ok to skip ruin theory questions on course 3?

[palatka]

i've gone through all the material for course three, and ive been trying to go through ruin theory and i'm really struggling (im using mahler's notes by the way) some of the past exam questions on the topic seem complicated to me. for those of you who have taken course 3, do you think its ok to skip these questions? if not, do you have any suggestions on how to learn this material? thanks.....

[burton leon reynolds]

It depends.

If you know everything else on the exam, it shouldn't matter what you do. You won't fail because you do not know ruin theory.

If you don't know everything else, you have bigger fish to fry.

To learn it, memorize the approximation formulas for the R's, and a few other key formulas and work as many problems as needed.

P.S. If you know everything else on this test, I hate you and I'm not alone. Just foolin. Good Luck

[Macroman]

I would not advise skipping the ruin theory entirely. If the Mahler notes aren't doing it for you then you can use Act Math or your study supplement for that part of the exam.

The exam has never had a large number of ruin questions, but most of those that have been pretty quick and easy.

It's true that if you are doing well (at least 70% correct) on the rest of the exam what you do with ruin theory problems won't matter. On the other hand, if you can assure yourself of 50% on ruin theory (expect 2-4 ruin problems) then you can get 65% on the rest and feel secure.

[Cynic]

From my experience as a 3-time Exam 3 taker, I would say that you would be better off focusing on something else instead of Ruin Theory. I did pretty well with the ruin theory problems in Mahler's notes, but never got one right on the exam. Part of the problem was that the exam questions on this part tend to be very ambiguous. In order to get them, you need to have a very clear understanding of the subject, which requires a lot of time. If you have Mahler's notes, you probably want to know the basics about this topic, in case they give you an easy problem.

[Macroman]

OK, to clarify my point, take a look at questions 21 and 22 from May 2001. At a minimum, you should be able to answer 21 (immediately). The hypothetical company in question 21 does not accumulate any additional surplus and there is a probability of losses in excess of the surplus amount. Eventual ruin is certain.

Question 22 is not strictly a ruin problem but a problem which involves the possibility of ruin. You should be able to work this out from general principles and I would say that you should be prepared to do so on exam day. You may decide on exam day if presented with this problem that other problems are more worth your time and skip this one. I would rather not be in the position of being forced to skip problem 22 because I had skipped it in my studies, because I might need it.

It may be that Mahler's notes on ruin are more involved than they need to be. I don't have (or want) them so I'm in no position to judge that. Actuarial Mathematics covers almost exactly the same ground, the alternative explanation may be helpful.

These two problems don't require the use of moment generating functions or adjustment coefficients, which is what I assume is troubling you. There is a problem with the different syllabus materials in that they don't use the same notation or parameterizations of distributions. A good study manual (I am using ARCH and am pleased) will point out and clarify the differences.

[Bama Gambler]

I have not taken course 3 (yet - I am sitting for it this time). IMO, it is too late to learn any new material. Spend this time reviewing what you already know.

Bama Gambler

[burton leon reynolds]

The tide has spoken!

[retaker]

I seem to remember one nice formula from ruin theory where you have a Possion - exponential mix, I think. This type of problem is easy to solve. I think there was one on a past exam. You should learn this formula at least, in case it pops up again. Of course you do realize that almost none of the problems which can be solved solely with "formulas".

I learned EVERYTHING in Mahler's ruin theory manuals and was disappointed that only a very small fraction of it was tested.

This is a common theme of course 3, and the story of my life with Course 3.

Just be glad you were not taking it when it first came out. There was a lot of stuff, even on the old 150 half, that wasn't covered on the new one. Frank's copula, etc... If you spent time to memorize all the formulas, you would be scr_wed. The lack of explanation of what the new exam would be like for course 3 was particular egregious.

PS please don't kill me again for b_tching. :viola: I'm not b_tching at you guys, just the SOA.

[Howard Mahler]

Ruin Theory on Course 3 can be basically divided in two.
The finite time discrete time model (Section 2 of my Study Guide on Ruin Theory) and everything else.

If you understand the first and easier portion, you have about half the points on this subject. There have been an average of 2 or 3 questions on Ruin Theory. So the remainder of Ruin Theory will only have 1 or maybe two questions on its many ideas.

This close to the exam, do practice exams, study imortant ideas and formulas, and consolidate what you already know.

Howard Mahler

[Bama Gambler]

The tide has spoken!

Hey Course 3!! Hey Course 3!! Hey Course 3, we're gonna beat the hell out of you!! Ramma Jamma yellow hammer give'em hell Alabama.

[Bama Gambler]

Ruin Theory on Course 3 can be basically divided in two.
The finite time discrete time model (Section 2 of my Study Guide on Ruin Theory) and everything else.

If you understand the first and easier portion, you have about half the points on this subject. There have been an average of 2 or 3 questions on Ruin Theory. So the remainder of Ruin Theory will only have 1 or maybe two questions on its many ideas.

This close to the exam, do practice exams, study imortant ideas and formulas, and consolidate what you already know.

Howard Mahler

Yes the discrete portion is really just a markov chain with an absorbing state of 0. These problems are VERY easy!!

[ClydesMom]

Neglecting the ruin theory was my strategy the next to last time I took Part 3. Unfortunately, that got me a nice 5. Next time I studied the ruin theory like crazy and went up to a 7. After you spend a few good days on it, it becomes okay.

[Bama Gambler]

Neglecting the ruin theory was my strategy the next to last time I took Part 3. Unfortunately, that got me a nice 5. Next time I studied the ruin theory like crazy and went up to a 7. After you spend a few good days on it, it becomes okay.

So you are saying the only thing you knew better the second time around was the ruin theory?

[Cynic]

Of course it never hurts to know more. The question is priority. If I could do it again, I would not study ruin theory the first time around. If it's your third time and you know all the other good stuffs by heart, then there is no question that you should study this part.

[Bama Gambler]

Of course it never hurts to know more. The question is priority. If I could do it again, I would not study ruin theory the first time around. If it's your third time and you know all the other good stuffs by heart, then there is no question that you should study this part.

MY POINT EXACTLY!!

[Michael]

What about skipping Makeham and Gompertz......for some reason, I look at that stuff and it annoys me..... :-)

[drctypea]

i skipped those guys...

[Cynic]

What about skipping Makeham and Gompertz......for some reason, I look at that stuff and it annoys me..... :-)

The names alone are pretty annoying! I think it's safe to skip them and spend time on other topics. Make sure you know Constant Force and UDD by heart. The Life Contingencies part seems to emphasize strongly these 2 basic concepts, IMO.