Mr. Pink, I never said anything about the amount of study required or pass rates. I have no idea what the amount of study time is for the actuary exams. Pass rates are not a good measure, because you have to consider the pool of candidates - I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who thinks CFA L1 is harder than CFA L2, even though pass rates are typically lower for L1. Your example consists of two very different candidate pools: a) finance students just entering a class with presumably no finance training, and b) finance students who have just finished a finance class. My only point of reference is two people I work with who have passed all levels of both. They both say that the actuarial tests were more difficult than CFA.
monger187 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr. Pink, > > I never said anything about the amount of study > required or pass rates. I have no idea what the > amount of study time is for the actuary exams. > > Pass rates are not a good measure, because you > have to consider the pool of candidates - I think > you’d be hard pressed to find someone who thinks > CFA L1 is harder than CFA L2, even though pass > rates are typically lower for L1. Your example > consists of two very different candidate pools: a) > finance students just entering a class with > presumably no finance training, and b) finance > students who have just finished a finance class. > > My only point of reference is two people I work > with who have passed all levels of both. They > both say that the actuarial tests were more > difficult than CFA. Your logic hurts my brain.
Specifically, when your friends said the actuary test is more difficult, what do you think they were basing this opinion on? My guess is that pass rates and the amount of study time required are significant factors (even though you weren’t “saying anything about that”). My point is that saying something is more difficult doesn’t explain how it’s more difficult. So when you make your statement saying that two things are “equally difficult,” it makes me believe you have no idea what you’re talking about, and I have no idea what you’re basing this measure of difficulty on. And btw, it’s the same pool of candidates in the example. Typically the people sitting in the first day of class are the same people taking that class’ exam. Just because their knowledge changed over time doesn’t pre-empt one from making a judgement on the perceived difficulty of those two tests by that pool of candidates.
Mr. Pink - Now you’re being difficult!
who cares. i don’t want to take the SOA exams. they can live by calculating life expectancies, including their own everyday and i’ll live by playing with options all day. i’d say mine has a little more excitement. and its a known fact that their’s is harder based on the {study time / content} ratio. i would never be able to pass all of the SOA exams first-go with my study habits.
+1 Matt
i get a lot more respect for being an actuary than i do for being a charterholder. however, and this is the killer, i like the people i met through my charter more than i like the people i met through my actuarialness. maybe its because i am generally the smartest person in a room full of charties. zing…
CFA Charterholders < Actuaries < Quants ^ Fact.
supersunny138 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > See chrismaths I am a CFA candidate today - from a > school kid to a mature student… So hope you don’t > have problem with this … and as far as spelling > are concerned ok I am not a native still learning > … is no wrong with it right or anything to be > embarrased ? > > Get a life !! Well done - and welcome to this forum for CFA candidates! Don’t be so touchy - I said your spelling had improved, with far less text speak. Good stuff. Still, I see that flame out is still on an itchy trigger finger. That’s all good too…
You are welcome chrismaths
Pixel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFA Charterholders < Actuaries < Quants > > ^ Fact. ^ Retarded.
Pixel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFA Charterholders < Actuaries < Quants > > ^ Fact. nolabird032 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ > ^ Retarded. +1 I also think Quants have no role … specially in social sciences
donno. i am both and wanna be the third.
I think for quants instead of doing risk management … they can add a great value to those social-economic statistical surveys … where they send you questionaires like ; how many people brush their teeth in the morning This shall really acclimate me … and many (to be) fundamental investors
exactly my point. WTF does he mean by "
nolabird032 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just think of me as a bandaid for your brain. Nola brings the best snarky line of the day. Well played.
I’m wary of any claims of relative difficulty from people who have been through both programs. You can’t start each program with the exact same level of initial knowledge, so it’s impossible to compare accurately. It sounds like many of the dual designation people chiming in started the actuary track earlier, so they have that experience to draw on when preparing for the CFA, which might give the impression of “easier”.
nolabird032 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m not sure if Pixel’s statement is more retarded > or Pink’s demand for a quantitative answer to a > qualitative question. > The actuarial exams are 7.8 difficult vs the CFA > exams which are 6.2 difficult. > Feel better? Just think of me as a bandaid for > your brain. Reading comprehension fail.
Most people writing the CFA exams would $hit themselves if they took a look at the level of calculus/stats required for those exams. I did. The level of quant/mathematical horsepower needed for the CFA just doesn’t compare to what you need for the FSA exams. If you focus on the finance/investment/pension consulting tracks for the actuarial exams, you’re going above and beyond levels 2 & 3 in all kinds of areas, ecspecially option pricing/F.I./derivatives/portfolio thereoms. I think (as a non-advanced calc/stat university-course taking yet mathematically inclined finance grad) that there is no doubt that I would have 0 chance at passing even the initial actuarial exams, and regularly meet FSA’s who are skipping through the CFA without a hiccup cause they go into withdrawal after they finish the 9ish actuarial exams and don’t know how to have a real life anymore.
Good points, doworkson. Until you’ve actually looked at the SOA exam curricula, I really don’t think you can comment on the relative difficulty of the exams. After taking level I, I had a few moments where I thought about taking the actuarial exams and switching course at age 24. I got the books and started looking at the material for the first 2 exams. Didn’t get far into it when I got my current job, which snapped me back to CFA stuff. But I’m honestly not sure I could’ve passed those early exams with the math foundation I had (2 years of calc and linear algebra in high school, math-light Econ degree, lots of stats but more geared to econometrics). Would’ve taken a LOT more study than the CFA exams for me.