For our final profile of new CLC members, today we introduce you to Justin Young, with interests ranging from mathematical art to sports and trivia. Justin hopes to be a voice for the candidate experience.
Being a recent graduate from University of Delaware, John is looking forward to provide a fresh perspective to the CAS from a college student’s point of view, and bring along new ideas for the Future Fellows newsletter to communicate important changes to candidates.
“Well, there they go again…”
Any actuaries who have lived through a change in exam structure have probably said, heard, or at least sympathized with this sentiment. I suspect that students and faculty interested in actuarial science may be having similar thoughts right now. I recall struggling to comprehend the impact of exam changes during my own march (perhaps it could be more accurately described as a meander) toward Fellowship, followed later by helping employees and students sort out and interpret subsequent exam transitions.
But there is an important positive aspect of occasional exam changes: to the extent that they represent subject matter adjustments in response to the evolving skill set necessary for future actuaries, such changes reflect a nimble admissions structure keeping pace with a dynamic and growing profession.
In early January, the CAS announced two new exams, which I believe can best be understood in this positive context. Indeed, the recipe for this most recent exam change was robust anticipation of future needs – with a pinch of “necessity” thrown in.
Let’s explore the Whys, Wherefores, and the Reasons Thereof…
Why the Change?
The “necessity” occurred a year or so ago, when the SOA notified the CAS that it was planning to
discontinue Exam C (which most candidates use to get credit for our Exam 4 requirement via waiver) after spring 2018. The CAS decided to use this development as an opportunity to review and update not just the Exam 4/C subject matter being lost, but also the largely related topics on CAS Exam S. In fact, while addressing Exams 4/C and S was the immediate and highest priority, we actually undertook a review of the CAS’s entire exam syllabus. Literally hundreds of people provided input to this effort to determine what skills and knowledge an “Actuary of the Future” should have. One of the main takeaways from this effort was a strong consensus that we need to test more statistics and predictive analytics material in our exams.
What are the Changes?
The result was the creation of two new CAS exams: Modern Actuarial Statistics I & II (MAS-I & MAS-II). These new exams will replace two existing exam requirements Exams S and 4/C, respectively) beginning in 2018. They have been designed to address the emerging subject matter needs of future actuaries, and to increase the general relevance of our basic education system with respect to statistical and analytics skills.
Basically, MAS-I modifies and updates our current Exam S – it’s similar to Exam S, but with more emphasis on applied modeling and generalized linear models. It will first be offered in the spring of 2018, and there’s a simple Exam S-equivalent transition rule. The draft syllabus and learning objectives for MAS-I are available on the CAS website.
New Exam MAS-II covers some of the material in Exam C – primarily credibility theory – but also covers new statistics and analytics materials such as Linear Mixed Models, Bayesian Analysis & Markov Chain Monte Carlo, and Statistical Learning, all of which have become valuable and critical for casualty actuaries. This exam will first be offered in the fall of 2018, and the transition rule simply dovetails with the last scheduled offering of Exam C in the spring of 2018. The draft syllabus for MAS-II is available on the CAS website. Note that, although MAS-I is not a formal prerequisite for MAS-II, the latter exam will assume familiarity with the material on MAS-I.
Each of these exams will be a four-hour test, so there will be basically no increase in exam hours required for CAS credentials. They will have a multiple-choice format, and will initially be given as paper-and-pencil exams (although, in line with one of our strategic goals, we will consider evolving to a computer-based framework as these exams mature.) Both exams will be offered in both spring and fall, in the normal CAS timeframe, and will have sample questions available before the first offerings.
How Have Overall CAS Credentialing Requirements Changed?
The CAS Associateship designation will still require two VEEs, two online courses, a professionalism course, and seven exams. The difference is:
• Current ACAS Exam Requirements:
o Four preliminary exams: 1/P, 2/FM, 3F/MFE, and 4/C.
o Three associateship exams: S, 5, and 6.
