Old exam questions no longer on syllabus

[jk]

It's time to start taking practice exams . . . so that means it's time for the traditional "which old questions are no longer on the syllabus?" thread.

For 2001, I say:

1,9,26,27,28,30,31,34,39,40,56,60,68b,80,82,83,87, 88,98,99

Questions 41 through 43 refer to a defunct article, but very similar material is covered in Mallor. Question 82 refers to a defunct NAIC paper; similar material is covered in IASA Chapter 14 but the wording is sufficiently different so as to make the question difficult to answer.

[jk]

For 2002, I say:

3,18,19,33,34,35,42,52,53,54,55,56,57,72,78,84.

Question 77 covers taxation which is now covered in IASA instead of Almagro & Ghezzi. You may get a different answer because the question doesn't indicate whether the dividends are from an affiliate or not.

[jk]

Not much to report for 2003--they seemed to have moved much closer to the current syllabus. The only ringers look like 24 and 25, and I'm not even sure about 24. They made it harder in 2003 because they stopped referring each question to a specific article. Don't like that, we don't.

[jk]

Surprisingly, more N/A questions in 2004. Or at least, I think there were. Since they don't reference articles, it's hard to be sure. But if the following are still on the syllabus, I couldn't find them:

9 (cartel ratemaking?)
27 (lines susceptible to terrorism)
28 (items apparently moved from Scope to Relevant Comments)
32 (take-all-comers regulation?)
41b (why ISO switched to loss costs)
53 (capital by probability of ruin)
61 (Feldblum still talks about other capital bases in "Statutory Surplus", but doesn't directly answer this question)

[glad]

41b (why ISO switched to loss costs)

this is in the Wagner paper "the new ISO"

btw, thanks for the lists.

[jk]

Wagner mentions that ISO switched to loss costs, but barely discusses the reasons, and doesn't cite the factors given in the 2004 answer. I think there was an NAIC report on the syllabus that talked about ISO, from which that question was drawn.

[miaomiao]

Wagner mentions that ISO switched to loss costs, but barely discusses the reasons, and doesn't cite the factors given in the 2004 answer. I think there was an NAIC report on the syllabus that talked about ISO, from which that question was drawn.

agree with you.

[glad]

Wagner mentions that ISO switched to loss costs, but barely discusses the reasons, and doesn't cite the factors given in the 2004 answer. I think there was an NAIC report on the syllabus that talked about ISO, from which that question was drawn.

maybe you're right about a previous syllabus reading, I wouldn't know since this is my first attempt at part 7. However, I think that the Wagner reading does cover this. Look at pages 198 -201 of the reading. Not that it's that big of a deal, I just would rather understand the spirit of the question, since it's still relevant, even if it didn't come directly from this reading. (besides that, I spent a lot of time trying to find this reference, because I knew I had read it somewhere :smile: )

"the Rates and Rating Organizations Committee of the NAIC reported that there should be vigorous lawful competition as to rules, rates and forms"

further, the O'Mahoney Committee concluded that setting rates in concert was the most serious threat to the naturally competitive structure of the market. and they urged state regulators to reconsider their rejection of "file and use".

on page 20 of Wagner, he states that 20 state attorney generals files suit against the ISO.

thanks again for posting the lists. Good luck on your exam.

[jk]

The problem is that the discussion in Wagner doesn't tie to the published CAS answer. Wagner says the NAIC "reported that there should be vigorous competition as to rules, rates, and forms" in 1959. CAS says that the NAIC "concluded the rating organization should be prohibited from preparing and distributing rates", and it had to have happened much later, because ISO didn't stop publishing rates until the 1980's. Wagner and CAS are talking about two different things.

Likewise, Wagner says that "in 1988, twenty state attorneys general filed suit against ISO relating to the use of standardized policy language", and that ISO's reaction was to add public members to its board. CAS says that "19 states brought suit against ISO and a group of insurers and reinsurers charging they violate state and federal anti-trust laws", and implies that ISO's reaction was to cease publishing rates. Again, I don't think they're talking about the same thing.

Questions about ISO are still valid, but CAS couldn't expect to get the answer they published to 2004#41 based on Wagner. If you're taking 2004 as a practice exam under test conditions (as I do), you have to throw out 41(b).

[glad]

I just answer it as I would based on the Wagner reading, this way I at least have that problem, and so for me, seems more like a real test situation (closest to the actual number of questions).

[Mel-o-rama]

The same type of question pops up in 2005 - #6. I, too, cannot find the answer in Wagner. I concur that it appears this came from the "NAIC Rating" paper that used to be on the syllabus.

