QUOTE(gomes. @ May 22 2012, 03:57 AM)
My english isnt exactly the best and i've been using the term 'actuarist' even though its actuary since my a levels. Other people I know say 'actuarist' too, its wrong, but its just something people get on with. I dont understand what you mean by credibility, what i've written in all my posts is correct. Including the other post about mathematical finance being in an actuarial science course. Like Ive mentioned in my other post, you learn stochastic differential equations, black scholes model, ito's lemma/ito's calculus, martingales, markov chains etc. Isnt that mathematical finance??
Okay. lets put this simple.
Mathematical finance, is too wide of a term to define.
u do it can range from mathematical framework of finance, up to theories behind pricing of derivative instruments, or theory of interest.
SDE, BS model, Ito stuff, martingales, n Markov Chains are just preliminaries of Mathematical finance,
(and even with that, depth of study into each detail of the topic, is another factor).
mathematical finance cover that, but are not limited to that, considering u still have Interest rate derivatives, Exotic option pricings, jump-diffusion process, Stochastic volatility and Monte-carlo method of pricing, Smile dynamics etc.
what lightning is trying to say is, Actuaries in general "seems" to have no much emphasis on this area,
financial economics CT of the actuarial sylabus just cover basic Stochastic differentials, Ito, and other preliminary in mathematical finance. One can only say they do get exposed to mathematical finance, but claiming they did study
a lot on mathematical finance, would just be as absurd as a mathematician that took measure theory saying they did mathematical statistics.
I am not implicit or explicitly proving anyone wrong here, rather point out that Mathematical finance itself is a
wide topic. hence claims of coverage can be inconsistence to one's understanding.