Ct4(104)

Did anyone do the 104 part only. How did you find this as a paper in its own right?

Overall I thought it was ok, but these half-papers seem even more rushed for time than the full three hour ones. Also, anything you get wrong is double the percentage in wrong marks.

 

But anything you get right is doubled in right marks

 

I'll be sitting the 103 half in September for the 3rd time. Didn't have time to do it this sitting due to CA1.

I found it really hard to write an exam in 90 minutes. It's like I take 15 minutes to get warmed up - and some of those questions require thinking/plannning time before answering. Also I usually get progressively faster at answering as I go through an exam - after 90 mnutes I'm only working at about 70% of what I'd be given another 30 minutes

 

if what you say is true - then your solution is simple - just answer some questions for an hour immediately before you go into the exam sso you are "warmed up" and at full speed.

 

hahahhahahhahaha.....

 

Hello! I thought this forum site is rather interesting.

Btw, did anyone have problem with the exposed to risk question in CT4 (104)?

 

Exposed to risk

I think the trouble with the CT4(104) exposed to risk question is probably the assumptions.

You had to make an assumption regarding the premiums: in advance or arrears - all they said was that they're annual premiums. (They'll probably shank us if we didn't state the assumption, even if the answer is correct.)

For the sensus approach you have to assume lapses occur uniformly over the year of age, which is probably fairly reasonable, but lapse rates are influenced more by duration than by age. A different mix by duration for each age will lead to misleading results. The economic cycle also influences lapse rates. (Btw, is it worthwhile in practice to do a lapse investigation using this data if it's not really going to give much insight into lapse experience? Rather do it by duration, or duration and age, and try to take the economic conditions into account.)

Of course, I only thought of these things after the exam.

 

You could just do what I did: bulldoze through the exposed to risk question, writing down random assumptions, and hope to pick up as many marks as you can and that the other questions will help compensate for the complete lack of effort put into that topic

 

just go to the ActEd tutorials on CT4 if you want to know the easy way to do exposed to risk.

 

Yeah right! I had some idea of how to do them, and then out tutor totally confused me. I really regret going to that tutorial, it set me back about 3 weeks. The others in the tutorial felt the same.

 

well, it worked for me in the 104,105 exams (select rate exposed to risk...eeeewwww!)

personally i think it's disgraceful we are being forced to learn what is now a historic subject, since the invention of computers...

 

The only thing you'll probably ever need to know is that
age x next birthday is the same as x-1 last birthday. This should help you with many of the questions too.

Erik

 

Got to agree with Gareth. Its a disgrace. Bit like when they made me learn to count at primary school when the advent of the electronic calculator had occurred many years previously. Its not as if we are expected to have an understanding of how the models we use work - we are just computer operators aren't we?

 

i was thinking along the lines that a modern valuation system should calculate exact exposures, hence the subject of how to calculate approximate exposures is now redudent.

 

But a lot of it is based on the type of approximations that are unavoidable in some situations, such as when based on census data or year or birth only, etc. In such circumstances its necessary to understand the approximations applied in practice - even if there exists a computer that will do it for you.

 

well a life office will have exact data on their computer, pension valuation data is also exact.

Unless you work at the office of national statistics, you will not need to use these methods any more.

Exact exposures are not a problem anymore. Sure it is an interesting academic problem for the cases where you are dealing with national census data, but what relevance does this have to the average actuary?

[edit] If the examiner wanted to do something useful, they would replace this with a section on the practical application of the term structure of interest rates - e.g. annuities shouldn't really be calculated using a constant interest rate...

 

Most actuaries do use standard mortality tables based on census approximations. . . they are not the sole reserve of the ONS.