Banner Ad 1

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why choose casualty to go into?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why choose casualty to go into?

    Why would someone choose property casualty to go into over life and health or pensions?

  • #2
    MY personal opinion....because P&C is constantly umpredictable. That is, something that happens now isn't guaranteed to happen tomorrow, a month from now, a year from now, etc. etc. - assumptions and solutions you thought were good today won't necessarily be good at any point in the future. I'm the kind of person who likes coming up with a solution, coming back 6 months later to see if the solution is still good, and picking it apart to find a new, better solution to fit the current situation.

    Health is much like P&C so I could see me in health, but P&C actuaries are in high demand...so I gravitated there.

    Life IMO is stable - the challenge is in determining which of the insureds will die this year, but you know X% of the population aged YY will die in the next year. Pensions is a bit more unpredictable, but for me it never grabbed my interest like P&C always has.
    "You better get to living, because dying's a pain in the ***." - Frank Sinatra

    http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blogger_ar...blogger_id=174 - where I talk about the Blues and the NHL.

    Comment


    • #3
      So unpredictable that the solution seldom fits the actual fact well. When someone else satirizes you for that, what will you do?

      Comment


      • #4
        Why P&C

        Our exposures are more dynamic. Insurance against loss from satellites. Internet liability. Cell phone radiation liability. The subprime mortgage crisis. I think these things are more interesting than life insurance or pensions.

        By the way, which do you think is more common: Experienced life & pension actuaries switching to P&C, or experienced P&C actuaries switching to life & pension?

        Comment


        • #5
          All the things that you are much interested in do not fit you at all maybe, however. So the interest should not be the main reason that you choose the P&C actuaries.

          Yes, it is more common that life actuaries switch to P&C. But I don't think the main reason for this is the interest. Maybe, just my guess, because there are so few P&C acyuaries and some life actuaries try meeting the meed. And another reason is that the life actuarial techniques are a liitle more complicated than the P&C actuarial techniques, I feel. I just say complicated, not difficult, hehe. Hope the words do not make some people angry.

          Comment


          • #6
            Every P&C actuary who reads your post is going to love you!
            Last edited by R_T; December 26 2009, 11:30 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi! I am still a student and trying to decide whether I should go into casualty or life. I have passed several exams already and I think I will have a choice in terms of where I get my first job, so I am trying to decide which one I shoud choose.

              Is it common for experieced P&C actuaries to go into management when they have enough experience or is there more of that in the life field? Also, which path is closer to non-traditional actuarial roles, investing, etc? It seems like there is a higher demand for P&C actuaries, is that so?

              Any input is greatly appreciated

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Anechka View Post
                Hi! I am still a student and trying to decide whether I should go into casualty or life. I have passed several exams already and I think I will have a choice in terms of where I get my first job, so I am trying to decide which one I shoud choose.

                Is it common for experieced P&C actuaries to go into management when they have enough experience or is there more of that in the life field?
                I'm not sure how the two fields compare in terms of upward mobility, but P&C actuaries who do a good job definitely move into management, some senior management and CEO.

                Also, which path is closer to non-traditional actuarial roles, investing, etc?
                Life or pensions. P&C actuaries are extremely traditional insurance professionals.

                It seems like there is a higher demand for P&C actuaries, is that so?
                There used to be more actuarial opportunities life side. During this recession, life companies have been horribly wounded, so it seems like you usually only hear stories about people getting hired into P&C companies.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Preferance over Life, Pensions or P&C

                  Hi,

                  I am an Insurance guy currently working on UK insurnace products. I plan to have a new actuarial set up in my office & I plan to get some actuarial work. I would like to know which product is preferred the most. Is it Life , Pensions or P&C.

                  We currently have a good knowledge base about Life & Pensions. :smiloe:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    At what point should you "decide" what field to get into, as in P&C, Life, Pension, etc.?

                    I have one exam under my belt. I'll (hopefully) have a couple more in about a half year or so. Is that the time to decide? Is it important in interviews to know which way you're leaning?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dagojr View Post
                      Is it important in interviews to know which way you're leaning?
                      Of course, you are always leaning toward the industry your interviewer belongs to.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by joeorez View Post
                        Our exposures are more dynamic. Insurance against loss from satellites. Internet liability. Cell phone radiation liability. [...]
                        I know this is off-topic somewhat, but I hope that "cell phone radiation liability" isn't an actual insured risk. Scientific studies are quite conclusive about this topic; and the conclusion is: there is no causal link between cell phone radiation and cancer. None.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by majamin View Post
                          I know this is off-topic somewhat, but I hope that "cell phone radiation liability" isn't an actual insured risk. Scientific studies are quite conclusive about this topic; and the conclusion is: there is no causal link between cell phone radiation and cancer. None.
                          LOL... i hope you are just acting naiive :wink:

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ya5er View Post
                            LOL... i hope you are just acting naiive :wink:
                            I'm not really sure what to make of your reply. For courtesy's sake, I would like to avoid an argument over my original reply (the risks of cell phone radiation), and just say that I was curious whether or not companies practice selling insurance for non (or absurdly low) risks. If so, would that not be a case for fraud?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It seems like it would only be fraud if they explicitly misrepresented the level of risk. But simply offering to insure against cell phone radiation or gamma ray bursters or zombiepocalypse has the advantage that simply by mentioning such a policy, you can *suggest* that it's a risk worth insuring against, without ever having to actually lie about any real numbers.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X