Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 349 posts

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#171

Post by MattGaiser »

tzs wrote: post #153
xeRTRex wrote: post #118

One of the most frustrating aspects of the process is that once outside of insurance/insurance-adjacent industries, the credentials are useless. I have my FSA (fellowship of the SOA) and CERA (chartered enterprise risk analyst) from the SOA. I no longer wanted to work in insurance and left for data science. I felt the need to obtain a graduate degree to feel qualified enough for the data science space. My Master's de…

> you're constrained to legacy industries Is insurance really a legacy industry?

They are a strong candidate for greatest technological backwater.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#172

Post by aqualinux »

tzs wrote: post #153
xeRTRex wrote: post #118

One of the most frustrating aspects of the process is that once outside of insurance/insurance-adjacent industries, the credentials are useless. I have my FSA (fellowship of the SOA) and CERA (chartered enterprise risk analyst) from the SOA. I no longer wanted to work in insurance and left for data science. I felt the need to obtain a graduate degree to feel qualified enough for the data science space. My Master's de…

> you're constrained to legacy industries Is insurance really a legacy industry?

The incumbent insurance companies maintain their position in the market through having large amounts of capital which lets them ultimately offer lower premiums than a new competitor entering the market which may have less capital. This means the legacy insurance companies don't need to prioritise investing in innovation to maintain their position, hence the old companies stay around.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#173

Post by civilized »

xeRTRex wrote: post #118

One of the most frustrating aspects of the process is that once outside of insurance/insurance-adjacent industries, the credentials are useless. I have my FSA (fellowship of the SOA) and CERA (chartered enterprise risk analyst) from the SOA. I no longer wanted to work in insurance and left for data science. I felt the need to obtain a graduate degree to feel qualified enough for the data science space. My Master's de…

The exams have two ultimate objectives:

1. Perpetuate the actuarial guild

2. Shovel money from aspiring actuaries and insurance companies into the SOA's coffers

They aren't really, and aren't really meant to be, a marker of general, transferable intellectual skills or achievement outside the insurance industry. So it's not surprising that no one other than the parties involved (the SOA, aspiring actuaries, and insurance companies) recognizes them as a meaningful credential.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#174

Post by [deleted] »

opensandwich wrote: post #159

Another actuary checking in from Institute of Actuaries Australia - I'm a "qualified" actuary (associate level) who decided to not even try for the fellowship exams and instead change course completely and do a PhD in Machine Learning. No one outside of the actuarial industry cares or really knows what it means to be an actuary. Having an actuarial background in non-traditional actuarial areas is almost more of a cur…

[deleted]

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#175

Post by poulsbohemian »

d136o wrote: post #149
poulsbohemian wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's exactly it. I know I've certainly spent spare brain cycles considering it, and there seem to be a number of startups trying to create cheaper title insurance, but it's not clear to me how to really solve the issue. Basically it's a human behavior and record keeping problem. You have to have perfect records, and you hope some estranged cousin doesn't magically popup with a deed someday claiming to own you…

When we bought our house, after our down payment and on our way to closing I asked a question to the escrow/title insurance person: * the disclosures show two slightly different figures for the dimensions of the lot, which one is it? (County mapped shows Width W and another owner provided map showed W-1ft or something like that) Instead of doing anything to try to figure it out, this title insurance company (also doi…

Yes, there's plenty that could be discussed about how to improve the title / escrow process, in addition to the information collection process... for much of it, it comes down to being a better process than the alternatives, having been refined over decades (or longer).

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#176

Post by refurb »

d136o wrote: post #39

In this [1] interview by Barry Ritholtz, Markel CEO essentially told the origin story of an insurance giant. Basically a family member was a lawmaker, passed a law that drivers of the newly invented cars (maybe horse buggies?) must be insured. They simultaneously started a company that sold insurance. Over time they learned to make money from investing their customers capital. It blew my mind at how candid he was abo…

Insurance is meant to pay out for catastrophic events. It has expanded into silly products like dental insurance which often has caps like “maximum $5,000 lifetime claim for orthodontic”. What it is a basically a savings plan - you and your employer contribute X and the insurer pays out 0.9X in predictable costs.

Insurance is fantastic for personal liability, title insurance, health insurance when you consider the low probability of event ruining you financially.

In terms of helping with regularly occurring costs? No they are terrible.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#177

Post by SilasX »

gruez wrote: post #154
SilasX wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim I was defending was that the way auto liability insurance is done is a scam, not that the concept of requiring liability insurance is a scam. Looking back, the original post's comment on that point was a final aside that was ambiguous. But my defense is of the charitable interpretation of that remark. Any auto liability insurance system should be written to avoid that kind of gaming.

>The claim I was defending was that the way auto liability insurance is done is a scam Seems like it's working as intended? The purpose of auto liability insurance is to... insure the policyholder from liability. If you're not the policyholder, it's not working for you. If you're a policy and you're not experiencing losses stemming from your liability (ie. you crashed your own car), it's not covered. Others in this t…

I thought I addressed exactly that in my original reply It’s not really working if and when once side is incentivized not to pay when they can and are obviously at fault.

Your comment is like saying “yeah that corporation used a natural pond as a toxic waste dump, so what? Corporations are supposed to make a profit, right?” Yes, they are … subject to other social desiderata like respecting others’ rights.

You seem to be attached to some bizarre strawman that the OP was expecting his own liability to cover the other party’s faults. That was never the argument.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#178

Post by refurb »

dragonwriter wrote: post #142
explodingman wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The appropriate course is to sue the other driver directly and ignore the insurance company. A person cannot ignore a court summons, not even in Texas. The judge will know that the other driver's insurance will ultimately pay, so he can punish the insurance company for its intransigence by putting a heavy financial penalty onto the other driver.

> The appropriate course is to sue the other driver directly and ignore the insurance company. Yes, that's how you formally sue in an accident. It's not the hack you think it is, though, the insurance company defends the lawsuit, that's part of the insurance agreement. It's also specifically what OP was unwilling to do which resulted in the insurance company not paying, and why any “the judge should...” is missing th…

Lawyers can’t represent clients in some small claims courts.

And often just filing is enough for them to do the math and just pay out.

Sure, it’s not fair, but that’s why we have courts in the first place.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#179

Post by refurb »

jjnoakes wrote: post #140
fn-mote wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees The free market is required to accurately price the risk for each driver. A 45 year old female driver with no infractions is much less risk than an 18 year old male with a DUI, so the former should pay less in premiums. The current system is doing that. I do not see how a state-provided solution would come up with "accurate" prici…

A counterpoint (not necessarily my view but a view nonetheless) would be that if everyone pays into a single required insurance pool then the risk doesn't need to be accurately determined a priori. Each individual's rates might be the same, but they could be lower overall because there are more paying in. A low risk driver may pay more than they use, but it could be less than the market rate regardless.

The risk still needs to be accurately determined, even if not for each individual. If 100 people in a population will be injured and get a pay out of $100k, you need to know that to set general rates.

What I’ve seen in places that have government insurance is the government is constantly trying to backstop the insurance.

Why? It becomes a political hot potato when rates go up, so there is pressure to keep them down with lower premiums. The insurance body doesn’t care because the government will bail them out.

Post reply on HN