• New ACAS Exam Requirements (2018):
o Three preliminary exams: 1/P, 2/FM, and 3F/IFM (modified MFE exam).
o Four associateship exams: MAS-I, MAS-II, 5, and 6.
See infographic depicting these changes. Fellowship requirements beyond the ACAS designation are unchanged.
How Should Students and Faculty Be Thinking About These Changes?
The impact of our basic education structure on actuarial students and faculty is hugely important to us at the CAS. Based on my experience from over a decade as director of the actuarial science program at the University of Illinois, I suggest that students and faculty consider and keep in mind the following:
1) The CAS has a duty to the actuarial profession, as well as our constituents and stakeholders, to help ensure that future actuaries are prepared to address the challenges of a rapidly changing world. These new exams demonstrate our commitment to providing education that’s uniquely relevant to property-casualty actuaries, so that we can continue to meet the emerging needs of future actuaries and their employers.
2) The new exam structure will benefit students because of its relevance. As mentioned above, the fact that Exam C was discontinued provided us an opportunity to create a replacement exam (and to enhance and upgrade another exam) that focuses on the modern statistics and analytics that actuaries are now using, and will certainly use more over time. This will increase the relevance of the CAS exam syllabus with respect to emerging statistical and analytics skills, with minimal changes to the overall exam structure.
3) These new exams replace existing exams, resulting in virtually no net increase in exam hours required for CAS credentials.
4) Finally, I think it’s very important to emphasize that students will not be disadvantaged by these changes. The vast majority of students do not take more than three exams in school (only about one in ten of them do), and for those top students that do take more than three, they will by then likely have already had internships and perhaps a full-time job opportunity in a specific practice area. Also, there is really no drawback to taking an “off-track” exam. No one will be disadvantaged in the recruitment process by taking an exam that ends up not “counting” toward a credential, and certainly any exposure to good mathematical or actuarial material is always a good thing. The CAS will continue to accept SOA Exams P, FM, and IFM (modified MFE exam) for our preliminary exam requirements. So while there will be one fewer SOA exam credit available via waiver, the vast majority of candidates will already be employed and on their (hopefully CAS!) exam track at the point that candidates would be sitting for their fourth exam.
In my view, these exam changes are good for everyone: our casualty actuarial profession, our CAS members, students (our future practitioners), and faculty. We are all participants in an exciting and evolving field, and we hope you will agree that the quality and relevance of our unique property-casualty actuarial education system will be enhanced by these changes!
We’d welcome your comments or feedback on this blog post, or questions you might have about these exam changes.
One of the perks of being a CAS Trust Scholarship winner is getting to attend the CAS Annual Meeting, most recently held this November in Orlando, Florida. While the meeting is designed for property and casualty actuaries to learn about latest happenings in the actuarial field, earn continuing education credits, and network with peers and colleagues, what is it like to attend the meeting as an actuarial college student? Well we asked this year’s CAS Trust Scholarship recipients, $10,000 award winner, Chase Yetter of Lebanon Valley College, and $5,000 award winners, Chloe Marshinski of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Sarah Rumon of University of St. Thomas, to share insights from their experience.
Favorite Sessions or PresentationsÂ
Chase Yetter:
“THE UNDERWRITING CYCLE — IS IT ECONOMICS OR BEHAVIOR OR BOTH?” was my favorite session. We were able to hear from insurance executives on their thoughts regarding the predictability of the underwriting cycle, or lack thereof. I find this to be a really interesting topic and I always appreciate the opportunity to hear from industry leaders.
Chloe Marshinski:
I really enjoyed the keynote speaker, Simon Bailey. He was funny and engaging and it was interesting to hear about someone’s experiences in a field very different from actuarial. I also attended the break-out session on the new Predictive Analytics credential, which was very helpful for me as that is something I may consider pursuing in the future.
