Delivered on 10 July 2025 at Staple Inn Hall, London, to an in-person and online audience.
Good evening everyone, and thank you for joining me here at Staple Inn, the home of the 酴圖app. Many of you will be familiar with the history of this building, which dates back to 1585. It was originally the wool staple, where wool was weighed and taxed. Later, it became an inn of chancery essentially a training ground for the inns of court before much later becoming the home of the Institute of Actuaries, and now of the 酴圖app.
Our professional body has an illustrious history. I dont know about you, but whenever Im in Staple Inn Hall, I can feel that history not weighing me down, but lifting me up. This is the hall where, on receiving his Gold Medal in 1968, Frank Redington1 observed that the actuary who is only an actuary is not an actuary, an expression that many of us know well, and one that should encourage us to use our skills in new and innovative areas. Behind me is a tapestry, more recent, highlighting many of the themes of actuarial work. And all around us is stained glass, more ancient, reminding us not just of our history, but also of our links to other actuarial bodies around the world. And of the debt that we members all owe to our profession.
And its the members of this profession that Id like to focus on this evening, as I ask an important question: why would anyone want to hire an actuary?
- Were expensive
- No-one understands what we do
- Most of what we do might be done by AI
- And at least that has a personality
And there is a related question why would anyone want to become an actuary?
- We have to take lots of exams
- No-one understands what we do apart from take lots of exams
- Most of what were taking exams in might be done by AI
- And people keep making jokes about us having no personality
So, lets take a look at each of those points.
Are actuaries expensive? It depends on your point of view. If Im answering this in the context of the risks were managing and the losses were preventing, or pricing then not really. The cost of employing actuaries is small in the context of the billions of pounds of insurance and pension reserves on which we work, whilst determining the ability of these organisations to pay benefits. Its small in the context of the setting premiums to balance solvency and competitiveness. And its small in the context of the investment strategies we design to achieve good risk-adjusted returns.
Now, if I were answering that question in the context of someone thinking of joining the profession, and trying to encourage them to commit to years of exams, then I might frame my answer differently! To a potential actuarial student, Id point out that actuaries have significant responsibilities, and we have to work hard to earn the right to bear those responsibilities. The exams are difficult, but there is a lot to learn. Ill talk later about the technical content, but there is so much more than that. Theres learning how to choose the most appropriate approach to solve a particular problem. Theres learning how to communicate results effectively, to a range of stakeholders. And, most importantly, theres learning how to exercise professional judgement. We are professionals. We have a code to which we must adhere. And we are required to act in the public interest. So as a result, we tend to be well-paid.
Those roles I mentioned insurance and pension reserving, premium rating, investment management these are things weve been doing for decades, even centuries. But around the world, were also managing credit risk for banks, assessing the impact of climate change, modelling and communicating the impact of diseases like COVID, and so much more.
Since actuaries have been known as actuaries, we have been at the forefront of innovation. 250 years ago, we were building the mortality tables that revolutionised the life insurance industry; 80 years ago, we were building models to describe the distribution of flying bombs aimed at London in the second world war including one which destroyed the hall in which you are now sat; 50 years ago, we were building some of the first option pricing models; and today well, today we need to think carefully about where we, as individual actuaries, can make a difference, and act accordingly.
Ive already mentioned one area climate change. We have a voice here, but there is much more that we can do. Climate change modelling involves large amounts of data and complex systems. It also involves judgement. The climate is changing at an unprecedented rate, meaning that modelling its future evolution is hard. It is even more difficult to model this evolution at the granular level needed to give useful, actionable advice to governments and companies around the world. But these types of complex problems with imperfect data are just the sort that actuaries are good at dealing with. And clear communication of technical topics like this is part of what we do all the time in more traditional actuarial roles. But perhaps most importantly, with our standing as professionals, our analysis can be trusted. We can, and must, do more in this area.
Somewhere else we can help is artificial intelligence, or AI. Whether its large language models or machine learning, AI is built on complex and sometimes not so complex mathematical models. Using models without an understanding of how they work, and what reasonable looks like, is a recipe for disaster. When one of these models is being used, there has to be someone in the process who understands what the model is doing and what its limitations are. Again, this is an area where actuaries can help, and are helping. We are in a great position not only to understand what is going on, but also to communicate effectively the results of any analysis and to use this all subject to professional oversight. Considering all of this, it should be clear that AI is not going to replace actuaries, as it is actuaries that can make sure that AI is working as it should. This combination of technical skill, communication and professional oversight is so important. It is a combination that I feel sets us apart. Its also worth noting that AI is just another step on the road of increased computing power. Whilst it is a revolutionary step, it is on the same road that led from slide rules to pocket calculators, to mainframes, to desktops then laptops, and eventually to mobile phones of huge computing power. Each of these steps reduced the number of actuaries needed to carry out any particular task; but as the range of opportunities grew, so did the number of actuaries. The range of opportunities for actuaries will grow hugely with AI we must make sure that we are in a position to seize them.
As for the part about AI having more personality than an actuary, this is quite clearly incorrect AI only simulates the presence of a personality, so its not a fair comparison
We can do so much in so many areas. And by we, I mean individual actuaries. The 酴圖app will support innovators who are using actuarial skills in more and more fields. But it isnt the IFoAs job to say what these fields should be. The profession is at its best when it facilitates the work of its membership, as individual members work out creative ways to use cutting edge techniques to solve real-world problems. Weve done this in the past, expanding into now-thriving areas such as general insurance, health, enterprise risk management and more. Weve done it through the growth of regional societies across the UK and around the world, including the Staple Inn Actuarial Society my introduction to actuarial volunteering. And weve done it through charitable work, including the creation of the Worshipful Company of Actuaries, a city livery company of which I am also a member, that supports a huge range of charities but also plays an active part in the governance of the City of London.