[statmathcat]

How about 2005 #10?

[3tac]

Yep, #10 is out.

[jk]

The same type of question pops up in 2005 - #6. I, too, cannot find the answer in Wagner. I concur that it appears this came from the "NAIC Rating" paper that used to be on the syllabus.Actually, as I looked at the list of CAS syllabus changes, I just noticed that there was another paper on ISO by Krohm which undoubtedly was the source for all these ringers. 2005#6 is definitely out, as is #10.

2005#39 is tricky--judging from the grey boxes in the Practice Note, the items listed were moved from the "Scope" paragraph to Exhibit A. Now the Scope paragraph just "references" Exhibit A. One would think that CAS would be less likely to test this now that it's just a mere "exhibit", but one does not know.

Well, so much for another "dead questions" thread. I really hope I don't need to refer back to this thread next year, but I don't have a good feeling about this.

[JustASix]

Where can I find #43 (from the 2005 exam) on the syllabus? It is the question about how to apply tabular discounting.

[JustASix]

I almost forgot.
Thanks jk!

[jk]

Notes to the Financial Statement, p. 2-3.

By the way, #43 was more difficult because CAS included not one, not two, but three pieces of irrelevant information--the 25% figure and the two AY2004 reserves. They do this just infrequently enough so that I don't expect it, and get burned every time.

[miaomiao]

how about 04, #71?

[jk]

You're right, that one's gone. It's in the part of Almagro & Ghezzi that was deleted from the syllabus.

[miaomiao]

I am tired and slow, oh, I need a break.

[Warren Schmidt]

Surprisingly, more N/A questions in 2004. Or at least, I think there were. Since they don't reference articles, it's hard to be sure. But if the following are still on the syllabus, I couldn't find them:

9 (cartel ratemaking?)
27 (lines susceptible to terrorism)
28 (items apparently moved from Scope to Relevant Comments)
32 (take-all-comers regulation?)
41b (why ISO switched to loss costs)
53 (capital by probability of ruin)
61 (Feldblum still talks about other capital bases in "Statutory Surplus", but doesn't directly answer this question)

What about #58 in the 2004 exam? I want to say that IS still part of the syllabus, but where exactly in the syllabus is the material on this question addressed?

[jk]

Good question. The basics of SAP and GAAP accounting for structured settlements are covered in Feldblum, Notes, p. 27-33, and the effect on taxable income is covered on IASA 12-17.

The problem with Question 58 is that it's worded in a very confusing manner that makes one feel that one is missing something. How do you calculate taxable income two different ways, one of which (according to part "c") is wrong?

It's possible that there was some deleted syllabus reading that explained this mutli-step process. The fact that they didn't receive a single correct answer to part "c", however, makes me think it more likely that this was just a poorly worded question that tried to be overly creative.

In any case, the basics of structured settlements are still alive and frequently tested, so it's safer to consider this as a "live" question.

[carrytheCrøss]

:bump:

I thought 2000, #115 was excluded (on page 349 of 2008 All 10 Volume 2b). The question appears to reference Exhibit A of SSAP 65, but the syllabus says we're only supposed to "read" paragraphs 1-45.

Edit: Man, I found the reference to this question: it's in Feldblum (Notes) under the "Discounting of Liabilities for Unpaid Losses and Unpaid LAE" discussion.

I'm sure they'll be some to throw out, so let's try to use this thread that's already started.

[carrytheCrøss]

:bump:

Just wanted to remind people of this thread; it might help in the coming weeks.

[alphaace]

After going through the exam, this is what I came up as off. Can someone confirm/deny any of these?

1-9,11-12, 15-17, 49-51, 55, 68,72, 73, 75, 80-83, 101-102 , 114, 115.

Question # 56 should be changed form true to false I think under new codification. Also, can someone tell me where to look for #59-61?

Is there a paper on the Underwriting and Investment Exhibit? How well do we have to know it?

Addendum to my last post: Are #89 and 91 removed? If not, where are they discussed?

[alphaace]

9, 26-28, 30-31, 41, 44-47, 56, 74-75,79, 82, 83, 99

Unsure about: 80

#87 and 88 are off but you can come up with a similar list. The items might be different but under the new changes of not being "paper specific" I think you can get full credit...

Can someone confirm these as well???

After comments from ctc, 80b is back on and so is 99... More to study.
34 is back on as well.

