I have found preparing for CA1 to be a very frustrating process at times due to inconsistency in the quoted solutions. The examiners reports are generally the worst but revision guides can also be poor. This question asks "Outline why the expected cost of the benefit payments may be different from the price charged by an insurance company to insure these benefits" The solution in both the examiners report and revision guide then centres on market-based factors between insurers and a couple of other quite weak points I thought. They do say candidates could have scored more by mentioning differences in expected cost and premium rather than differences in insurance market but don't quote the points anywhere. For me, this question has theoretical premium vs actual premium written all over it. Also, 'outline' surely 10 points for 1/2 mark each? Why isn't it the profit/expenses/loss-leader plus prudence and reinsurance stuff they had but more concise plus: tax commission cost of capital investment strategy + expected returns Would you get marks for these other things despite their lack of inclusion? I tried grilling an my exam counsellor about how much padding etc but they refuse to give anything away. The quantity you are expected to write seems to depend on what the examiners had for breakfast as much as anything else....sorry for the rant but its my 4th sitting and this course is driving me nuts!!
Hi AndyPhil, Unfortunately, I'm afraid that I rather share your frustration with this particular question. I think there are a number of ideas that are mentioned in the Core Reading that would not have scored on this question Fortunately, you seem to have a good grasp of this topic, and so the approach that I would recommend that you adopt is to mention ALL the points that you think are relevant. Then - even if not ALL of them score - you should have given enough points that DO hit the marking schedule (so you should get a good mark regardless of what the examiner had for breakfast ). I agree that you should be aiming for 10 ideas, and each valid one should score you half a mark. I apologise if you sometimes find the revision booklets unhelpful. In order for them to be representative of the points that would score marks, they do have to bear resemblance to the Examiners' Reports, so in this way, we are constrained by them. It would not seem fair to students to include a lot of points that would not score for a particular question (even if they were potentially relevant!). If you find any specific parts of the materials that you consider to be of poor quality, we welcome your comments so that we can try to improve them going forwards All the best - fourth time lucky!!! Anna
Thanks very much for taking the time to reply Anna, appreciate it. I suppose what you say about mentioning all the points is the strategy I was going to go for but it just seems like there is this random loss factor which you have to take into account with CA1 in case you didn't decide to go off on a random tangent like the examiners. Being very sad indeed now but I consider it to be similar to 'strategic risk' when risk budgeting See example below for the two components of risk: 1) Failure of answer strategy to meet matched position - thats not reading the question properly and answering incorrectly. 2) Failure of matched position to cover required answer (underlying liability) - thats the examiners not choosing to answer their own question in an expected way. No.1 you can fix, no.2 you can't!! Therefore you need a better performance overall to allow for it and some people essentially pass/fail by luck near the borderline. As regards the revision books, I didn't realise they were constrained by the examiners reports like that so helps explain things. Although I think for preparation, model solutions would be useful along with sub-points for additional points that would have scored or each time a comment to say other reasonable ideas would have been accepted. I've never understood why they need to be quite so guarded over the marking schedule (if they refused to accept disputes for instance) other than to keep this 'random difficulty' alive which is not the same thing as real technical difficulty which is arguably what we should be getting tested with.
There's no rule saying what the revision booklets should contain, but I think it would be unfair on students for them to contain a lot of points that would not have scored in the exam. These days there is little/no scope for points that do not appear on the marking schedule to score marks. Also, the revision notes are not intended to provide comprehensive solutions - they're trying to give a summary of key points (for more information please refer to Booklet 0). What you're asking for sounds more like what we provide in ASET, which gives all the points that would have scored in the exam, together with explanations of why other points may not have scored, and discussions of alternative interpretations/methods of attack. So it sounds like ASET might be more what you're after? With regards to your "random" points, I think you've missed one thing. If the examiners have gone for a random tangent approach to arrive at their solution, then this will affect everyone sitting the exam. The well-prepared students will choose a sensible approach and may earn some credit for their points, which seems fair enough. Even if they don't, everyone will score badly, and we might as well disregard this question completely so that the paper is only out of 95. I don't think questions like this tend to change the final result of who passes and who fails (frustrating though they may be!)
Thanks again Anna. Yes I did try ASET a while back but found it a little too lengthy for regular use, maybe a return to it would be a good idea though. I think I am in a reasonable place in terms of preparation overall but I just get frustrated by these tangents when I feel I have done what is required. I think the examiners not giving credit outside the marking schedule much is a real shame also. There is obviously the trying to get people to aim for a model solution in some cases which is what I was going on about before but they should reward innovation really as well where valid points are given. I mean we are being taught to be critically-minded actuaries not parrots. In short, I do definitely see the value in CA1 and believe it is a worthwhile exercise to get you thinking about all angles but I do have some real issues with how they mark it. Maybe I'll be less bitter if I pass this time eh? Thanks for your help.
hi Andy I have notes in my self-compiled revision notebook that these types of questions can be looking for two lists. One is the one you wanted, the other is the one from the solution. Em, the competition/u/w cycle/cartels/loss leaders stuff you can see from Sept05 q5 (iv) (sorry I didn't make a note of whether it was p1 or p2). They look for both lists in Sept08 p2 q5(iii) and then 5(iv). How to identify which is which I am not sure, for Sept08 p2 q5 I would have reversed the order I answered them in, as competition-etc sounds more like the practical experience difference on why cost would be different to price, and tax/commision/contingency-etc sounds a bit more theoretical. Maybe you'll figure that one out Good luck
