= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RomeoStevens comments on Economy gossip open thread - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (59)
So writing actuarial software is probably seriously viable.
But how are you going to write it without becoming an actuary? Or sell it to the insurance giants? (Wouldn't they rather buy their own in-house software, tuned to their idiosyncratic needs? This is probably what is happening with that requirement "programming skills"...)
If it were easy there would already be kickass actuarial software. You might be right that one would need to become an actuary to do it. At least that is the normal path for this sort of thing.
You're correct; most of the software is produced in-house.
I do work for an external consultant firm / software house, and, to be honest a lot of the software is outsourced (which is good, because I like my job as it is). By now, I've got quite a bit of experience in working with one of those insurance giants, and the biggest problem is really the usual "political" one of getting to the right hooks. There is a lot of room for advanced economical models and the related software, and now probably the best choice is to work as a consultant. My suggestion is to look for medium size firms, since the biggest one (e.g Accenture, Ernst&Young) tend to have lower career opportunities, and usually you have to do a lot of boring work as a novice before having the chance to do something more interesting.
Yes, especially if you can do mainframes. (pdf) But then again, mainframe programmers can make good cash anywhere.The 2000 hours required to pass the first four exams are might be better invested developing your coding skills. Especially since some people manage to write actuarial software without actually becoming actuaries.
I wonder how accurate that old '97 transcript is (at least, I hope it was a transcript, errors like "a sequel system" make no sense otherwise).
Also, I loved the line about actuaries not being known for their ability to take risks.