View Full Version : 8F

11-02-2001, 07:38 AM
A walk in the park!

Well...a bare-foot walk in the park over shards of broken glass, rusty nails, and double-edged razor blades.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ophelia on 2001-11-02 10:54 ]</font>

11-02-2001, 11:14 AM
May the SOA and god have mercy on our souls. They grade on a curve right? Right??

Seems like they are really trying to get away from simply list regurgitations. Or maybe all of those "high-level" questions were lists I didn't memorize :|

Good luck all.

11-02-2001, 03:29 PM
I thought that exam was pretty intense. The case study questions took me longer than anticipated in the morning, and I was under alot of time pressure for the rest of the session. The afternoon questions seemed a little more straightforward, but I'm still not very confident. It's one of those "hope I got enough partial credit" type of sittings.

I hope everyone else besides the three of us thought it was hard too.

11-03-2001, 01:33 PM
You really thought the afternoon was more straight forward? I could not get that tax arbitrage question to work out in a nice numerical example. And then the debt short-fall question seemed to take a LONG time, and I wasn't sure how to do it for the second lender. Oh well...

I feel like I still have a shot because I subscribe to the "shotgun theory" of test taking: projectile vomiting everything you know about a subject onto a page in answer to a general question should maximize your chances of hitting some of the grading outline points. Agree?

11-05-2001, 12:32 PM
I guess I should have qualified my statement. I thought the afternoon was more straightforward than the morning, but that doesn't mean I felt it went great. I agree that those two questions were brutal. I was under just enought time pressure to rationalize the fact that I couldn't fully get either of them. Ugh.

Grits N Gravy
11-05-2001, 12:38 PM
Yeah, the shotgun theory is definitely the way to go. If it's not down on paper, they can't give you points for it.

That tax arbitrage question gave me trouble too. I had both the tax advantaged bond and the high risk stock out of equilibrium (their risk adjusted after tax return was greater than the riskless tax-free security) I didn't take that as a good sign. When I saw the question at first, I thought that it would be a slam dunk.

I had the shortfall equations memorized, but hadn't worked through an example where they incorporated taxes, so I'm doubting my answer on that one too.

11-05-2001, 01:09 PM
I didn't try for a numerical example for the tax arbitrage...I just said invest in the tax-favored one which has lots of implicit tax, sell the the tax-disfavored one, and further blather elaborating the point. Did they really want numbers there? darn darn darn.

11-05-2001, 02:15 PM
I just got my exam booklets back from the proctor and I figure I could have gotten maybe 70-75 of the 120 points. Any idea if that will be enough? What are your estimates of how many points you got?

I didn't get my tax arbitrage example to work out either for question 7. How about question 3! The Canadian method for required capital for segregated fund guarantees 13 POINTS!

Ah well, I also subscribe to the shotgun method.

12-04-2001, 02:52 PM
I also thought the Canadian segfund question was a load of sh##. Notice how they stood clear of using the word "Canada" and thereby avoided being "country-specific".

12-05-2001, 09:51 AM
8Fer, how'd you get your exam books back?

12-06-2001, 08:03 AM
What did you people write in response to Q8.
This was a very subjective question. I guess regardless of what model is used, the person cannot do away with sustenance shelter & food ..... or can they?

12-06-2001, 08:09 AM
On question 2, can anyone tell me what was one supposed to write in response to part (a).

The easiest questions were Credit Metrics, Sweetened Pension and Demutualization ones.

What do you consider would be the passing marks..

Grits N Gravy
12-06-2001, 04:47 PM
On 2001-12-06 07:03, wanna_pass_8F wrote:
What did you people write in response to Q8.
This was a very subjective question. I guess regardless of what model is used, the person cannot do away with sustenance shelter & food ..... or can they?

An REMM regards everything as a want, rather than a need, so I assigned spending proportionally to the full requirement. The psychological model was probably looking for the Maslow's heirarchy thing where you go for food > shelter > love > self-actualization. I tried to classify each category according to that, filling the sustenance requirements in order. I didn't know what to do with the political model. I made up some BS about how the politician's choices would be a perfect proxy for the consituents' needs and assumed all constituents were REMM's. Probably got that part wrong.