well this is the AF forum - full of equity analysts or aspiring to be…a career full of assumptions and estimates and guesses. I can already tell he will be an all star in the active mgmt industry. To do well in the active world, you gotta be bullish and rosy at all times because you don’t want to miss that invisible tidal wave that comes and goes so quickly (ride the wave for short but intense 10 seconds of fun) - Ben Graham said that significant amount of money is earned in the market from only fraction of all trading days - the statement which I am sure Taleb (author of Black Swan) agrees 99%.
For me, actuarial exams is for stupid stupid stupid people, nothing more nothing less.
If CFA exams are memory tests of financial concepts, actuarial exams are memory tests of mathematical formulas and ten times stupid.
I don’t know in US, people in STEM take actuarial exams or not. If yes, they will be crazy. I can learn by rot financial concepts but not mathematics and prefer to die than to take actuarial exams.
PS: I know what I said, I took actuarial exams when I was young, that’s my big mistake. Waste of time and honor! I regret until now.
I do not have a background in finance, so this program is a fantastic opportunity to beef up my knowledge in finance.
And it is a great challenge, one that I want to embrace until the very end.
I can see people majoring in finance and going through three levels to be less challenged than me though. However, reading through the thread I wonder why so many people would say that the program is not that hard. So if it is that easy why go through all of this? I find it disrespectful to people who study and try their hardest, but do not manage to pass.
I agree and can appear inconsiderate. The exams are not hard. It’s the process that’s hard. Reading 18 big books through 3 exams. Having to study it all on your own discipline. It’s tough. After taking all the exams, as long as you study hard, they are not that difficult.
It will be better to cut material on 10 exams but more frequent with quite less material covered by each. But I haven/t been asked to leave such feedback in any survey so far.
hmmm I think i said it correctly. Pass rates for cfa exams hover around 35-40%. Meaning you have to do better than ~60 people…So you need to finish around 40th place out of 100 people.
Completing Actuarial exams administered by the Society of Actuaries (SOA) or the CAS (Casualty Actuary Society) is much harder.
Much more quantitative, complex material, plus there are no “given” questions. You have to work hard for every one. Plus, some exams are multiple choices, but it takes 6 minutes of complex calculations to arrive at the answer. Some of the material covered is PhD level.
In short, my experience is that one can be very well prepared for those exams and still come close to failing. I applied the same method/work ethic to the CFA exams and I have yet to score below 70% in any subject after 2 exams (currently awaiting CFA III results).
wow…classic example of know it all none…actuarial exams are extremely quant heavy and actually require calculus level math not to mention they go over most if not all “finance” materials covered in CFA…Note, CFA only requires high school algebra math and roughly half of the material is accounting or financial accounting - in line with equity analysts’ work.
Also, most and I say most people who pass first 2 actuarial exams actually end up in the related field and their salaries increase with every exam they pass…You pass CFA exams, no where near guarantee that you will land equity research or some kind of front office job because well for the lack of better words, CFA is inadequate…because:
equity analysts’ work is 60-70% accounting - understanding 10K, 10Q (prepared by CFO and controllers) and doing pro forma (work of corporate finance or FP&A). The “finance” portion in equity analysis is doing DCF and/or comparable valuations all of which can be learned in couple hours on excel.
I agree than these exams are harder than CFA exams. But so what? Take “the exam” I posted in this thread
It’s 1 millions times more difficult.
And if you think this “exam” is not quantitative enough, take this one: calculate 453457447343575878784^(154544358724841545^455438646587287266546846). But why people don’t use these two exams? Because these exams are useless even they are hard.
Actuaries boast they are good at math. No, people who is good at math may pass easier the exams (I’m not sure about this), but actuarial exams can’t make people good at math.
I still remember there are 5 or 6 exams to be ASA. Only the exam concerning MFE seems need some advanced financial knowledge, the others are bullsh!t. Actuarial exams are just stupid exams. If someone says we must memorize math formulas, I say surely this person doesn’t know what is maths. And there are hundreds formulas to memorize in these exams, in particular the MLC. And if someone said these exams are quantitative, it’s is an insult to real quantitative sciences like Mathematics, Physics, Statistics, or even Quantitative Finance,…
I don’t know why some people spend 7-10 years of life for this certificate.
I spent 3-4 months for the exams (enough to clear 3 exams with no paid materials) before realizing I waste my own time. To be honest, having taken the exams is the shame for me. Until now, even my fiancée doesn’t know I did that.
CFA exams, at least I can learn things I don’t know. I found CFA exams more interesting.
And you said some of material covered is PhD level, I don’t know about which exam you say. Please show me this.
infinitybenzo, if you say actuarial exams are extremely quant, I don’t know what to say to you. The quant level in actuarial exams is equivalent to (even less than) the level of the first year students in french prepa.
PS: You can say what I wrote is bluff, no problem, maybe I’m bluffing . But one day, if you meet an actuary and if he boasts about his capacity, don’t believe what he said. Besides, being actuary doesn’t mean he know sciences or good at math. If he said CFA exams are easy compared to actuarial exams, he is completely right, but his exams are just bullsh!t and meaningless. The fact that he passed the exams doesn’t mean he is good, just means he is stupidly persevering.
PierreCFA - Not sure where you get that actuaries are for " stupid stupid stupid people, nothing more nothing less" as you said above. Actuarial exams require much more advanced mathematical and statistical levels than the CFA exams…Does that make CFA exams below “stupid stupid?”
I mean CFA has some according to you PhD material such as FCFF vs FCFE or LIFO vs FIFO or Dupont Analysis…some serious stuff right there…
. But one day, if you meet an actuary and if he boasts about his capacity, don’t believe what he said. Besides, being actuary doesn’t mean he know sciences or good at math. If he said CFA exams are easy compared to actuarial exams, he is completely right, but his exams are just bullsh!t and meaningless. The fact that he passed the exams doesn’t mean he is good, just means he is stupidly persevering.