Hido many quants do actuarial exams as an alternative to CFA? Are the actuarial exams seen as relevant? Are the CFA exams seen as relevant ?Have the actuarial bodies updated their syllabi enough to make themselves a real alternative?Or does any of it matter once you have a job and are learning practical stuff day-to-day?From a quick look at the respectives websites (www.actuaries.org.uk vs. www.aimr.com ) I reckon the actuarial exams are more theoretical and tougher, with maybe a bit less book learning - On the other hand the actuarial exams require you to learn about e.g. pensions legislation and life assurance regulation which may not be relevant. Also the subject matter of CFA level 2 (from the Schweser notes) seemed straightforward enough - things like calculating the spread in pips on an FX transaction, and points on the normal curve : but theres an awful lot on the syllabus.Anyhow just my humble opinion, i'm not even a quant, just a wannabe at the moment, be interesting to hear what you think.

<do many quants do actuarial exams as an alternative to CFA?>I don't think so. The second actuarial exam deals with sum stats stuff that also covered in CFA program(in Quant part). Exams 1,3 and 4 have materials that r completely different from CFA. U got to be good with Stats and Math if u want to pass first 4 actuarial exams, but CFA exams don't require that much Stats. Even those who have Math/Stat degree have hard time with actuarial exams b/c those materials r hard to study by u'rself. On the other hand, each part of CFA exam is easy(just my opinion), but u need to rem so many stuff. Solving something is different from knowing something. If u like Math/Stat, then solving is easy compared to knowing. I don't know much abt exams 5,6,7...I hope my response help u. U don't have to take all my words. When u get time, go over the websites. -Mathmac.

Playing devil's advocate though, AIMR is having to deal with an avalanche of new CFA candidates and I don't believe they they have the desire, or nerve, to set the passing rates low enough to keep the prestige of the CFA Charter near what it may have been a decade ago. I have not taken the actuarual exams but I'm sure they would be more of a challenge than the CFA program. However, the CFA program can be finished in 3 to, realistically, 5 years but to go all the way through to FSA level actuary has always sounded daunting to me.

Actuarial exams are good qualification but not very relevant to quant work. The 100 series would be very useful for somone starting off with little experience / maths background (except 104, 105 & 106 which are purely acci stuff) as they deal with basic maths / stats / economics / financial reporting which is relevant to most finance / mathype jobs at some level. Basic stoc proc, probability and time series etc. are covered. The later exams (201, 300 & 400 series) are no use. They are basically applying the 100 series to actuarial work, in particular pensions, life insurance, general insurance and investments (which has some use I guess), not mathematically technical just focused on subjects relevant to actual acci work.There are however extra exams you can do in derivatives which although probably not the best qualification in the world for quant work could be useful (ish).

I used to work for an actuarial consulting firm and am now looking to move into the quant world. I completed the first 4 SOA exams and found them to be not very relevant. Some of the stuff covered in course 2 and course 6 is useful, but the rest deal with topics like life contingencies, survival models, credibility theory, etc. Also, I don't think they are valued much by employers unless you are working in insurance or pension consulting. Do the CFA exams instead...they're easier, more relavant, and more widely recognized.