Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 90% sure the opportunities out of McKinsey are 10x > what most people could ever transition out of > actuarial positions into given equal time. So > carrying that assumption forward, I’m not sure you > should be bragging up your stupidity in not even > knowing who they were. Who cares, he seems to be doing fine now and as long as he’s happy it doesn’t matter. Not everyone wants to kill themselves working because their entire self worth is tied into the brand name of the company they work for.
Actuaries are one of the most staisfied and happy people. They don’t work long hours, they enjoy family life. Their work is intellectually satisfying. They get respect of intelligent people for the work they do. Their work culture is great, often very little politics and back stabbing, there’s low attrition and they have very strong profession ties. And it’s not that they are poor, acturies make good money, although not like bankers or consultants, but they make good. So when you compare, don’t just compare net cash, substract the opportunity cost of lack of a family life, lack of having own free time, lack of time to pursue your interests, lack of intellectual satisfaction, lack of respect, lack of a fun office atmosphere, lack of happiness in general… if you can put a value tag on that. Not even all of this, If you can just get intellectual satisfaction and respect, money doesn’t matters at all. But doing that is far more difficult then entering McKinsey. There’s a reason why there are many people who ditch McKinsey, some ditch after spending a little time there, those who stay are the ones who can’t move on to better things despite their excellent acedemic profile. McKinsey just need a solid GPA from a top tier institute with decent communication skills, and you are in. But getting people to listen to you seriously when you talk about subject of your expertise, be it nuclear energy or finance, is the biggest orgasm you can ever achive.
numi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > f*ck if I know, and I can appreciate a good > tongue-in-cheek as much as the next guy, but I’d > advise our resident comedian to make things more > incredible if that were the case…although, i > must give credit where it’s due – the way things > were going i would think there’s a good chance > that the level of absurdity would start bordering > on the hilarious Captain Awesome, are sure you are not bitter you missed out on McKinsey?
Bernanke Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actuaries are one of the most staisfied and happy > people. > They don’t work long hours, they enjoy family > life. Their work is intellectually satisfying. > They get respect of intelligent people for the > work they do. Their work culture is great, often > very little politics and back stabbing, there’s > low attrition and they have very strong profession > ties. And it’s not that they are poor, acturies > make good money, although not like bankers or > consultants, but they make good. > > So when you compare, don’t just compare net cash, > substract the opportunity cost of lack of a family > life, lack of having own free time, lack of time > to pursue your interests, lack of intellectual > satisfaction, lack of respect, lack of a fun > office atmosphere, lack of happiness in general… > if you can put a value tag on that. Well said
Bernanke Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actuaries are one of the most staisfied and happy > people. Plus, you have the opportunity to work in an environment where it is socially acceptable to pick one’s nose. The only better perk is communal farting. > But getting people to listen to you > seriously when you talk about subject of your > expertise, be it nuclear energy or finance, is the > biggest orgasm you can ever achive. Somebody needs to go have some fun…although maybe this explains your prolific posts, gross.
But… I disagree with the premise that finance people cannot have balanced and fulfilling lives.
how much does a Watson Wyatt full-fledged FSA take in? $130K? GTFOH
There are politics in actuarial departments… Agree with most everything else.
wake2000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > how much does a Watson Wyatt full-fledged FSA take > in? $130K? GTFOH lol, actuaries make a hell of a lot more than that. Here is the most accurate salary survey: http://www.dwsimpson.com/salary.html They’re not making IB money, but they’re making more than 90% of this board will ever make. Yes, the hours are better once a credentialed actuary, but it’s easy to overlook the 3-10 years of studying for exams more difficult than the CFA. Once you have your FSA/FCAS then the work environment is great, but spending your 20’s studying for exams isn’t attractive to most.
Wait, so you need to take 9 exams to be an actuary? What the… This is protectionism.
Danny Boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > wake2000 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > how much does a Watson Wyatt full-fledged FSA > take > > in? $130K? GTFOH > > lol, actuaries make a hell of a lot more than > that. Here is the most accurate salary survey: > > http://www.dwsimpson.com/salary.html > > They’re not making IB money, but they’re making > more than 90% of this board will ever make. Yes, > the hours are better once a credentialed actuary, > but it’s easy to overlook the 3-10 years of > studying for exams more difficult than the CFA. > Once you have your FSA/FCAS then the work > environment is great, but spending your 20’s > studying for exams isn’t attractive to most. Where I work people wrap them up in 2-3 years. 10 years is crazy - you’d be out of the program in 4-5 years tops if you were failing or sitting out exams that frequently. The initial exams (to get to ASA) aren’t more difficult than CFA exams. Once credentialed you’d pull 100-150, until you get to more senior positions in my area. 10-30% bonus, but definitely better work-life balance than asset management (my opinion).
it takes like 6-8 years to get an FSA I thought. I shouldve been an actuary, really screwed up by choosing accounting.
How competitive is the actuary field? Also, how much of this work gets “off-shored”?
jcole21 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where I work people wrap them up in 2-3 years. 10 > years is crazy - you’d be out of the program in > 4-5 years tops if you were failing or sitting out > exams that frequently. > > The initial exams (to get to ASA) aren’t more > difficult than CFA exams. > > Once credentialed you’d pull 100-150, until you > get to more senior positions in my area. 10-30% > bonus, but definitely better work-life balance > than asset management (my opinion). FCAS takes longer than FSA and most certainly do not wrap it up in 2-3 years. This higher barrier to entry also means more pay, so I disagree with both your statements (pay and time to completions) unless you’re assuming all actuaries work on the life side. The initial exams are more difficult than CFA. I’d definitely argue the CFA exams are more applicable and you actually learn more. Similar passing ratios to CFA but the actuarial competition is higher caliber (there are many reasons to argue this… their job depends on it, study hours provided by employer leads to more prepared candidates, etc). Many, such as myself, move out of traditional actuarial work and into other parts of finance. Having insurance knowledge opens up many doors. I work in asset management. I’ve worked in actuarial consulting and at an insurance company. Work-life balance is what you make of it anywhere. Actuaries have the option of having a relaxed career and not moving much farther up the chain due to comfortable income. However, if you want to keep progressing, regardless of being an actuary or not, then you will have to give up work-life balance to a certain degree.
Bernanke Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > McKinsey just need a solid GPA from a top tier > institute with decent communication skills, and > you are in. That’s not true.
Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @wake2000, What are CPAs pulling these days? > Thought CPAs make good money. not boocoo money like DannyBoy is quoting.
Danny Boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jcole21 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Where I work people wrap them up in 2-3 years. > 10 > > years is crazy - you’d be out of the program in > > 4-5 years tops if you were failing or sitting > out > > exams that frequently. > > > > The initial exams (to get to ASA) aren’t more > > difficult than CFA exams. > > > > Once credentialed you’d pull 100-150, until you > > get to more senior positions in my area. > 10-30% > > bonus, but definitely better work-life balance > > than asset management (my opinion). > > FCAS takes longer than FSA and most certainly do > not wrap it up in 2-3 years. This higher barrier > to entry also means more pay, so I disagree with > both your statements (pay and time to completions) > unless you’re assuming all actuaries work on the > life side. > > The initial exams are more difficult than CFA. > I’d definitely argue the CFA exams are more > applicable and you actually learn more. Similar > passing ratios to CFA but the actuarial > competition is higher caliber (there are many > reasons to argue this… their job depends on it, > study hours provided by employer leads to more > prepared candidates, etc). > > Many, such as myself, move out of traditional > actuarial work and into other parts of finance. > Having insurance knowledge opens up many doors. > > I work in asset management. I’ve worked in > actuarial consulting and at an insurance company. > Work-life balance is what you make of it anywhere. > Actuaries have the option of having a relaxed > career and not moving much farther up the chain > due to comfortable income. However, if you want > to keep progressing, regardless of being an > actuary or not, then you will have to give up > work-life balance to a certain degree. How can you disagree with pay, when the link you provided says exactly what I said? Pension FSA: 510 years exp - 99-163 (base + ACTUAL BONUS) P&C FSA: 5-10 years exp - 120-217 (base + ACTUAL BONUS) Life & Health FSA: 5-10 years exp - 96-165(base + ACTUAL BONUS) These are numbers with bonus - where was I off?
Inner Evil Voice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bernanke Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > McKinsey just need a solid GPA from a top tier > > institute with decent communication skills, and > > you are in. > > That’s not true. Let’s be honest, Mckinsey is looking for good looking people from the ivy league. That entire field is a joke. It’s like there isn’t enough real jobs to satisfy the demand of pricks who feel they’re entitled to a certain job, lifestyle, etc., so they duplicate the work and assemble a consulting firm.
jcole21 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How can you disagree with pay, when the link you > provided says exactly what I said? > > Pension FSA: 510 years exp - 99-163 (base + ACTUAL > BONUS) > P&C FSA: 5-10 years exp - 120-217 (base + ACTUAL > BONUS) > Life & Health FSA: 5-10 years exp - 96-165(base + > ACTUAL BONUS) > > These are numbers with bonus - where was I off? You’re correct - I shouldn’t have disagreed. I’ve just never heard of an FCAS making less than 140k, and if I did then I’d advise them to seek another employer.