Hi everybody. Anybody out there is hesitating between preparing the CFA exams and preparing the actuary exams (the so-called probability § exams and financial mathematics (FM) exams)? What can be said about those two routes? Is there an overlap between the FM exam and some of the CFA exams? According to The Economist, the CFA exams are getting more and more popular (worldwide), and more selective. The actuary exams are also quite hard, and they appear to be increasingly selective. Thanks
Have you looked at a sample actuary test 1? The amount of detail beyond calc III is immense. I have a b.s in applied mathematics…from what i remember when i looked at the actuary exam- i believe the actuarial exams are the hardest tests in the world… =)
The probability exam (aka exam 1) is indeed very hard, and I understand that CFA exams do not require any knowledge in probability. However, I read that the FM exam is rather simple. I am guessing that a CFA can ace the FM exam.
I actually worked as an actuary for 2 years, pass both P and FM (exam 1 and 2) on the first try for the SOA/CAS exams. There is substantially less materials to cover for each actuary exam; however, it is indeed much more challenging (in terms of math concepts) compared to that of CFA. Because of my math background and also passing of P and FM, I find that the quant and most of the fixed income sections in CFA lvl 1 to be cake compared to the actuary exams. But just as a reminder, I believe they also recommend 250 hours (or was it 300 hours) dedicated to studying for P, FM, and as well as cfa lvl 1. I feel as though you will only need 100-150 hours for P and FM (given you have a strong math background), while at least 200 hours for cfa level 1. The reason is because of the length/range of materials for the cfa exam, as oppose to the depth of the actuary exams. Just depends on your background, these hours will widely vary for each person. I’m still debating whether or not I want to continue to pursue the ASA or FSA titles. I might want to finish the CFA and CAIA first. Also, I’m not sure how beneficial an actuary designation is in the investment consultant or investment managment worlds. Definitely do the actuary exams if you’re interest lies in liabilities, annuities, and other insurance products. Also, something that might be of interest to some folks here: I recently went to an info session on UCLA’s new financial engineer program (MFE) and asked the director/professors there about the significance of having an ASA, FSA designation. My question was whether or not these designations will give you an edge in terms of the money management world. Their short answer was clear to me: it will probably be useful if you worked for an insurance company; other than that, investment managment/consultant firms hold little significance to these titles compared to a CFA degree. Just my rambling.
Years ago in a former life I was chairman of a committee made up of accountants, auditors and actuaries (in a bank/life/funds group). They called themselves the “AAA committee”. Being chairman I unilaterally changed the name to the “Charisma Committee”. Nobody got it… seriously, from what I understand, the exams are much deeper but narrower than the CFA exams. And somehow the actuarial program manages to beat out any remaining remnants of personality and character from the participants…although they probably don’t have much to start with… As far as careers go, there are a lot of actuaries running around in the asset consultants these days - so I believe they are in increasing demand outside of the life office world. You probably still need to be working in a life office (or similar) in order to be sponsored through to the final designation (but I may be wrong - check the current rules). But a CFA + actuary qual (+ plenty of good experience) would be great in asset management consulting roles. good luck with it all
I don’t really agree with that. “Much deeper”? Those actuarial exams are just material taught to undergrad math majors (who take prob stat). The CFA exams are supposed to be graduate level exams. At least the financial mathematics exams, prob/stats exams are completely undergrad. I can absolutely positively assure you from real experience that everyone who aces a one year undergrad prob/stat sequence from me cooks the prob/stats exam.
thinking of taking actuary exams… what’s the best brand for actuary exam ? any recommendation ? actuary isn’t limited to finance, you could be an underwriter, weather forecaster, and perhaps a clairvoyant or casino dealer 
… more job opportunities.
I worked at a prominent actuarial consulting firm in retirement consulting for a year and a half. I passed SOA exams P and FM. P was pretty tough - I had to solve a fairly nasty triple integral in 3 minutes - and FM was pretty easy time value of money stuff. I would say that the ASA/FSA credentials will be useless if you intend to pursue a career in finance. However, a lot of FSAs where saying when I left my last job how they were kicking themselves for not going for the CFA before the work experience rules got changed. DO NOT pursue these exams if your goal is asset management - this is definitely the long (and painful) route. The thing is, retirement actuaries will be out of work in like 10-15 years as defined benefit plans fade into oblivion. And if that’s not enough to deter you, a lot of stuff is being outsourced in the field as well (at least in consulting - as for insurance, I’m not sure). Besides, null and nuller is right on about the charisma level…don’t choose such a dull career! Hate to be so gloomy but just want folks to be informed. Oh and Joey - I would concur with you regarding the level of math being solidly undergrad, but they are still much tougher than the CFA exams. People who are FSAs and CFA charterholders say that the CFA exams are much easier in comparison.
Bad joke: What’s the difference between an accountant and an actuary? The accountant looks at the other guy’s feet when he’s talking; the actuary looks at his own. Zing!
Isn’t the math for the Putnam “only” undergrad as well? Also, I don’t ever want to be an actuary simply because people would think I’d be boring.
bostonkev Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn’t the math for the Putnam “only” undergrad as > well? > No - the math for the Putnam is just weird f-ed up trickery that you never learn anywhere until you start doing them.
Lol. True.