View Full Version : 8V: so...whaddyall think?
11-02-2001, 09:09 AM
Now that we've all seen/taken the exam what are your comments?
I thought the morning session was rather hard . The afternoon session was long but for the proof of the Martingale. On the whole, I'm thinking I'm going to be taking it next November when I'll have to learn to prove stuff!!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: eminem on 2001-11-02 09:10 ]</font>
11-02-2001, 11:14 AM
Ugggh! I could easily be taking it again!
11-02-2001, 11:32 AM
I've never done so much work for so little credit. I'm guessing a 2-4 is in my future.
11-02-2001, 12:08 PM
So what study manuals and material did you find helpful? I have to start studying now for 8V for next year, which means that if I buy a manual now, I may have to buy another if the course changes for next year. Anyone want to sell their old manuals?
11-02-2001, 01:06 PM
There's only one manual. If I passed, I'll give you mine for free!
11-02-2001, 01:11 PM
I used the Actex by Bensics. It was awful - definitely not a JAM manual. Wish Carmody wrote one for 8V. He is too busy offering the Course 5 and 6 seminars.
If I had to do it over again, here's what I would do: The Society gives a 4 page Overview of the course outline. I would follow that order of studying. ASSET PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT, PRICING, ALM. Bensics manual is not in that order although he has sections A, B, C. Whatever manual you get, tear it apart and put it back in the SOA's order. Make a condensed outline for major topics - there is a lot of overlap in the material. This way I don't have to read through 400 pages of Actex. The condensed outline should spark your memory for the details. Good Luck!
I will check the web to see if there are any decent notecards for sale. I'd stay away from Bensics manual - even though it is the second time around, he omitted a chapter that was there in the first version and one of the new study notes.
11-02-2001, 01:12 PM
Do you remember any of the questions from the morning session? I think I have recalled most from the afternoon session and their point values. Thanks.
11-02-2001, 01:15 PM
Are we allowed to discuss it yet? I don't want to force Traci to start deleting things ....
The Mad Hatter
11-02-2001, 02:31 PM
I got behind time-wise during the afternoon and found myself rushing through the last 4-5 questions. It's rather odd considering that supposedly it is a 5 hour exam but they give you an extra hour. I did not have time problems when I sat for Course 5 and 6 previously. I will go our on a limb predict with 50% certainty that I passed(might as well look at the glass as half full).
Good luck everybody.
11-02-2001, 02:58 PM
Hmmm....there is rule for not discussing it 24 hours after the exam? How would it affect any exam takers? Everybody is done taking it. That's why I posted today. Hope Traci will enlighten me with the rules.
11-02-2001, 05:04 PM
All you have to do to get the questions is ask the proctor...he should still have them.
I picked the questions up today. Now I know how really bad I did.
11-02-2001, 05:07 PM
Hmmm... well, we can at least talk about points right? I think I got about 30 points in the morning, and maybe 37-38 in the afternoon. On course 5 that would've probably been enough to pass, but I'm not so confident this time, only 100 or so people take this test, including everyone who failed it a year ago, and many of them I would guess are more familiar with this stuff than I am due to seeing it more on a daily basis in work. A few of the questions were definitely such that work experience with the material would put one at a significant advantage. How do others feel they did in point terms (if you're comfortable saying, of course...)
I do think it was a bit (OK, a lot)tougher than last year's, (I didn't take it last year, I just saw the exam in the study notes) and there were definitely lots of think-outside-the-box questions. While I don't object to that on principle, I think that makes grading extremely subjective, and I wish there had been more on the exam that actually tested whether you had read and understood the syllabus.
One other little observation: I was talking with someone after the exam, and he and I both realized that both of the chapters / study notes that were omitted by Actex were tested with high point questions in the morning session. He also said that a friend of his had taken 8I last year, and the SoA had also tested the one chapter in the syllabus that Actex failed to include. Could this be more than a coincidence? If I have to take this again, I'm going to read whatever's not covered in Actex *very* carefully!
The Mad Hatter
11-02-2001, 06:10 PM
Does anyone agree with me that the question about the two student's "hedging" securities was flawed? If you apply the B-S differential equation, it is clear that G and neither of the proposed H functions can be traded securities. What was the point of the question anyway? That you can't hedge with something whose delta is 0?
11-04-2001, 12:10 PM
I also got a different G using the D.E. from Ito's Lemma. I decided they must have wanted us to pick the H that would provide a better short-term hedge. I was not at all confident in my answer except that I think I differentiated the polynomials correctly!
Answering that one felt like a lot of other SOA questions -- I felt like if I could just figure out what the author was trying to ask, I could answer it just fine.
11-04-2001, 01:35 PM
I posted my warning because I don't know exactly what the SoA considers a breach of security.
And I didn't want to have to argue with them.
But if the exam is over in all time zones, you can say pretty much whatever you want. I would not expect the SoA to come looking for you - and if they did ask me for info, they would have to prove to me that it breached security - not likely if the exam is over.
To be safe, I've been advising people to wait 24 hours. To be 100% safe, wait until Nov 9.
11-05-2001, 02:19 PM
"...both of the chapters / study notes that were omitted by Actex..."
I looked at the Actex web-site at the end of August and they had both the chapter 14 from Hull and Algorithmics study notes posted in a pdf-format. It might be still there
11-05-2001, 03:24 PM
Part of the `Actex Coincidence' might be due to a correlation between new articles (Algorithmics) and those omitted by Actex. There is a rumor that the committee makes an effort to test new material.
Was there a question on Chapter 14 of Hull? I think that was the other chapter missing from Actex.
11-05-2001, 03:43 PM
OK, I just got the test back -- what the heck is a `lookforward' option as in number 18. And what was up with number 18, anyway? It is like I missed a reading or something.
11-06-2001, 08:45 AM
I had no idea what a lookforward option was either. I just calculated it as if it were a lookback option, and figured it was probably at least similar so I'd get partial credit.
I felt that was an unfair question in general. The readings on EIAs had no concerte numerical explanations of how these things are calculated, and many of the descriptive formulas for those things were very open to interpretation.
12-06-2001, 08:30 AM
Can anyone tell me what part of the study material #7 came from (modern finance theory vs. empirical studies)? I was SO "burnt out" after the exam that I did not attempt to look it up (evidently, it did not make my "short list" before the exam).
Thanks in advance!
I blew that question, however, someone I work with said that it came from the behavioral finance study note.
12-11-2001, 09:06 AM
That was one of the few I know I didn't blow!
So, I'll try this again... anyone out there willing to attempt a guess at how many points they got? I realize most of us just want to forget about it until 1/11, but I'm still curious and would like to face the holidays just a little more knowledgeable of whether I have a prayer... I think I got about 65 points. Anyone who failed last year feel like they got that many at the time?
I think that I probably scored around 65 pts also.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.