CIA new P&C track

Professional Actuarial Topics Property/Casualty
1

The CIA has created it’s own P&C track which can be used to get the FCIA designation in lieu of (or it seems in temporarily in conjunction with) FCAS. A brief read through their syllabus suggests that their fellowship exams as proposed seems to be more or less analogous to the FCAS fellowship exams but their exams will be open book apparently (which likely won’t make them easier).
I’m not really that familiar with what prompted the CIA to do this but likely the main reason seems to be to orient the material to be more specific to Canada (auto rate filing and IFRS 17/financial reporting and no workers comp/rating plans seem to be the biggest differences). I guess it makes sense given that on the life side they have mostly split from the SOA already. They also have made it pretty clear that they will recognize FCAS but will add in a few extra requirements for those who want to practice in Canada but they don’t seem overly onerous (especially if one already has passed part 6C).
Anyone has any insight/thoughts on this?

2 Likes
2

I’m not privy to the details, but I had thought it was a reflection of:

  • The CIA wanting to go further than the SOA and CAS when it comes to accepting university credit in lieu of exams.
  • Frustration with the divergence between the SOA and CAS when it comes to pre-Associate education;
  • As you noted, divergence between the US and Canada on regulatory, product, and accounting matters;
  • Recognition that Canada has proportionately more immigrants (and therefore potentially more folks arriving with non-CAS/SOA actuarial backgrounds) than the US; and
  • Reflection of the CIA’s desire to own the profession in Canada (c.f. the CIA restricting access to the professionalism module required to satisfy Canadian continuing ed requirements to members)
3

It seems natural to me that the CIA wanted ownership of its own credentials. It’ll hurt the CAS, of course, but I expect the two societies to remain close.

Interesting about being open book. I’ve been lobbying for the CAS to do that for years. (Well, whenever the topic comes up. I haven’t worked super hard at it.) I wonder if this will give the CAS a poke to do it, and a model to follow.

4

I agree open book would be a good change. I wonder if people will just more loudly complain they don’t have enough time though? But with open book it becomes a bit “well that’s the point”?