Which brings me back to that point about no-one understanding what actuaries do. This is, I think, only partly true. As Ive mentioned, actuaries are, in fact, very good at communicating complex information in a clear way. A significant part of our training focusses on pitching our explanations at the right level for the people we are talking to most of whom will want to know broadly what analysis has been carried out rather than the intricacies of the maths behind this analysis. People might not understand exactly what it is we do, but they will understand the information that we present, and its implications. And they will understand that it is backed by our professional judgement.
So, bearing all this in mind, I would of course recommend that firms hire more actuaries, wouldnt I? Well, not necessarily.
Its been a long time since I was hired to any job because I was an actuary. Ive been hired because firms have challenges, and I have the skills that can deal with those challenges. Now, it just so happens that I have these skills because of my training as an actuary but its the skills that employers want, not the letters after my name.
Of course, those letters can be a handy shortcut to deciding whether someone does have the appropriate skills, what economists would call signalling. But we need to make sure that the signal is still valid.
Are we, as actuaries, still producing top quality, innovative research that sets us apart as thought leaders, whether it is in traditional areas such as pensions or insurance, newer areas such as climate change, or anywhere else we can apply our expertise in dealing with complex models in a creative, practical and professional way? I have already championed changes to improve visibility of actuarial research, both inside and outside the profession. Lord Currie, the chair of the IFoA Board, will also chair the boards research and thought leadership committee. In this role, the profession will benefit from his extensive academic experience, from his time as a professor of Economics at Queen Mary University of London through to his time as Dean of City Universitys Business School which today, as Bayes Business School is a major centre for actuarial education and research.
But its not just what we teach, through research, but also what we learn. The skills that actuaries need have constantly changed and are constantly changing. The skills that actuaries need now are different from those needed when I was sitting the exams. And Im sure the same is true of the skills I learnt when compared with those of the generation before me. This change is not new. And, as I have said, change brings with it opportunities. But the pace of change is much greater than it has been in the past. This means that we need to change the way in which the syllabus is reviewed and updated. We need to be much more responsive to this change. And we need to make some difficult decisions. The volume of important, new topics is significant. What must leave the syllabus for new content to be added? And what topics should be optional rather than compulsory? These questions are fundamental. They are essentially asking the question: what is an actuary? As if that question wasnt hard enough, as anyone that has been asked that at a party can testify!
The answers to these questions will result in new actuaries being equipped to use the latest techniques to analyse the full range of problems. Problems facing not just financial institutions, but also society as a whole. They will be able to explain what is going on to people who might not be deep experts in these areas. And, importantly, theyll understand whats going on under the hood.
This fundamental review of the syllabus has already begun. It also extends beyond what is taught through to how it is taught, and how it is examined. Whilst some people in this room might remember having to carry out their work with commutation functions, using log tables, before etching their answers into a clay tablet, we have to accept that things have moved on a little and perhaps commutation functions arent as essential as they once were. Indeed, theyre even missing from the new formulae and tables book that will be used for the 2026 examinations.
As well as giving confidence that actuaries are being taught the right skills and are being examined in a relevant way, we need to ensure that there is confidence in the integrity of the examination system. And we need to do this in a way that ensures fair access to students in the UK and around the world, and reflects their valid preferences and concerns. There are many competing factors here including cost and it is inevitable that no approach will leave everyone happy. But if we lead with integrity and accessibility, we stand the best chance of safeguarding the future of this profession.
Its also important to recognise that, as important as the next generation of actuaries is, we need to make sure that qualified actuaries are not left behind. There must be opportunities for qualified actuaries to obtain fluency in or at least a working knowledge of the range of new techniques and topics. We have already introduced the Certificate in Ethical Artificial Intelligence course, in association with the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment. There are also webinars on data science in our virtual learning environment, and an 8 week online course on Climate Risk and Sustainability. But there is more that we can do, and more that we will do in these and other areas bringing additional resources for all our members, whose subscriptions support the IFoA.
Having said this, there is no denying that actuarial students are likely to have not just different skills, but also different outlooks, priorities and even values than more色experienced妃embers such as myself. As with all elements of diversity, this is a strength that we should seek to harness. As such, I am looking forward in the coming months to having two student representatives regularly attending Council meetings, as well chairing a Student Board that can improve communication between the profession and its students in both directions.
At the start of my address, I mentioned the talk Frank Redington gave in this hall after receiving his Gold Medal in 1968. Ten years prior to this, in 1958, he gave his own presidential address here2. In it, he remarked that he saw the work of the actuary as being mainly concerned with long-term obligations, bringing with it a professional duty to the community what we might call the public interest and a need to protect the future against the ravages of the present. In particular, he did not feel that an actuary seeing such a risk should pass by on the other side. Although he was talking about government pensions policy and there is still plenty to talk about there his observations feel even more relevant now than they were then. Whether it is pensions, insurance, banking, investment, AI, infrastructure, climate or broader sustainability issues, actuaries can and must contribute. We have the technical ability, we have the communication skills, and we have the professional oversight that means people can rely on what we say. What an obligation, but what an opportunity. And, to quote Frank Redington one final time, what a glorious profession to belong to.
1. Benjamin, B. and Redington, F.M., Presentation of Institute Gold Medal to Mr Frank Mitchell Redington, Journal of the Institute of Actuaries , 94(3), December 1968 , 345-348.
2. Redington, F.M., Address by the President, Journal of the Institute of Actuaries, 85(1), June 1959, 1-13.