CA1 Sep2007

[SummerBub]

What happened to the examiners? Have they run out of exam questions?

In Paper1, the qn on the 7 year low sales and last 3 year with increased sales was straight from Core Reading example!!! However, I normally read these examples jus once and that was long time ago....

In Paper2, the qn on ACC was from past exam but i didn't go that far back.

I think this paper is fairer than apr07. Still, I think i didn't write enough while for some qns, dun know which direction to head! What do you all think?

 

[Erik]

Paper 1:
Didn't know what to write (or rather where to begin) for Qn 3 (modelling something).

Last qn (One with all the problems with the DB scheme) confused me as to what was asked under each sub-question. Seemed like they were rather alike.

Paper 2:
Definetely more difficult than Paper 1.

I was glad to see the property bookwork question.

Some questions were very wide, I guess how well you do will depend on whether you got the same points as examiners.

I also didn't remember a lot about the critical illness question from core reading but I thought it was OK.

The question with the numerical example was quite difficult (except for the numerical part!) and I didn't really know what to comment on the results.

Acquisition question - again a lot of common sense stuff I think.

I can't remember much else- just that I am glad its over.

 

[Grizzly]

Summerbub, posted thread at 2:16pm yesterday!? nice to finish before the rest of us.

my revision strategy was to forget reading notes and do the past 10 years papers including the 300 series (as per acted's very useful relevant questions matrix). Really paid off as i think half of the questions have appeared before in one form or the other.

morning paper was really nice to have so much bookwork. afternoon paper was far more difficult.
Comments on the promotional growth q was hard to get more than a few points!
The whole question on the CEO's benefits was hard. why would a multinational value this . . . dunno... !

i noticed by late afternoon the number of people in the exam hall stretching and trying to get rid of writer's cramp. 2 papers in the same day is tough. do the examiners not realise?

what do you reckon pass marks will be? over 50%! over 60%! more!

 

[Erik]

I would guess pass mark 50%
Pass rate 45%

 

[El Gringo]

CA1 Sept o7

Hi all

Took CA1 for the second time this sitting.

As per the previous thread, i think that Paper 1 was fairer than Paper 2.

I thought that there was a good balance of book work and common sense type questions.

Paper 1:

Q1 - Pure bookwork on investment principles

Q2 - Unusual, and require some thinking as to how to answer. Did manage to explain with examples (and even managed to mention Northern Rock and the Suprime market crunch in that! lol).

Others -

ok questions on the train station, based on the Watford junction crash i think

Pension accounting question:
Work training helped, and i think that a similar one did appear in the mock exam.

I did manage to write down something on why it would be useful, but whether it's all bullshyte or not, well the marker will decide.

I also do remember that question 8 was all about what to include in an engagement sent to a client, so once again work helped...and the Take on Process that we have here also helped in generating 4 points for 2 marks, if i'm right.

The rest was based on some things from Professionalism, and common sense i guess.

The question 7 did appear before, chapter is monitoring i think, and the question was the same. I could not remember all of it - it's been a while.

PAPER 2:

The question about capital modelling is from past exams, i did it while ago though.

The ACC and investment fund - again from past exams. could remeber little bits and pieces, but did write some thing.

The methods for controlling the volatility of future contributions was hard i thought for 9 marks. I did manage to say something..but will not score enough.

Last time i did not answer the Catastrophe question well, so this time round memorised that part of the chapter very well and was useful for question 8.

I found the question about annuities to be quite tricky. I thought the company would not be too bothered about people dying early because of the possibility of making mortality profits, and use it for mortality cross subsidies for other annuities,etc...

The 13 marker on acquisition was nice, and needed application of bookwork knowledge.

Thats all that i can remember.

Overall i just do not know whether i'll pass or fail.

It may have seemed easier than April (or not!), but given that someone who had counselling was told that the pass MARK was around 45, and 45% of people still managed to fail, this says a lot about the strictness of the marking.

I'd rather have a hard exam, but have a lax marker.

Let me have your thoughts.

 

[Erik]

I thought the question on smoothing future contribution rates could have been answered using a risk mitigation approach, so I mentioned stuff like:
Term assurance for mortality (if death benefits offered)
Annuities for retiring members
Matching assets with liabilities to reduce risk of mismatching
Long term sickness contracts to cover illhealth retirals up to normal retirement
I got some other points as well.

Can't remember bookwork applicable to M&A question, so I thought widely.

Agree, Catastrophe question not too bad.

Again, a question on restrictions on assets held (also asked before in CA1).

I think I could manage at least 45%, but depends on strictness of marking and whether I somehow seriously misinterpreted some questions.

 

[SummerBub]

If the paper is less tough like this one, wouldn't it be more difficult to differentiate yourself to be better than other candidates? September pass rates have so far been around 30+% compared to 50+% in April sittings. Is it becos Sept examiners are much stricter??

For me, it was mainly time factor... was rushing through and could have misinterpreted the questions. Ah well... another 3 long months. I'd better have some mental preparation to repeat the 51 chapters ..... the third time.

 

[El Gringo]

lol...yep samething here...gearing up for the 51 chapters again!

About the volatility of contribs questions, well that's something that FD are trying to do. At work, there has been lots of work regarding this aspect of pension fund.

I think thay it has to do more with investment consulting, ie ST5 type of question.

The reasons that Erik gave i think are perfectly valid as long as you have explained how it would reduce the vol.

i think that some of my ideas included:

- Liability driven investment, using either bonds (immunisation cashflow matching through bonds, and using swaps).

- Aspects of the scheme itself, not the design but others.

- Buy out the fund, ie sell to an insurance company, partly or fully, therefore no more vols.

