Sept ST3 2006 Exam - how was it for you?

Good

Bad

Indifferent?

Last question - Since when was lognormal distributions part of ST3

 

Lognormal distributions were part of the syllabus for 101, 102, 106 and 109 (or CT equivalents). How many times do these need to be covered?

Past papers of 303 have used lognormal distributions and truncated lognormal distributions. This would have been a giveaway to those intending to turn up well prepared

 

No past papers of 303 have longormal distributions.

Maybe its historical equivalent.

 

Do you have the dates of the papers that contained lognormal distributions?

 

The specific paper I was thinking of was Sept 94, but there is one in the Bank questions 5 as well.

The reality is people taking ST3 are pretty close to taking on professional responsibility. Is it really too much to ask them to do a simple application of lognormal distributions?

 

So not a 303 paper as you stated, but a paper now 12 years old and for all we know in Sept94 it was part of the syllabus.

The professional responsibility exams are the P papers and the SA's.

I do not work in General Insurance like the majority of actuaries. If you asked a qualified actuary on the spot do to a "simple application" of a lognormal distribution the vast majority would not be able to do it. Does this make them less professional.

 

Dress it up how ever you like, that was still an easy question

 

You must be kidding. GI actuaries can easily handle a lognormal distribution! I think you are confused with pension actuaries

 

I am unfortunately not in a position to judge what qualified actuaries can or can't do, because I do not know any. Gareth is probably in a better position to comment.

However, when I look at the pass rate for ST3 and look at threads like this, I am quite prepared to believe there are a lot of incompetent actuaries out there. I meet incompetent doctors, lawyers and accountants all the time and so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

I do not approach these exams as a hurdle to cross, but as an opportunity to learn, even if they are time consuming. My aim is to increase my mathematical and statistical competence as I have a number of projects in mind where my knowledge can probably be profitably applied. In some respects it is gratifying to know that many of the students approach these exams with a sloppy attitude as it makes it that much easier for me to pass

 

Yes, I meant Pension actuaries

 

An actuary who can number crunch can be as incompetent as an actuary who can't. Number crunching is the actuaries tool, and a good actuary will be both able to communicate complex mathematical and financial situations, as well as do the numbers. However, most qualifieds (certainly in pensione where most actuaries lie) have gone past crunching numbers and I seriously expect most would have to consult a textbook to "remember" how to do some of the mpre obscure maths.

Remember, most of do not use statistics in our actuarial lives, more likely compound financial maths.

 

actually a lot of GI actuaries spend lots of time developing complex stochastic DFA models (this will be a requirement of SolvencyII)

 

First up I work in GI

Secondly the maths used (at least in the areas I have worked in) - even to produce some pretty cool models are quite simple - mostly because upper management need to understand what's going on and have reasonable confidence in the methods used. I think the rationale behind the use of the model and the awareness of the issues which could affect the model's appropriateness is often closer to the central thrust of the ST3 syllabus.

Thirdly as some have said , if you sat the stats paper recently the maths part of this question was absolutely the easiest marks you are ever likely to see in an ST (and certainly ST3) exam. I made an attempt but don't believe it was too much more than that.

Fourthly learn to accept that you cannot expect to win them all - I know I have. You will enjoy your life and the exam process more.

 

Moggy, With regard to your 08.57 post. I have no doubt that sort of guff would appeal to senior management. It would however get you the sack if you worked for me.

 

Moggy, I have reread this thread and I feel I owe you an apology. I bear you no malice.

I have spent my life one way another in or around education. Firstly as a research chemist, university lecturer and latterly as an educational entrepreneur. Over the years I have seen every form of poor preparation for most types of exams. It is really the casualness of approach to these exams which I see in many posts on here which annoys me.