PDA

View Full Version : Exam 5


mahesh978
05-06-2003, 05:19 PM
Just curious to see how people felt about Exam 5. I kind of felt it okay but definitiely not an easy exam. Partial Credits will prove to be saviour for some questions I guess!!


Mahesh

proudmom13
05-06-2003, 10:34 PM
I thought it went pretty well. Or, maybe I should re-phrase it as follows: After taking the 2002 exam for practice the night before, I thought I was screwed, but during today's exam, I was surprised how much I knew. And maybe they just asked the right questions that I was ready for, who knows... I did run out of time though, but I kind of expected that, so it was okay.

rsm1978
05-07-2003, 08:23 AM
I thought is was OK as well. Kinda weird that the McClenahan which had 10 pts last year only had a few this year and Feldblum's WC had 8 last year only a few this year. And what's with a 5 pt question on the Hurricane Modeling????

Dooby Scoo
05-07-2003, 09:04 AM
Anyone wish to post their multiple choice answers? When will the CAS release them?

HuronActuary
05-07-2003, 02:17 PM
I thought it was a decent exam. I didn't think that it was too long or difficult, but it was still enough to make me say 'hmmm' afterward.

Here comes the first question about a question...

the last m/c #17

a. was false (sched rating based on experience)
b. was true (though I cant remember what was at the moment?)
c. was something to the effect of...Indiv Risk Rating is 'important' when groupings are homogeneous (it could be a variation of the word important).

I initially put True but then changed it to False, thinking that IRiskR would be the only way to distinguish price within the group. I think I should have left it as True, due to if the groupings were 100% homogeneous (in an expected loss sense) it wouldn't be as important to distinguish members of the group from one another...or at least not as important as it would be for a heterogeneous group...right? ugh

Does anyone know when the exam and mult choice answers will be posted by the CAS? I thought it was pretty soon after.

Good luck. :wall:

egg
05-07-2003, 02:37 PM
I wasn't sure on #17. I agree on I and II. On III my thought was why would and Individual Risk Rating care about homogeneous or heterogeneous groupings so I answered false. And I don't recall, but was there a II and III only option?

jared
05-07-2003, 03:08 PM
#38
total freq =10/67=0.149
xs freq = 500/5000 = .10
expected claims = 5000*0.149=745
unreported claims =745-500=245
losses eliminated =150(245)+250(500)=161750
LER=161750/(1000000+161750)=0.139

egg
05-07-2003, 03:15 PM
I concur with jared on #38.

Father of two
05-07-2003, 03:37 PM
Q6: Underwriters are responsible for which of the following activities?

1. Determining the appropiate rate or price.
2. Formulating U/W policy.
3. Providing service to producers and policyholders.

I put C ( 1 and 3 only). Looking back I was thinking of just Line U/W and not staff U/W. :duh:

Kiitos
05-07-2003, 03:44 PM
Here goes nothing...
1. C
2. D
3. C
4. A
5. B
6. E
7. D
8. A
9. D
10. E
11. D
12. E
13. C
14. B
15. A
16. B
17. B

Father of two
05-07-2003, 03:53 PM
1. C
2. D
3. A
4. D
5. B
6. C
7. D
8. A
9. C
10. E
11. B
12. E
13. C
14. X
15. A
16. B
17. B

egg
05-07-2003, 04:02 PM
Q6: Underwriters are responsible for which of the following activities?

1. Determining the appropiate rate or price.
2. Formulating U/W policy.
3. Providing service to producers and policyholders.

I put C ( 1 and 3 only). Looking back I was thinking of just Line U/W and not staff U/W. :duh:
When I saw that I was wondering if they forgot to specify which kind of underwriter they were talking about. I assumed they meant both kinds of underwriters and answered all 3.

mckenna
05-07-2003, 04:03 PM
1. C
2. D
3. C
4. A
5. B
6. B
7. D
8. A
9. C
10. E
11. D
12. E
13. C
14. B
15. A
16. E
17. D

Mel-o-rama
05-08-2003, 10:06 AM
Here are my answers:

CDAAE EDCXE CECBA BE

I'm ashamed to admit I missed #9. I kept getting something around $6,000. I realized after the test that I was solving for insurer and not insured. How stupid!

I think I got 5, 8, and 17 wrong. My 11 is different from the rest of you, but I think mine is right, though I'm not so sure. Since it's a premium trend, I went from Oct 01 to Jan 04, which should be the average written date in each period.

Overall, I thought the test was reasonable, but very long. I thought I would have time to go back to questions I skipped (like the New York-biased one). I think the pass score will be lower as a percentage of maximum points, but similiar to recent pass marks. I feel I'm right on the border line as usual.

Good luck in retrospect everyone!

Father of two - like your quote!

Mapie
05-08-2003, 11:22 AM
1. C
2. D
3. C
4. A
5. B
6. E
7. D
8. A
9. D
10. E
11. D
12. E
13. C
14. B
15. A
16. B
17. B

Dooby Scoo
05-08-2003, 12:05 PM
A few select answers that I wrote down in my exam booklet:

#29 MarkerMohl problem asking for the Occ Pol Prem: $1028.5

#33 Feldblum WC, Current Rate Level factor: 1.122

#35 Schofield Expense Fee: $32.46

#36 McClenahan Problem: a) L/R=71.4% b) +12.0% c) +12.0% (Glad those were the same!)

#37 Off-balance factor (I used McClenahan): 0.96

#40 Head problem calculating imdemnity payments: a) 46,875 b) 120,000 c) 375,000.

#42 Retro Prem Calc: 262,080

#43 Asset Share Problem: 1.885

Just a select few calculation answers that I wrote down.

Mapie
05-08-2003, 12:10 PM
Dooby Scoo,

I also jotted down some numerical answers, and got the same answer for quite a few of yours.