- there has been some developments in the financial markets, For eg, Citigroup can now enable a company to put its pension scheme on the bank's balance sheet (by taking adv of some form of regulatorty arbitrage...) and so no more vols in the company's bal sht.

- there are others such as letter of credit, using an SPV - but i thought that they would be going too much away from the course, so didnt mention these.

The thing about this exam is that you may think that you did well, but if the points that you made are not on the marking schedule, then you wont be scoring heavily, and end up failing.

so im not expecting a pass this time.

 

[Grizzly]

Future CA1 exmas should start with the following multi-choice question;

Do you work in Pensions? yes, then you'll pass.
Do you work in Life? yes, then you'll do well.
Do you work in GI? yes, then you've got to work your **** off to learn all that pensions stuff.
Do you work in Reinsurance? yes, then hope and pray you get one big RI question!


or am i just an old cinic!?

 

[El Gringo]

Guess that you have a fair point here Grizzly...

tends to be biased towards life and pensions...

That's why i'm totally against this new education system. It means having to learn things that we wont ever use in our working lives, and i thought that this was a professional exam.

I think that if the IoA, they could have madeit more flexible. For example, i work in IC, and why do i need what the effects of claim reserving would have on premiums rate..blah blah blah...

I'd rather be able to TAILOR the qualification to my needs, ie have a deep knowledge of my field of work. I think that the old system allowed someone to do so. I would have taken 301, 305, and the CiD, which suit my needs.

Someone else working in life could have chosen not to do the 305, and something else instead.

End of the day, the IoA has just found another way to s crew us over and over and over...The new example is the modelling course, what a waste of time and money!!! Another money maker for them!

Well, ive been told to just play by the rules of the game...I do not agree.

The impression that i get the strategy is being developed by some bloke who doesnt have a clue about what is going in the job market, and the needs of young professional wanna be actuaries.

And the editor of the Actuary finds it suprising that 70% of FDs in the FTSE 100 companies are accountants! It's just a case that they have been able to adapt to change than the Actuarial Profession did.

I am not saying that the exams must be dumbed down, far from that...i'm just saying that, given the amount of time we spend studying for them, why not make them more in line with the needs of the real working life, and so allows us to get something out of it.

They do teach use about meeting a customer's needs in the CA1 course. They should have a taste of their own medecine.

 

[Grizzly]

This can easily become the "Lets moan about the IoA" thread.
Strong feeling from El Gringo. But, there are positives in the course, and i do see reasons for CA1 covering such a broad range of topics. I don't think its a great idea to be pigeon-holed, and we can still specialise with the selection of ST subjects.

My feeling that the largest hypocracy lies in the whole professionalism topic. The message from the course is that actuaries must be competent, open and communicate well. Hmmm . . . ?! It is a secret society that few in the real-world understand. (the scary thing i'm becoming an actuary!!!)

I wrote to the IoA (topic not necessarily important here) asking for specific answers. I got a generic letter back with content cut & paste off the website. Its like calling a customer service line and getting the "you are important to us, please continue holding for another 3 hours, and we will do our best to not answer this call"

An example, to be open, how about we get an idea of what the pass mark is. I still don't understand why we can't be told?


viva la revalucion!!

 

[ExamFatigued]

Things can get a little emotive at exam time, so I do understand some of these feelings. However, although the course is long, I don't feel that there is an over bias on life or pensions. The life and pensions parts of the course cover the basics - and to no great depth. What the course is looking for you to do is to develop the actuarial framework whatever the environment. OK, if you work in pensions and are going to study ST4/SA4, then the pensions bit should be more straight forward, but that's about it. As for beefs about the general education strategy, this system is far better than it used to be when every student had to pass a specialist life, pensions and general paper. However, don't think I'm a fan - I think the course is a poorly constructed cut-and-paste job of the old 300 series courses.

 

[Anomaly]

Guess that you have a fair point here Grizzly...

tends to be biased towards life and pensions...

That's why i'm totally against this new education system. It means having to learn things that we wont ever use in our working lives, and i thought that this was a professional exam.

I think that if the IoA, they could have madeit more flexible. For example, i work in IC, and why do i need what the effects of claim reserving would have on premiums rate..blah blah blah...

I'd rather be able to TAILOR the qualification to my needs, ie have a deep knowledge of my field of work. I think that the old system allowed someone to do so. I would have taken 301, 305, and the CiD, which suit my needs.

Someone else working in life could have chosen not to do the 305, and something else instead.

End of the day, the IoA has just found another way to s crew us over and over and over...The new example is the modelling course, what a waste of time and money!!! Another money maker for them!

Well, ive been told to just play by the rules of the game...I do not agree.

The impression that i get the strategy is being developed by some bloke who doesnt have a clue about what is going in the job market, and the needs of young professional wanna be actuaries.

And the editor of the Actuary finds it suprising that 70% of FDs in the FTSE 100 companies are accountants! It's just a case that they have been able to adapt to change than the Actuarial Profession did.

I am not saying that the exams must be dumbed down, far from that...i'm just saying that, given the amount of time we spend studying for them, why not make them more in line with the needs of the real working life, and so allows us to get something out of it.

They do teach use about meeting a customer's needs in the CA1 course. They should have a taste of their own medecine.

I couldn't agree more with this post, especially the Bolded parts.

 

[El Gringo]

Vive la revolution!!!

Thanks for the support!

We should now organise ourselves, get some military clothes and organise a coup to take over Staple Inn!

Lol...was a bit emotional when i wrote this - mainly because of the number of hours i've put in, and you're still looking down the barrell. Gutting. You just feel like such a big waste of time.

nonetheless, i still vouch for every single thing i said...