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

241–250 of 349 posts

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

#241

Post by noxvilleza »

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…

When I left high school I loved maths and stats, so I started a degree in Actuarial Science. Was totally bored by it by the end of first year - could not be motivated at all by it. There was no semblance of problem solving, it was primarily just applying a few types of formulae to a situation. Sometimes normalizing some input, sometimes adjusting something in a tiny way - but essentially the same stuff over and over again. Looked at past-papers for years 2 and 3, and it didn't any more interesting. I realized towards the end of first year that the idea of doing an entire degree and then 4-10 years doing board exams just seemed a sort of narrow path to take - few alternatives to swap to once you go too far. Ended up changing to Computer Science.

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

#243

Post by whatshisface »

jjnoakes wrote: post #187
refurb wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

You can just update rates after the fact if necessary. I don't really see the problem with that. People with a bad history may get higher rates, just not based on risk analysis but based on their actual history.

The only way to convert "has a DUI" into a specific rate increase is through risk analysis of everybody with DUIs.

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

#244

Post by lazide »

SilasX wrote: post #116
dragonwriter wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you call someone who victimizes people he know have a disadvantage in suing him? A for-profit business. Sure, unequal, wealth-gated practical access to the courts is a real problem, and it impacts basically every area of American society. But it doesn't make mandatory auto liability insurance a scam, any more than it makes literally every commercial industry a scam.

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.

It seems more like the poster was complaining that actually following through was hard and a pain in the ass, therefore the game is rigged.

Really it’s just they’re used to someone else doing all the hard work and don’t want to shell out or expend effort for when something doesn’t go smoothly.

Having dealt with contractors and others who decided doing what they were supposed too was clearly too hard (and then making them do it or deal with the consequences), it’s just how life is. Some people will make you make them, because most people are too busy or distracted to do it, and they usually get off Scott free.

It sucks, but it is what it is.

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

#245

Post by lazide »

nicoburns wrote: post #156
dragonwriter wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The police report, however, did. Police reports are evidence that can support a finding of liability, but they are not a legal establishment of liability. There are very good reasons (the due process clause of the 14th Amendment comes to mind) why that should be the case, it's not a scam.. > Throwing ones hands up to say "well, of -course- the company is going to avoid paying anything out unless taken to a court of…

So you don’t think corporations have any responsibility to act ethically?

Good luck proving it was unethical as compared to a ‘misunderstanding’. A lot of people are pretty good at CYA.

Being on the shitty end of the stick, of course the poster sees what is happening. But until a judge or impartial third party with some pull sees it, it might as well not exist. And that’s hard.

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

#246

Post by User23 »

civilized wrote: post #182
aqualinux wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also, insurance just doesn't have much interesting space for innovation. In life insurance, for example, products other than simple term insurance really shouldn't exist. They're mostly just Rube Goldberg tax sheltered savings accounts for the wealthy. In theory there ought to be some opportunity in the area of incentivizing people to improve their health behaviors. But carriers have been much slower to move on that…

Term life insurance is basically just a put option on your life with an expiration a couple decades out.

Whole life on the other hand is actually buying equity in your presumptive future earnings. It's considerably more capital intensive, but less expensive overall in most cases.

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

#247

Post by whatshisface »

gruez wrote: post #93
romwell wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot take: if it's something that's universally a good thing that should be required of every driver, it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees. Otherwise, it's just an income-generating scheme for private parties. Oh, and fun fact: the liability insurance isn't required to pay up anything unless the covered driver loses in court . They don't have to follow that the police r…

>Hot take: if it's something that's universally a good thing that should be required of every driver, it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees. >Otherwise, it's just an income-generating scheme for private parties. Food and shelter are essentially "required" for everyone. Should those be provided by the state, to avoid it being "an income-generating scheme for private part…

If they said "yes" to that they wouldn't be the first in history with that answer.

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

#248

Post by nwiswell »

specialist wrote: post #210
nwiswell wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> responsibility to act ethically They have the opposite responsibility, if anything... They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, and considering that the behavior being suggested here would see them quickly run out of business by their less-moral competition, it would probably be a breach of that duty. The solution is to change laws about redress. For example, statutory punitive damages and attorneys' fees i…

> They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders... Citation please.

Does this work?

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fiduciary-responsibi....

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

#249

Post by s1artibartfast »

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…

And this is not just old laws, states are starting to implement mandatory long term care insurance. Another scam, where it doesn't matter what kind of retirement setup I have

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

#250

Post by nwiswell »

gruez wrote: post #222
nwiswell wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> responsibility to act ethically They have the opposite responsibility, if anything... They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, and considering that the behavior being suggested here would see them quickly run out of business by their less-moral competition, it would probably be a breach of that duty. The solution is to change laws about redress. For example, statutory punitive damages and attorneys' fees i…

>The solution is to change laws about redress. For example, statutory punitive damages and attorneys' fees in lawsuits against insurers where the final judgement is significantly different from the insurer's initial offer. 1. I you're supposed to have negotiated with the counterparty in good faith prior to a lawsuit. If not, that will be looked negatively by the judge. https://www.sbwllp.com/rule-68-offers-of-judgmen…

Part 1 is just a matter of public policy. This is all armchair theory anyway.

Regarding Part 2, I actually don't see the problem. If the result is causing insurance companies to be more cautious about lowball offers when there's a range of reasonable outcomes, is that bad? The plaintiff still must succeed at proving damages, so it's not like that outcome is unforseeable.

It does increase "settlement risk" for insurers, but _they're insurers_. Of every kind of entity out there they should be the most comfortable with risk. The greater risk of unfavorable settlements would obviously increase insurance premiums, but if premiums increase because insurers are actually paying more in fair settlements and/or punitive judgements because they failed to pay a fair settlement, again I cannot see the problem.

Post reply on HN