[alphaace]

4-5, 18-19, 33, 36 , 38, 43, 52-54,57, 78, 84


On a side note, how would 13 and 14 have to be reworded to be fair game?

37 - seems partially removed. I agree with the list on items 1 and 3 but never saw the other ones so not sure if this is still on..

[carrytheCrøss]

4-5, 18-19, 33, 36 , 38, 43, 52-54,57, 78, 84


On a side note, how would 13 and 14 have to be reworded to be fair game?

37 - seems partially removed. I agree with the list on items 1 and 3 but never saw the other ones so not sure if this is still on..2002
38a: Seems very gettable
43b: Valid if we re-write the question w/o the word "intergenerational transfer," which appears in neither the Rejda or Wiening et al. readings, to something like: "Provide one reason why a fully funded OASDI program is considered unnecessary." Possible answer: Because the program is compulsory, new entrants into the workforce will always pay taxes to support the program.
84b: Blanchard notes that on a stautory basis, the future value of goodwill associated w/ an acquisition = initial value of goodwill amortized over 20 years. So, I would say part of 84b may be valid.

I agree with everything else and am not sure about 13 or 14.

[alphaace]

what would you answer to 38a?

[carrytheCrøss]

2001
34
.
.
.
Can someone confirm these as well???I now think this question is still valid based on SSAP 65's "Accounting for Retrospective Agreements," which states that "loss portfolio transactions are to be accounted for as retroactive reinsurance." "Retroactive reinsurance reserves ceded" are accounted as a negative (write-in) liability, which agrees w/ this question's answer.

[carrytheCrøss]

what would you answer to 2002 38a?Pretty much the same as the model based on the asbestos reading and other exams, but maybe I'm off.

[alphaace]

I now think this question is still valid based on SSAP 65's "Accounting for Retrospective Agreements," which states that "loss portfolio transactions are to be accounted for as retroactive reinsurance." "Retroactive reinsurance reserves ceded" are accounted as a negative (write-in) liability, which agrees w/ this question's answer.

my previous post has been edited.

[alphaace]

Removed:

20, 25

24a - I am unsure if "adhesion" contracts are on the exam 7 syllabus.
31- seems reasonable logically but I can't link that to a specific article.

This test seemed a lot harder for me than 00 and 01.

[carrytheCrøss]

2003
Removed:

20, 25

24a - I am unsure if "adhesion" contracts are on the exam 7 syllabus.
31- seems reasonable logically but I can't link that to a specific article.I agree with everything and only have comments on 31. There is a section of Harrington (Prior Approval or Competitive Rating -- Consumer Protection and Other Arguments for Rate Regulation) which outlines five arguments in support of prior approval and provides counter-arguments to each. This question (and other past exam questions) have been drawn straight from that discussion.

[alphaace]

61 part a

Is it just me or were some of the multiple choice extremely difficult for this one?

[carrytheCrøss]

2004
61 part a

Is it just me or were some of the multiple choice extremely difficult for this one?Agree with your exclusion. Don't know about the M/C, since I haven't looked at them in a while.

[alphaace]

1,10

24 - I am unsure about this one...can someone point me to the article on it?

[carrytheCrøss]

1,10

24 - I am unsure about this one...can someone point me to the article on it?10a is applicable, based on Wagner (and probably other readings), in which it is stated that one major reason for the institution of bureau ratemaking was to prevent "rate and commission wars" that resulted in ruinous competition and insurance company failures.

24a may still be applicable based on the Government Insurers Study Note's discussion of unemployment insurance. I suspect that the criticisms listed in the model solution to 24b were in the older version of this Study Note.

[alphaace]

10a is applicable, based on Wagner (and probably other readings), in which it is stated that one major reason for the institution of bureau ratemaking was to prevent "rate and commission wars" that resulted in ruinous competition and insurance company failures.

24a may still be applicable based on the Government Insurers Study Note's discussion of unemployment insurance. I suspect that the criticisms listed in the model solution to 24b were in the older version of this Study Note.


Do we agree then that 24b is out?

[carrytheCrøss]

Do we agree then that 24b is out?Yes.

[alphaace]

3 - Maybe?

[carrytheCrøss]

3 - Maybe?Agree.

[carrytheCrøss]

Removed:
2003
24a - I am unsure if "adhesion" contracts are on the exam 7 syllabus.Contracts of adhesion are discussed in Brady, Ch. 6.

[WelcomeToTheSuck]

2005 #3. Where does this draw from the syllabus?