Sarah Rumon:
One of my favorite sessions was the general session that addressed the underwriting cycle and debated whether it is an economic phenomenon or simply a behavioral cycle. For those who are only beginning their actuarial careers, I have found that there is not always much emphasis on how business functions (such as underwriting) impact actuarial functions and vice versa, so this was a refreshing perspective. I also enjoyed the keynote speaker Simon T. Bailey, who spoke about leadership and influencing team members to achieve goals that ultimately benefit the entire organization.
Networking with CAS Members
Chase:
I really enjoyed meeting members of the CAS and learning about their careers as well as the opportunities that are available to actuaries. They were very welcoming and provided great advice for students entering the field.
Chloe:
I really enjoyed meeting the CAS members during the meals and breaks. At breakfast and lunch, I sat with people from all different companies, and it was interesting to hear about all their experiences with the exam process and working as full time actuaries.
Sarah:
At the CAS meeting, there was such a wide variety of members—from actuaries that had just completed their ACAS, to chief actuaries who have been in the profession for years. It was incredibly motivating and encouraging to meet and network with so many actuaries who have each had unique career paths and experiences. There is something to learn from everyone!
Best Thing about the Annual Meeting
Chase:
Attending CAS meetings has shown me, through the wide variety of continuing education offered, that the CAS is ready to adapt to changes in the P&C profession. I’m excited to follow the development of new educational opportunities from iCAS.
Chloe:
The best parts of the meeting for me were the networking events. During both breakfast and lunch, I was able to reconnect with some of my coworkers at CNA as well as meet new people from other companies. I also enjoyed meeting and talking to the other two scholarship winners, Chase and Sarah…I am very excited to become a part of this community in the upcoming years and meet more people within the CAS.
Sarah:
By far, the highlight of the CAS Annual Meeting was the general excitement about the profession. All members were genuinely interested to learn from each other in a variety of sessions, and the ability to network with hundreds of actuaries was an amazing opportunity! Overall, I came away from the meeting more interested and excited to start a career in actuarial science.
The deadline for the 2017-2018 CAS Trust Scholarship is March 1, 2017. Additional information is available at casact.org/trustscholarship. Winners will be invited to attend the CAS Annual Meeting in Austin, TX in November 2017
We have the privilege of introducing Celeste Bremen to you as one of the incoming Candidate Representatives. Celeste is an actuarial analyst at Zurich North America, and she has been appointed to a two-year term on the committee.
As we get ready to celebrate the holidays and enter a new year we’d like to reflect on the CAS Student Central resources made available to you this past year, as well as hear from you about what you enjoyed, found useful, and what you’d like to see more of in the coming year.
We started 2016 by inviting the experts at Ezra Penland Actuarial Recruitment to reveal What Sets a Strong Actuarial Resume Apart and asking a CAS member to share How Actuaries Stay Informed and Up-To-Date.
In February we were happy to announce that CAS would be taking part in Insurance Careers Month (now a Movement!) and we profiled up-and-coming millennial actuaries who are already making a name for themselves  in the insurance industry. This tied in perfectly with our spring semester webinar, The Entry-Level Job Market for Actuaries: What’s Hot, What’s Not, and How to Position Yourself for Success; a panel of industry professionals shared their thoughts, recruiting practices, and answered your questions to help you as you transition into your professional career.
Over the course of 2016 our CAS Student Central social media presence expanded and we wanted to use it to reach you directly and answer questions you might have, so we hosted our first TweetChat with CAS Staff Actuary Rick Gorvett, which included advice on employment opportunities, what courses to take, and how drones and driverless cars will affect the industry.
This summer we introduced you to the 2016 CAS Trust Scholarship Winners to highlight their achievements and to encourage you to apply for the 2017-2018 CAS Trust Scholarship, now accepting applications.
In the fall, to help give you a broader look at the actuarial profession, we focused the CAS Student Central webinar on Catastrophe Modeling; Shawna Ackerman, FCAS, MAAA, and Chief Actuary at California Earthquake Authority introduced the fundamentals of catastrophe modeling and provided resources to help you learn more about this topic.
