does anyone plan to read the source? I’ve never read the source for any exams but I’ve heard sources are important for 8.
It was a really inefficient use of study time, but I enjoyed the Grossi book on CAT modeling
So much scientific information that I didn’t understand in the Grossi text.
But, I recall the 2017 exam had a picture that you had to label from the Grossi text. I remember on that exam I was thinking it’s a good thing I remember this random chart and how to label it.
yeah part of the problem is the problems from the Grossi text are usually super easy and it’s a small part of the syllabus.
But the text itself is fun reading just for general knowledge. Lots of history of how insurers would analyze CAT loss potential with lots of glossy pictures of CAT modeling maps.
Does anyone recommend battleacts
I liked it for Exam 6. I haven’t tried it for Exam 8 but I do like the aspect of placing emphasis on the more historically tested source material.
I don’t. I like to place emphasis on what is likely to be tested in the future
This is an excellent point. Battleacts does not appear to make an effort to make any adjustment here. They just have historical weights, which may be less useful now that exams are no longer being released.
I think that CAS is also planning to start creating questions with the spreadsheet environment in mind starting this sitting (don’t quote me on that though), so if that’s the case will BattleActs be able to properly prepare us for that?
Their weighting model will have to be modified the further we get away from available past exams. Perhaps they’ll start to make use of the exam feedback that shows which areas the candidates did poorly in.
Of course, the syllabus does show weighting at a higher granularity.
How will they get the candidate exam feedback info? Wouldn’t this currently have to take the form of voluntary submissions by failing candidates? It’s not aggregated into any report that I’ve seen anyway.
I think this is going to be an issue for all of the vendors of exam manuals. If there’s no feedback on which areas candidates are weak on, how will they know which areas of the manual need to be improved?
It’s still early days with the new system, so CAS may release aggregated information at some point.
Just finished reading my first source - Clark reinsurance pricing. I find it harder than I thought, especially the casualty part. Is this paper/section the harder one compared to other papers/sections?
No.
Mack 94, the monograph, the new Taylor paper are harder
You’re confusing exam 7 with 8, I think. The Clark paper is probably the most important paper in that section of the syllabus.
Oh is the Clark paper the reinsurance paper, with all the different pricing methods.
Yeah, that’s the one.
@xyz I agree that this paper can be a little difficult on first read, especially if you have no experience in reinsurance; I didn’t either. The problem with this paper is that the core concepts actually aren’t super difficult; it’s just the way they test it is actually very difficult.
The hard part about the reinsurance section is they ask questions not in the paper.
I started with ASOP 12 then a GLM paper…