The same well known actuary points out that the Part 7 exam cannot be
finished in its entirety. It is not possible. What you need to do (if
you are concerned with passing) is maximize your points per minute.
Sometimes that means get some partial credit and turn the page.
This is a good forum to find out who understands items. No offense made
to those who have achieved fellowship status, but if a group as large
as this one can't make heads or tails of an item - it is unlikely that
a good question can be devised by the exam authors.
One of my favorite exam study reminders is the following chart:
hard questions/hard material hard questions/easy material
easy questions/hard material easy questions/easy material
if we call these: Type 1 Type 2
Type 3 Type 4
You need to remember:
Type 1: The majority will not get these right - anyone who gets full
credit may be wasting valuable time. Some of these problems will be
thrown out because they are so difficult to make good questions of this
nature.
Type 2: There will be several of these. Here is the data, but you will
have to adjust it, and restate several items before replicating the
exhibit. You have to work at these.
Type 3: There will be a lot of these - the paper concerns modeling - a
difficult concept, but you have to ask a question that can be answered
in the exam sitting. So you get asked "What are the future development
that the author recommends?"
Type 4: Maybe two on the exam. You cannot miss these, since everyone
else will get them - and you will have to make up the points by doing
better on the other types of questions.
Hope no one thinks this is a waste of space. I don't believe that it is
- especially at this point in the study process. My opinion is that the
work required to go from 90% comprehension to 99% comprehension would
be better used increasing you competency on the other papers.
Good studying!
bgardner@scc.state.nm.us on 07/16/98 10:04:30 AM
To: studygroup7@lists.casact.org @ INTERNET
cc:
From: bgardner@scc.state.nm.us
Date: 07/16/98 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: Bornhuetter/Ferguson The Actuary and IBNR
A well know actuarial God, has stated the following:
"Do not try to reproduce the "snowballing effect" on the bottom half of
page 184. It can't be done. You will waste valuable study trying to
figure out how the authors derived these figures."
I know, I have wasted valuable study time trying to reproduce the
$3,039,000.
I cannot do it.
I hope the examiner will not ask a question from this example. I do not
think they have ask one yet. If they do we will appeal!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Schuster, Annmarie [mailto:Annmarie_Schuster@CUUSA.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 12:14 PM
To: studygroup7@lists.casact.org
Subject: Bornhuetter/Ferguson The Actuary and IBNR
On the bottom of page 184, can anyone explain how B/F arrived at the
$3,039,000 figure for the 1971 IBNR reserve?
Thanks,
Annie