Last month we announced the release of CAS Case Competition Toolkits featuring guidance and templates to run your own case competition at your school. There are currently two cases, one on Auto Safety Features and another on Worker’s Compensation Reserving, and there are plans to make additional topics available.
And throughout the year Student Central members networked with CAS members at conferences and during CAS University Liaison campus visits.
Let us know what you enjoyed and which resources you found useful. Would you like more tips like How Coffee Can Make Your Career or How to Decide Between Two Job Offers? Did you enjoy some of the more creative takes on the actuarial profession such as Managing Pokémon Risk and A Haunting Actuarial Analysis? Share your feedback by leaving a comment below or emailing us at CASstudentcentral@casact.org.
The CAS University Engagement Committee contacted Actuarial Careers, Inc., and invited them to write a blog post to provide you with tips on how to approach the difficult task of deciding between two job offers. We thank Actuarial Careers’ Robyn Taylor, Senior Vice President, for writing this post to share with members of CAS Student Central. Â
So you just got your first actuarial job offer from Company A– congratulations! You are ready to accept what you think is a terrific offer, and boom – you receive a call from Company B. They are also offering you a job! Now what was going to be a day for you to relax and enjoy a little downtime before you get to work, has become a stressful day of decision making. Here are some important things to consider when deciding between two jobs – I call them the Four C’s.
Compensation – What are they offering financially? The base salaries offered by both companies may be similar, but you must also consider a few other factors. Look at bonus potential (are you even eligible?), student program bonuses and raises for passing exams and receiving credentials, and company benefits. What might seem like a similar pair of salaries may seem very different when you dive into the details.
Career Path – Is there room at your potential employer for growth? Will you be part of a rotational program or will you be slotted into a role for the foreseeable future? Consider the size of the company and how actuaries move along their career path. If the company is small you might not have the opportunity to move up. If the company is large, you may be doing a very narrowly defined job that will not give you the skills to move forward.
Companionship – Did you like the people you met on your interview? You will be spending a very large portion of your waking hours with your coworkers. If you don’t like them, or there just aren’t many of them, you might find yourself miserable or just plain lonely.
Culture– Does the company culture fit your personality?  If you are the laid back type, you might not be happy at a company that has a high speed, constantly changing landscape. Conversely, if you are a high-energy type-A personality, you might not enjoy working for a more conservative, slow paced organization.  This is a good topic for questioning during the interview stage, so you can truly understand the company you are working for and how you would fit in terms of temperament.
If you find yourself in the middle of deciding between two jobs – a good-bad situation if there ever was one – thinking carefully and considering the Four C’s can help you discover your dream job.
The CAS has made it easier than ever to run an actuarial case competition for university students! With the help of practicing actuaries and some serious volunteer time, the CAS has developed two case competitions, complete with toolkits that offer you guidance and templates to run your own case competition.
If you don’t have experience with case competitions, you may be wondering why an actuarial student would benefit from participating in one. Others of you may already know that case competitions offer an excellent opportunity to gain practical experience as well as hone your analytical, leadership, and presentation skills. On top of that, employers will surely notice the addition to your resume.
Interested in learning more about the case competition materials we have to offer? We currently have two sets of materials for you to choose from.
The first competition, released last spring, focuses on an Auto Safety Features Case Study. The case challenges students to investigate whether a university that is replacing its aging fleet of autos should replace them with vehicles containing certain safety features. The case introduces concepts of loss development triangles, frequency and severity, and quantifying the financial benefit of new car safety features. Arizona State University and the University of Texas at Austin both ran the Auto Safety Features Case Competition last spring, and the Actuarial Students National Association (ASNA) selected the case for last year’s annual convention competition in Niagara Falls. You can read about these competitions in the Jul/Aug issue of the Actuarial Review.
