Hi everyone, I'm new to AO and need help. I've read through all the posts I could find on a career in finance/banking vs actuary, so don't rip me on not reading existing content! I'm a sophomore at a top 20 university and just recently started thinking about becoming an actuary. From what I've read the pay for an actuary is limited (like $135,000 ish by 30 and 200,000 by like 40) if you've passed the exams whereas IB can be making 400K including bonus by 30.
My big question is why do other posts fail to mention the opportunity cost of having to get an MBA (usually) and from a top school to break into IB. Like H/S/W cost $250,000-300,000 for the two years.. Like that's a lot + I kinda hate formal schooling (even though I do well). I like studying on my own schedule.
I also like investing, I've been writing for seeking alpha since high school, so I think I would do just as well by saving a lot of my income as an actuary and compounding that at say a 10-12% rate over my life.
Like it seems to me that one can be just as well off, if not better off than a banker by 30 by not having to take on $300,000 in debt/forgo 2 years earnings for the MBA and avoiding the 90 hours work weeks at the same time..
Also, what are your thoughts on IB being overrated or actuary as overrated. I've heard both. Working 90+ hours a week, in an intense environment seems like hell.. and spending 300K on an MBA to not really learn anything seems like a huge mistake. I've also read that some exaggerate the difficulty of math that actuaries actually use.. like isn't most of it arithmetic, regression, stats, etc?
I guess a final thing I'd say about myself: I'm from a lower middle class background, I like sports, I'm competitive, but sensitive. I don't consider myself to be an 'alpha' guy. I'm thinking I should either do corporate finance or become an actuary... What do you think?
Thanks for the help!
My big question is why do other posts fail to mention the opportunity cost of having to get an MBA (usually) and from a top school to break into IB. Like H/S/W cost $250,000-300,000 for the two years.. Like that's a lot + I kinda hate formal schooling (even though I do well). I like studying on my own schedule.
I also like investing, I've been writing for seeking alpha since high school, so I think I would do just as well by saving a lot of my income as an actuary and compounding that at say a 10-12% rate over my life.
Like it seems to me that one can be just as well off, if not better off than a banker by 30 by not having to take on $300,000 in debt/forgo 2 years earnings for the MBA and avoiding the 90 hours work weeks at the same time..
Also, what are your thoughts on IB being overrated or actuary as overrated. I've heard both. Working 90+ hours a week, in an intense environment seems like hell.. and spending 300K on an MBA to not really learn anything seems like a huge mistake. I've also read that some exaggerate the difficulty of math that actuaries actually use.. like isn't most of it arithmetic, regression, stats, etc?
I guess a final thing I'd say about myself: I'm from a lower middle class background, I like sports, I'm competitive, but sensitive. I don't consider myself to be an 'alpha' guy. I'm thinking I should either do corporate finance or become an actuary... What do you think?
Thanks for the help!
Banker vs Actuary help
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire