Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > SoA > SoA Exams - General
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

ACTUARIAL SALARY SURVEYS
Contact DW Simpson for a Personalized Salary Survey

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-25-2017, 12:33 AM
stefanuslie stefanuslie is offline
SOA
 
Join Date: May 2017
College: Graduated from National University of Singapore
Posts: 4
Question FSA Track for Health Actuarial Analyst

Hi, I graduated with B.Sc in Mathematics and Statistics last year, and will be working as Health Actuarial Analyst in one of insurance company in Singapore. I am considering whether to take QFI or GH track for FSA. Taking QFI will be easier for me because of I have strong background in undergraduate studies. Taking GH will be relevant and value-added for the job.

Could you give advice on the track choices, considering also: possible future transfer to other fields (property/life/investment), reward by company (whether company will appreciate or reward the employee taking relevant track), etc?
__________________
ASA: P FM MFE C MLC VeeStat VeeEcon VeeCorp FAPmods FAPint FAPfin APC
CERA: ERM ERMmod
FSA: GHC GHA FEmod PRFmod DMAC FAC
FRM: 1 2

Last edited by stefanuslie; 05-25-2017 at 12:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-25-2017, 01:20 AM
youngorchard youngorchard is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Studying for CAS
Posts: 264
Default

You should go for the track with more relevance to your job.
However, keep in mind that the GH track is focused on US group & health regulations and business.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-25-2017, 08:16 PM
Derek @ TIA's Avatar
Derek @ TIA Derek @ TIA is online now
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngorchard View Post
You should go for the track with more relevance to your job.
I agree with this. Your background may make studying a little easier for the QFI exams, but I don't think that should be the sole determinant. For either exam, there's going to be a massive syllabus with tons of reading, lists and problems, so I don't think it would be a huge difference. For Health, a lot of the exam is understanding concepts more than memorizing formulas or doing certain types of problems over and over again.

If you're planning on making a switch sometime soon to another industry, then maybe consider doing another track. Otherwise, if you're in the healthcare industry, I think the Health track makes the most sense and would be the most valuable to your employer (and therefore you, at this point).

That being said, once you get through your FSA, there are not going to be a lot of people that really care what track you chose for your FSA, as long as you have that designation.

To answer your other question, if you're looking at transferring to P&C, I would take some time to truly think about that right now, since you'd likely have to go back a bit and do the CAS exams. If you feel that there's a realistic chance of getting into Life or Investments soon, QFI could make sense, but unless you're planning on leaving the health job soon, my recommendation is the health track.

In the end, I don't think you can go wrong with either one, if you're able to get through it and get your designation.

(Full disclosure - I do teach the Health seminars, but that's my honest opinion.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
actuarial, analyst, fsa, health, track

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.23303 seconds with 9 queries