The NEW competition released this month centers around a Workers Compensation Reserving Case Study. The case asks students to estimate the liabilities associated with all of a company’s workers compensation policies ever written, taking into consideration a catastrophic event that occurred at the company. The case focuses on reserving and introduces concepts of IBNR, loss development, severity, and ultimate costs.
The case competition toolkits offer a full set of materials to help universities plan and run their own case competition.
The Auto Safety Features Case Competition Toolkit contains:
The Workers Compensation Reserving Case Competition Toolkit contains:
If you are interested in organizing a case competition for your actuarial club, or would like to bring the idea up to your professors to facilitate a competition for your classmates, let us know. The CAS is available to provide support and guidance with your competition, including volunteer recruitment and event promotion.
The CAS University Engagement Committee’s Case Competition Working Group, chaired by Erin Olson, FCAS, developed the CAS Case Competition Toolkits.
Part I was posted last week and can be read here: https://www.casstudentcentral.org/a-haunting-actuarial-analysis-part-i/
Are you back? Good. Here is a summary of the aggregate survey results, including comments often originating from some of my wonderful CAS Staff colleagues, from most risky to least risky monsters.
(1) Dracula / VampiresÂ
Based on average survey ranking, the most risky Halloween monster is Dracula / Vampires. While no one selected Dracula as the most risky, almost all respondents ranked him (it?) second! Concerns about Dracula, from a risk management perspective, centered primarily around severity: if it bites you, that’s pretty much all she wrote, and you join the can’t-get-enough-of-that-O-positive club. Interestingly, the fact that Dracula is only active at night was used by respondents on both sides of the frequency issue, as an indication that the risk might be both lower and higher: active “only at night” versus “every night.” One person suggested that, from the standpoint of exposures, there’s only one Dracula – but don’t the bitten then also become vampires? Also, it was pointed out that the original Bram Stoker version could shapeshift, and was master of those he “recruited,” and thus had the potential to be a particularly grueling risk. These last few comments demonstrate the importance of correctly ascertaining and defining the essential characteristics of your risk, in order to properly quantify and assess the underlying exposure, as well as the frequency and severity potential.
(2) ZombiesÂ
Here I must embarrassedly provide a caveat. When I first sent this survey to my colleagues, I had included only the first seven monsters – I had somehow forgotten zombies! Several recipients of the survey pointed out this dreadful lacuna (which I contend was caused by the insidiousness of zombies themselves, and their effect on my brain!), but by then it was too late to add zombies to the survey. Nevertheless, a few respondents themselves chose to add zombies to their rankings and, although the sample size is much smaller than for the other classes, zombies did achieve the second-highest risk ranking, very close behind Dracula / Vampires.
Risk characteristics of zombies (at least for fast-moving ones) include their swarm mentality, the difficulty in “killing” them, and their relentlessness.
(3) The WolfmanÂ
This one surprised me a bit – clearly, I’m no horror expert. I thought that, for this dude, exposure would be low because he’s only a problem on nights with a full moon. But others felt that frequency per unit of exposure (on those infrequent nights, he has an insatiable appetite) and severity (if you happen to be in the same room with this guy, you’re probably dead) would be significant, even if the exposure itself is only about once per month.
(4) Witches / Wizards
Coming in fourth on our list of greatest risk-hits are witches and wizards. A problem with them is quantifying the exposure level: you never quite know who is and isn’t a witch (who would have suspected Selena Gomez?!). And, like most of the high-risk-ranking monsters, the potential severity is enormous – one thought, or nose-wiggle, or finger-snap could take out the whole town. On the good side, with respect to frequency of damage, unless they’re provoked, they’re generally not harmful. So “just leave them alone” would be sound risk management advice!
(5) The Mummy
There was some disagreement among respondents regarding The Mummy, and so here’s another example of the need to precisely identify, characterize, and define your risks. Some felt he should be low on the list (perhaps you can simply outrun him). Others were concerned that he’s the one on the list that truly seems to want to kill everyone, and that he himself can be hard to kill, requiring magic or an ancient Egyptian curse. (So I guess we can’t just nuke him?)
