I exaggerated. Didn’t mean to say all but some are useless. You have to improvise and adjust formulas based on given information in the problem.
Those are tough for sure. For Bahnemann though, I think you can get your head around it eventually by grinding problems. In my experience, the make or break section of the exam is the reinsurance portion. The reading is super straightforward; the question on exam day are rarely so.
jooni please start an exam prep course… 
Almost September here and I feel that I’m on schedule (but not as “ahead”, as I would have liked)
For a split plan, what is the Zp and Ze? TIA and BA does not seem to agree.
TIA says E/(E+Kp)
BA says Ep/(Ep+Kp)
and they are most definitely not identical.
I went back to source (very rare for me, lol) and unfortunately, Fisher doesn’t give a definitive answer. She(?) says,
On scratch paper, I manipulated the first formula and I can get the second with either formula, so that doesn’t help me knowing what the credibility formula is. Perhaps the only way to know for sure is to derive it from the NCCI manual, but I don’t know how.
I think this is a fair question. BA version actually makes the most sense, BUT, in TIA’s past exam problemset at least, you do not have to calculate Ze or Zp in any question. It either uses the NCCI weight/ballast method or the credibilities are provided. I vaguely remember this being touched on in the videos, but I haven’t come back to this in awhile so can’t confirm definitely.
I was able to prove TIA version is correct using their derivations. I cannot definitely disprove BA, but since these two are different, I think BA version is incorrect.
Won’t show the algebra proof here because it’s long and boring and something I definitely don’t want to repeat.
2 Likes
haha i’m sure people would love to pay money to someone who failed this exam more than once
I’m a bit upset by how ambiguous/incorrectly written the past exam questions were. TIA has comments for many of the questions for clarification. If the exam writers were able to do half of those clarifications, I assume more people could pass the exam.
Is it just me or do you guys have the same feeling that there are lots of practice problems for this exam?
Yeah. Would be nice if there is more consistency. e.g. for something as simple as an efficiency test, there is no clear guideline on whether to use population or sample variance.
I believe either should be accepted for full credit if it’s not specified.
RF uses pop version. I thought sample Var made sense because certain years of historical experience is definitely a sample, not an entire population.
The latest exam released accepted both. Fisher used sample (but I think their source was using pop? I could be mistaken). TIA used pop. BA sample. It’s a mess
Fisher case study step 5.
In the basic premium calculation, why is the LCF applied to per-occurrence excess loss rather than ground-up loss? Are we assuming the insured will pay for LAE below the deductible? It would be a weird assumption in my eyes.
Does anyone have Fisher or any of the co-authors’ corresponding email address?
For that problem, I think it’s because it’s a retro policy rather than a LDD, so there is no deductible.
1 Like
It looks like 2018 examiner report is not available on the CAS website. Anyone else getting an error?
Edit: nvm found another link
Was the ALFs on demand ever being tested? I think I’m going to skip this section for now…those things don’t stick even after reading them multiple times.
It hasn’t been tested during the 2019 and prior. Not sure for CBT.
Are there even practice questions out there for it? I don’t recall seeing any on TIA.
I don’t know if there are practice questions for them since I haven’t gotten to those yet. But they were new syllabus material from 2 sittings ago, so yeah no they wouldn’t be captured in any released past exams at all. And for obvious reasons, no one can comment on whether they’ve been tested in the unreleased sittings.
Has anyone used the Rising Fellow additional practice problems that is now being sold with the cookbook for an additional $100? I really like their original cookbook problems but $100 for only 100 problems and 1 practice exam seems a bit steep.
Anyone memorizing the general MBBEFD formula or the single parameter format of b and g?