Hmm, I’ve been seeing the MAAA before the other letters recently. Should I start doing it that way when signiturizing stuff? MAAA, FSA
I am so used to doing it the FSA, MAAA way
I put it 2nd, but I don’t sign things in an official MAAA capacity, if I did , I could see moving it up in the order
I prefer to list credentials in order of difficulty, and for example I would list FCAS, CPCU.
Interestingly when I would publish something for the CPCU folks, they would reverse the above order.
1 Like
I am somewhat similar to jerrytuttle. In my current role, I normally list specifically relevant designations that I “earned” first (ASA, EA) and will frequently include MAAA last, although it technically isn’t necessary because the first 2 should convey the same information given they also require I meet USQS. And, depending on the context, I will tack on my tangentially relevant but not as “important” to this specific role designation that I “earned” (CFA) last.
There are others I consider paid for rather than earned that are generally only included when doing something for that specific organization.
Not all ASAs meet USQS.
All ASAs practicing in the US are subject to the USQS. Having the MAAA does not change anything.
In the pension world at least, there is also nothing extra required to obtain the designation other than a different designation. At least when I got it originally you needed at least 3 years of experience, but AFAIK that requirement is gone.
Oh, i agree all us practioners are subject to usqs, just that ASA isn’t automatically qualified for signing. I will defer on EA since that is not my area.
My point is having MAAA doesn’t automatically qualify one for signing something either. I have the MAAA but I can’t sign life insurance SAOs. Therefore, MAAA is unlikely to provide any additional information beyond ASA.
You appear to be disagreeing with that statement so I am curious if you think it conveys additional information by itself. What does ASA, MAAA tell you that ASA by itself does not?
That you’re scammable!
lol my employer has consistently paid for it since I got it, but I have been reconsidering the benefit of maintaining the designation.
Right now I see some benefits associated with being on certain Academy committees, but beyond that, I am trying to decide if it makes sense to keep paying for it once I stop. Would I pay for it out of pocket?
1 Like
I didn’t read your original statement closely enough, and misread it. I thought you were talking about having qualification requirements, rather than being subject to qualification requirements.
You are totally correct in that the MAAA doesn’t represent any additional tested educational requirements, and ASA and MAAA both require one to be subject to USQS in their (US) work. Perhaps the most MAAA means is that you have 3 years of relevant experience.
I don’t think it even means that any more. The experience requirement is gone.
Oooooh. Reminds me of the riddle “Which came first: the 
or the 
“
No, I am NOT HIGH