Giuls - It depends on what background you’re starting with. I have never heard of anybody taking all 4 preliminary exams in one year. Most people (I think even those in actuarial programs) devote 6 months per exam. To get the full FSA designation, I think the average is something like 8-10 years, and most people I know who have the FSA have said that the program is as hard as doing a PhD in math (this was from people who actually did their PhD in math and decided to teach instead). The 4(?) at the beginning are just the prelimiinary exams and don’t even get you entered into the program. There are however shorter certifications that don’t grant you the full titile of actuary. You also have to keep in mind that at some point in your exam taking you have to decide on what actuarial stream you want to specialize in (property/casualty versus life). There are plenty of actuary forums that can answer your questions about the exams/studying, but CFA and FSA aren’t even remotely comparable.
From what I hear, each actuarial exam’s difficulty level is about the same as CFA Level 1 (but on different topics)… and you have like 8-10 of them (don’t know the exact number)… so your chances of passing each individual exam might be better than Level 2 or 3, given rigorous studying… but it’s a whole another level more difficult than passing the 3 CFA exams…
I’ve glanced at the material, imo it’s much much much more harder than CFA.
I know 2 people that wrote both the CFA and actuarial exams and they both said without hesitation that the actuarial exams were much harder…and both have backgrounds in actuarial studies. CFA is only an inch deep.
I have done both (or ‘taken’ both, as I am not an ASA). Worked as an actuarial analyst for a bit before going to the investment side.
I passed the first couple actuarial exams. I would say the first two are in between CFA Level I and Level II.
The third and beyond are closer in difficulty to CFA Level II.
The key thing is the depth. You have 3-4 hours on something like 30 questions. The material is not that broad but it is highly mathematical - i.e., you WILL be using alot of calculus. I think this intimidates most people.
To be honest, I don’t think they are harder than the CFA, it just depends how interested you are in the material. Actuarial material I studied would put me to sleep and was very obscure, while I was genuinely interested in the CFA material and it’s applications. Also, the job I was diong as an actuarial analyst was pretty mudnane. The investment work was more interesting - that made the CFA much easier for me.
I almost corrected you on your misuse of ASA, since it is for appraisers. But then I looked further.
Seems relatively easy to get “Associate of the Society of Actuaries” mixed up with the “American Society of Appraisers”.
Do you think it is a good idea to revisit old calculus textbooks prior to starting the program? I took calculus in college, but that was 10 years ago.
I have my ASA and CFA designations. I would say actuarial exams are far more difficult with the only possible caveat that I had to ‘learn’ how to write these sort of exams first. I failed in a few attempts in the prelims before finally getting it done. After getting my ASA, I did the CFA exams and went 3/3 for what it’s worth. Perhaps if I’d done them in the other order I would have been better prepared for the SOA exams, but I still they are more difficult.
As for material… do not even consider picking up a calc textbook, etc. You may learn the theory, but when it comes to crunch time on the exam you won’t have time to figure things out from basic principles. Get a study provider’s material and learn from that. Also, the notation, nomenclature, etc may be different in textbooks and you really, really, just need to know what the SOA wants and give it to them. 100% recommend study provider.
(After the prelims, and into the FAP, you’ll have to get textbooks. But for the prelims, go study provider.)
FYI, http://actuarialoutpost.com is a good actuarial community.
Awesome, thanks all.
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.
^ this
According to me, Actuarial need much more dedication than CFA and slightly more tougher than CFA.
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.
-Deleted: already answered-
CFA is an inch deep and a mile wide. Actuarial exams are the opposite.
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.
CFA exams aren’t difficult if you put in the time.
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?)