SA3 April 2007 Calculation question – I was not sure how to tackle this question – there were three points 1) Change in underlying trend (which I starting answering as change in trend, so I am sure that has done my chances no good), 2) Change in policy to translate into exposure per accident year, 3) Heatwave as catastrophe. Overall, I made a big mess – anyone have other ideas. Lloyd’s – I thought these questions were most unfair. The 8 pointer on Lloyd’s was bookwork (I hope) – but how much easier for the people who actually work in Lloyd’s or the London Market? I am prepared to allow people an advantage worth 2-3 points in an area they work in – but 8 points? And this was then followed with the corporate name versus subsidiary question. I took guesses – hopefully they were educated. However, this material is not covered anyone in the study material, and the only place it might be is the Lloyd’s book in the further reading – so it seems to me that awarding this 12 marks was unfair. [And I note that the core reading says “Students are not expected to have read all of the items on the list for their chosen subject”.] Especially, again, as people who work in the London Market should have had a real advantage. For a total of 20 points advantage – that seems to be excessive. Ian – what do you think? And having been thrown on these, I then had time pressure, so I don’t think I got enough points down on the capital questions. So – 1st of October, here we come.
No-one could possibly complain with that paper - not even me and I'd be surprised if I get better than an FB. The second question was basically bookwork and a little application - all based on capital ideas , reinsurance and differences between subsidiary set-up and syndicates e.g. captive - co insurance and subsidiary having much greater control over the contracts written , also contribs to central fund etc etc. First question I mucked up - REALLY mucked up - and it was bloody easy - I guess time pressure and a little bit of stomch butterflies got to me. The worst thing about this is I'll never see an easier SA3 exam.
Corporate names I guessed also about lower control, and mentioned contributions to the central fund - but for 12 points on an SA3 paper I don't want to be guessing! I have no idea how much control a corporate name has - if they provide a lot of the capital they may have a lot of say. This was the question that was unfair - there is no mention anywhere of having an in-depth knowledge of how corporate names operate within Lloyd's.
It's not my job to comment on the appropriateness of any individual exam. But having now seen the paper, my tendency is to agree with Parnell - this one had a lot more bookwork than many past exams, and with some thought I think can be answered well without spending much time on reading further material. The argument on whether some people have an advantage or not - well, that's always been the case in an exam with only two questions. Some will love it, some will hate it. In GI there are loads of "sub-disciplines" so to an extent there is always an element of pot luck. As for the more general question of further reading being examinable, I don't know how many times I have to say this!...just look at my comments at the start of Chapter 20! Past papers have delved deeper into aspects covered by the further reading a number of times before. There's no excuse in my book. So, onwards and upwards, what's done is done, etc. Fingers crossed for all of you, so good luck. Ian
I have reread your comments at the start of Chapter 20. You too agree that one needs to be selective about further reading, trying to cover broader topics such as risk, capital and return. I will therefore amend my comments slightly: I still think that a question that requires relatively detailed knowledge of how corporate capital works in Lloyd's - otherwise it is little more than educated guesswork - may be inappropriate. It depends on how the marks are being awarded. If the examiners are awarding marks for sensible suggestions, where further reading can be used to generate additional points, then I have no problem. If however, the examiners think this is a "bookwork" question, then I think it falls outside the scope of the syllabus. As the question fell immediately after another bookwork question, it certainly gave the impression of being bookwork.