#29: 1,028.50
#33: I got 1.127 (could be a rounding thing)
#35: I got $32.40 (again, probably due to rounding)
#36: 71.4%, 12.05%, and 12.05%
#40: 46,875, 120,000, 375,000
#42: $262,080

mckenna
05-08-2003, 01:47 PM
For question 33, I got the same answer that you did when I adjusted for Earned Premum but then I saw that the problem asked for a Written Prem adjustment. Which one did you adjust for?

Mapie
05-08-2003, 02:12 PM
I didn't do any kind of an adjustment. Does it matter that it was written premium? I could see (thanks, T-Bone) that it would matter if you were bringing Calendar Year 2002 to current rate level. But, does it matter if you are bringing policy year written premium to current rate level? All premium written in policy year 2002 is also earned in policy year 2002. So, isn't it the same thing?

Mapie
05-12-2003, 01:09 PM
They're out!

http://casact.org/admissions/studytools/exam5/03-5.pdf

CDCAB EDADE DECBA BB

EraserGuy
05-12-2003, 03:16 PM
If you correctly answered Exam 5, Questions 9 and/or 12, could you please post your solution(s)? I am trying to determine where my calculations went off-course. Thanks!

baboyounglee
05-12-2003, 03:36 PM
Any guess for the pass mark on this?

jared
05-12-2003, 03:39 PM
9) 1500 +.25 (10000-1500) = 3625

12) AY 2001 is already at 24 months. So we want 24-ult.

for 2000, $9240 / $8000 = 1.155 = 36-ult factor

so $7500 * 1.2 * 1.155 = 10,395

jared
05-12-2003, 04:58 PM
As for the pass mark, I have no idea, but I would not feel comfortable with less than 60, and would not feel absolutely certain with less than 65.

Actugirl
05-12-2003, 05:20 PM
I agree with Jared's solutions to #'s 9 & 12, but one should be careful on #9:

1500 + {[(10,000 - 1,500) * .25] ^ 3,000} = 3,625
(If the loss amount were large enough that (X - 1,500)*.25 > 3000, then the answer would have been 4500.)

Actugirl
05-12-2003, 05:23 PM
As for the pass mark, the last three years pass marks were:
2000 -- 59.75/100 with 35.6% passing
2001 -- 54.25/100 with 36.3% passing
2002 -- 53.5/88 (60.8%) with 43.4% passing

So, I think anything over 57 points (60%) has a very strong chance and anything over 61.75 points (65%) is a sure thing.

Trout
05-12-2003, 06:40 PM
I have played some statistics here based on the previouse 3 years pass mark.

Total Point Pass Mark Ratio
2002 88 53.50 60.795%
2001 100 54.25 54.250%
2000 100 59.75 59.750%

Projecyed 2003 pass mark
Mean Mean+2Sigma Mean-2Sigma
2003 55.35 (58.265%) 60.81 (64.007%) 49.9 (52.523%)

Note: Not statistically sound due to only 3 data points.

jared
05-12-2003, 07:42 PM
I don't disagree, but if 55% of the students scored over 62, it is possible that even a score of 62 would not pass.

blackjack
05-14-2003, 08:19 AM
Anyone recall what they answered for 32? If you didn't get your test back, this was the Burger/Hurrican Model 5 pointer.

My answers were:
a) Terr A = 0.778; Terr B = 1.167
b) terr A = -12.69%; Terr B = +6.3%.

With 5 points on the line, I was hoping to at least confirm I picked up a few points here.

Thanks.

Actugirl
05-14-2003, 03:56 PM
#32
a) A 0.778; B 1.167
b) The problem asked for the indicated changes to the territory relativities, which is what Burger's Exhibit 3 computes.
I came up with the following Indicated Relative Changes to the territory relativities:
A 0.967; B 1.016

If you wanted % changes, these would then be multiplied to the current relativities to produce indicated territory relativities, yeilding % changes of A -3.3%; B 1.6%

I thought I was pretty confident about this answer, but now you're making me question myself.

Smooth Verona
05-15-2003, 05:48 PM
Actugirl - you are correct on #32

cas_student
05-15-2003, 08:08 PM
Actually, I think blackjack is correct. The way Burger applies credibility is slightly different than in the other readings. The complement of credibilty is the (weighted average non-hurricane loss cost) * (credibility complement)* (current relativity). This isn't really shown in the exhibit but is discussed in the explanation that precedes it.

Smooth Verona
05-16-2003, 09:16 AM
You're absolutely right cas_student. However, blackjack used the wrong current relativities. Notice in Exhibit 3 in the paper column (3) - Non-Hurricane Rel To SW in Current Base Class Loss Cost. You need to calculate this. In this problem's case, they are 0.920 for A and 1.060 for B. Blackjack used the relativities in part a. of the problem to get the answer.

The writer of this exam question has to still be smiling about how he/she tricked several students. What a clever thing to do - stick that part a. for 1 point in front of the big 4 pointer, when the answer to a. isn't used in b.

cas_student
05-16-2003, 10:49 AM
I see where we screwed up. Thanks for the clarification. It only makes me wonder how many other tricks I missed.

Loki
05-27-2003, 03:04 PM
In 2002, 2 questions were invalid so getting them right or wrong didn't affect the score. Do you think then that when looking at the pass mark, you should count those 2 points in the denominator? I'm not 100% sure, but I think you can. Afterall, we don't know if all of the points on part 5 are valid and we are using 90 points to estimate how many points we need. Therefor we need a % to apply to 90 that has the full # of points in the denominator. If we knew that 2 points were invalid then we could apply the % using the reduced denominator?

What do you think? Is the pass score for 2002 really 53.5/90 = 59.4%?

Is this sensible or is it wishful thinking on my part?