusting for years. Worked fine.
Got two actuaries in the family - a sister and my wife’s brother-in-law. He actually prices the death benefit in variable annuity contracts (basically a long-lived put option with some different characteristics) and sets up reinsurance pools. So he knows a fair bit of finance.
So, I know quite a few actuaries, and a fair bit about the exams. In general, I’d say they’re significantly more difficult than the CFA exams - lots more math, and much more depth. And I wouldn’t say that actuaries have less personality, just “different” personalities. Kind of the alpha-nerds of the world, with very good math skills, a lot of discipline (that is, if they passed all their exams), and a different way of looking at the world.
I’ve looked at the material, and would say that while the actuarial exams are more rigorous, they aren’t necessarily harder.
I think the main difference is that it is a lot easier to pass the CFA exams without any background in the material. If you never learned calculus, good luck with the actuarial exams, but there’s no reason why that should be an issue with CFA. I had a number of friends who passed the first exam or two in college, and personally I don’t think I would have found them that difficult but I did my undergrad and graduate studies in math with tons of probability-related coursework, which is basically the focus of the curriculum.
Considering the pass rates is important when deciding which exams are harder.
As far as taking both sets of exams, it really depends on the indidvidual and the career goals you want to accomplish.
If there is no reason to take them in order to reach your career aspirations, it really isn’t worth the stress, money and frustration. But, if you need to pass to be where you want to be in 5 years, then I say go for both.
I went through both sets of exams and hold FSA and CFA. The actuarial exams require much more dedication and discipline, especially when you are on the upper level. There is both greater breadth and depth in the syllabus material (a lot of theory too!) for these 6 hour upper level written exams.
You wouldn’t find the CFA exams difficult after having gone through (and completing) the actuarial exams. Level 3 was the only one that I prepared for seriously, but still requiring much less effort than with the upper level actuarial exams.
Just my personal opinion. Pick the career path (and exams) that interests you, not the one that is perceived more difficult.
Funnily enough, the higher level actuarial exams are much less mathematical (at least for the U.K exams) but the pass rates are abysmally low, as low as 20% sometimes for the specialist subjects. The examiner’s report flat out says that knowing the bookwork is not enough to pass those exams (but then, what is enough?)
