A speedy striker who we can sign from Leipzig for a high fee? I see no possible way that this can go wrong, sign me up

Yeah, that's the article I was thinking of. What a prick

I'll also remember him for being a giant meathead douchebag, Exhibit A being him bullying a reporter in the clubhouse.

Wasn't he the one that threw Tatis under the bus when he pimped his grand slam? "We'll talk to him about him" or whatever. Everything I've heard about him makes him sound like a tremendous dickhead so not sure why people are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Is that the guy that got into a yelling match about IBNR methods or something last year?

I guess where I was going (and I know this is completely unwarranted and not related your initial question at all) is that you sound like you already are a fairly accomplished accountant in your career thus far, and having an FSA before you have a job lined up won't change the fact that you'll be starting again from ground zero in actuarial so I wanted to dissuade you of that notion. To me it's like a high school student studying to take his CPA exams over summer break because he wants to be an accountant and he'll need to pass them eventually.

Again, not really my business, just that taking exams seems like a suboptimal use of your time at this point. Best of luck to you regardless!

Largely anecdotal from what I've seen and speaking to recruiters, but virtually zero at any semi-large companies or insurers, at least in the US. With so many EL candidates and not much to differentiate between them, no reason for them to handle the extra admin.

Smaller companies like startups or consultancies, it's probably marginally more likely, although still probably extremely unlikely if you're just a run-of-the-mill EL.

Why do you want to pass FSA exams in the first place? If it's your first actuarial role (assuming you have work authorization figured out; sponsorship almost never happens for EL), your hireability won't change depending on how many exams you have because you'll be starting from ground zero.

Sorry I don't have much to add re: exam track, but think you're overvaluing these exams given your current situation.

You're severely overgeneralizing based on what it seems like limited experience. I have less than 10 YOE and my hourlys have been way above 330 at all the places I've worked. It's extremely company-dependent.

For sure, it's a very tough grind and an unnecessary harsh weed-out process. It doesn't seem to help that most newer people starting out nowadays have never been in an office setting before, and they're lacking (through little fault of their own) basic skills like asking effective questions and taking accountability.

I think actuarial consulting, as an industry, need to re-think how to deal with EL analysts, because being forced to churn out report after report without being able to take a second to reflect and think about things, on top of taking exams to not fall behind your peers, is a terrible way to learn things. The industry's attitude of "We'll pay you $80K annually with the understanding that you'll be useless for the first couple of years" helps bring people up to speed imo, although I don't think most consulting principals would be too moved by the argument.

If you need to work (I assume bill) 1,800 hours to break even I think you were underpaid by definition, lol.

Again, it sounds like you found a good position that pays really well, so happy for you. On aggregate there is no way industry is on par with consulting. For pre-credentialed analysts, sure, but once you're further along and your pay is less tied to a strict hours formula, the gap widens pretty quickly. Not to mention health insurers seemingly laying off director-level actuaries left and right nowadays.

That being said, I'm sure there are tons of people being ground down to the nub at your Millimans and Mercers. As with any job, important to find one that has a culture to match what you value.

I think this is a good balanced view of things. Glad to see I'm not the only one losing my mind over #5. I've run out of ways to ask my analysts "Are you sure you've checked this number because I told you to fix it last month and it still looks weird and I swear to god I will write off all your hours if you keep sending me garbage to review-" what were we talking about again?

Learning #1 definitely skews the perception here. I definitely feel for EL people in consulting because my EL analysts are so overworked and underpaid compared to when I was starting out at a payer.

I would say the reward-to-effort ratio evens out at I think around the 4-5 year range, which is also generally when people get their letters, and you're generally getting the hang of things and learning to work more independently and efficiently. I find it's hard to communicate that without sounding like some out-of-touch boomer ("Trust me bro it gets better in 5 years bro" isn't a very good value prop apparently), which is part of the reason why there's a ton of EL turnover, and angry Reddit posts, re: consulting.

I mean yeah, of course there are outliers. It just sounds like you were wildly underpaid. Overall there's no question that consulting pays more, at least on a W-2 basis, so to speak. If you want to say it's less on a dollars-per-hour basis, then sure.

There's also a big difference in terms of hireability down the line. Someone who's done reserving for 10 years at one company isn't going to have a ton of opportunities elsewhere.

This is much closer to my experience too. I can count on one hand the number of weeks in a year that I work more than 50 hours. But I also don't do bids and am probably in the bottom 20% in terms of how much I care about my billable target, so YMMV.

There are days when I miss the payer life working 15-20 hours a week, but for me the tradeoff is (1) interesting work, (2) much faster career development, (3) more autonomy over my projects, and (4) 30-50% more pay than payer actuaries with comparable YOE. I'll take that trade, although again it's a personal decision.

I mean, maybe, maybe not?

Actuary = anti-social is an outdated stereotype and isn't really true at all in my experience, although some places are definitely worse than others. I'm not the type of person that goes out of my way to talk to people but I've definitely thought multiple times this week that people would stop scheduling meetings with me so that I can get work done.

Sounds like you need a new job

Don't know about that, you can get pretty creative with formations in three dimensions

Imagine them playing 4-2-3-1 with Kluivert and Tavernier as literal wingers, and Solanke hovering 15 feet above them

Tbh if Bournemouth learn to fly before now and next weekend that makes it much more likely that they stick 20 past us

I don't know why this graphic caveated Luton's 12 goal swing, when our GD gap is even wider

Where the fuck did they pull 9 and 10 out of, fuck me. There were the two VAR checks which is pretty standard for a match nowadays and then... that's it? The stoppage for Mudryk's injury took like two minutes

Reece you idiot

One year younger than Order of the Phoenix

I don't understand why Mudryk comes centrally. He's done it a few times over the last few games so I have to believe it's something Poch ordered, but all he does is crowd the field instead of stretching the width. He's too chaotic with the ball at his feet to play in tight spaces

An RFP, looks like

Kaiser/Hoag is probably less than two miles away from where you are. You won't be separated for long even if she goes alone

I would guess that Angels are probably behind Dodgers and Lakers, even in Anaheim itself.

Like you said, Mission Viejo-ish is probably where you have more Angels fans, although those are probably people who dislike the "Hollywood lifestyle" of the Dodgers