(6) The Grim Reaper      Â
Now this is a really interesting one, and it has a very important lesson for actuaries and risk analysts. The responses and rankings on The Grim Reaper had by far the highest standard deviation of any of the eight monster types – i.e., there was more disagreement in the rankings. In fact, roughly the same number of people ranked TGR most risky, as ranked it least risky. I think what has happened here is a common issue: causality versus correlation. Let’s face it: if TGR shows up, you’re pretty much toast. But is TGR the cause of death, or just the messenger (and thus the link between TGR is one of correlation, rather than cause)? My interpretation (and again, we need to define and characterize our risks accurately!) is that death is caused by other factors, and TGR just shows up at the appropriate time. In that sense, TGR would not be risky per se – but would be a rather reliable indicator that death is imminent.
(7) Ghosts         Â
Ghosts were generally low-rated, on the basis that they may be unable to do physical damage (although see Ghostbusters – “I think he can hear you, Ray”), and they tend to stick to their own stomping grounds. But there’s certainly potential for emotional distress and mental damage. Plus, again, how do we know the extent of the exposure?
(8) Frankenstein’s MonsterÂ
Widely agreed to be at or toward the bottom of the risk list, Frankenstein’s Monster was interpreted by survey responders as a largely misunderstood and potentially friendly bloke (unless you cross him). 
Not the brightest bulb on the tree, he can be both outrun and out-thought. (But what’s up with that haircut??)
Many thanks to my friends and colleagues on the CAS Staff that responded to the survey! Also, if you are interested in reading more on monster risk-rankings (as well as much other interesting and useful postings and information), please see the MyPath Blog, proprietors of which I thank for the initial idea that led to this Student Central post.
Happy Halloween!
Careers rarely unfold the way you had originally anticipated. Take the following hypothetical:
After graduating from college, you begin a position as Actuarial Analyst for a major property-casualty insurance company. You work for a few years, passing actuarial exams regularly, achieving an ACAS designation (with the FCAS right around the corner!), and getting very positive performance reviews.Â
One day, the Chief Actuary calls you into her office and says, “We love the work you’ve been doing, and we think you’re ready for a new challenge. I’m appointing you the sole actuary of a brand new business unit, Halloween Monster Liability. Apparently, many monsters have significant assets to protect, so there is an emerging market for monster liability policies.” 
You smile knowingly, and cheerfully say “Good one!” But the Chief Actuary just frowns and gives you a quizzical look. You realize your mistake, and stammer, “Oh, uh… you’re serious!”
She nods. “Darn right I’m serious! This idea came right out of our new Innovation Lab, and it’s one of the top priorities of our CEO. We’re going after this market in a big way – we’re all in! And you’ll be the key: determining appropriate prices and risk relationships for the eight types of monsters we’ll be insuring, so this new venture will be profitable.”Â
She hands you a sheet of paper with the list of the eight monster classes. “There’s no good formal historical loss database available, of course – but plenty of anecdotal information and evidence. I’d suggest you start by ranking the riskiness of each monster class relative to the others.” She stands up and shakes your hand. “This is a great opportunity for both you and the company. Don’t let us down!”
Your head spinning, you leave and eventually find your way back to your office and plop down in your chair. You look at the sheet of paper listing the eight categories of monsters for which you must now begin the process of risk classification for ratemaking purposes:Â
 First, as the Chief Actuary suggested, you decide to try to rank these according to relative riskiness. You pull out a pad of paper, and start jotting down ideas, starting with general context.Â
You know the following:
 “Whew,” you mumble to yourself. “I’m gonna need some help with this.” You decide to survey your colleagues for their impressions of the relative riskiness of the eight monster classes.
And indeed, that’s what I have done: surveyed my colleagues on the CAS Office Staff. But before I present the overall results, you might want to take a few minutes to think about your own monster riskiness ranking. Go ahead – I’ll wait.
Part II will be coming out on Halloween so stay tuned!