[carrytheCrøss]

2005 #3. Where does this draw from the syllabus?Not applicable, I don't think. You could maybe argue part a is still good based on the Asbestos paper, but I'd say the other two are definitely no good.

[WelcomeToTheSuck]

Not applicable, I don't think. You could maybe argue part a is still good based on the Asbestos paper, but I'd say the other two are definitely no good.

This is frustrating because the 2005 exam mixes in "critical thinking" questions with pukey questions. When I read a question, I always think "where in the reading did this draw from?" and then get to regurgitate from my mind since most of the time we are spitting back canned responses. #3 isn't like that and neither is #8 which i first thought was excluded but then when I looked close saw that it was just testing the unique aspects of the insurance industry.

[WelcomeToTheSuck]

24a may still be applicable based on the Government Insurers Study Note's discussion of unemployment insurance.


I donnt know about 24a. I read the Unemploy portion of Gov Study note and I can't find it. I guess it could be a "critical thinking" question but we would need to have Boor's exam 5 article on here for a reminder!

[WelcomeToTheSuck]

What about parts c and d of 2006 #2? I cannot find this kind of law in the tort readings.

[carrytheCrøss]

What about parts c and d of 2006 #2? I cannot find this kind of law in the tort readings.http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=102025&highlight=partial+tort

[newapple]

4-5, 18-19, 33, 36 , 38, 43, 52-54,57, 78, 84


On a side note, how would 13 and 14 have to be reworded to be fair game?

37 - seems partially removed. I agree with the list on items 1 and 3 but never saw the other ones so not sure if this is still on..
How about 2002 #82??

[carrytheCrøss]

How about 2002 #82??Do you feel that it would not be? SSAP 65 still describes how to handle reinsurance contracts in which the ceding commission exceeds the anticipated acquisition costs, which is the case in this problem. So, I would say that this problem is still valid.

[WelcomeToTheSuck]

2004 #46 - what a dumb question. I don't remember when the goverment insurance note talks about reasons AGAINST these justifications. Usually, we're arguing IN FAVOR of gov ins using these reasons, not against them.

Is this from an older reading from the gov. ins program section?

[WelcomeToTheSuck]

2004 #47 do we have this much detail on JUA vs. Re Fac? It infuriates me that they'd test it to this level when all we're given is a couple vague paragraphs from Hamilton. I'm thinkin there had to be more coverage on these topics on 2004

[WelcomeToTheSuck]

:rant: this 2004 exam is utter crap. I love the model solution for 51b 2 and 3. But :lol: at the solution to 60a..what a funny bone

I am definitely beginning to see how the pass mark on this exam was 56/99.

On question 56, how hard would it have been for them to LABEL the IBNR as that related to environmental. It wasn't clear to me that we should be adding these into the case reserves/pd on the 2 A&E claims.

[WelcomeToTheSuck]

Is 2003 #37 still on the syllabus? I seem to remember reading about the Product Liability Risk Retention Act but I don't remember the material relating to the questions they ask. Can someone provide a reference to the syllabus? Thanks.

[carrytheCrøss]

Is 2003 #37 still on the syllabus? I seem to remember reading about the Product Liability Risk Retention Act but I don't remember the material relating to the questions they ask. Can someone provide a reference to the syllabus? Thanks.I think so (Brady, Ch. 5, but I don't have a page number).

[WelcomeToTheSuck]

I think so (Brady, Ch. 5, but I don't have a page number).

Yes, you are right as always. Page 142. :cry: so frustrating to have to memorize so much.

[WelcomeToTheSuck]

Am I having another bad day?

2003 #41 a and c.

NAIC Zone Examinations? I don't remember those and think I would because Zone Perfect nutritional bars are my favorite snack.

[carrytheCrøss]

2003 #41 a and c.

NAIC Zone Examinations? I don't remember those and think I would because Zone Perfect nutritional bars are my favorite snack.I think it's in whichever Brady chapter discusses the main types of rate regulation (e.g., no file, file and use, etc.)--maybe Ch. 3? My second choice would be Ettlinger. This was one question I struggled with as well.

[WelcomeToTheSuck]

Am I just tired or is the model solution to 2002 #59a not really correct?

A) Pareto efficiency exists when no one is made worse off as a result of someone being
made better off. Potential Pareto efficiency exists when society as a whole is not made
worse off as a result of making some people better off.

Isn't it "no one can be made better without someone else being made worse" and "No one can be made better by a certain amount without someone being made worse by an amount greater than this" ? I don't think there answer is saying this at all.

[newapple]

How about 2005 #25C?

[carrytheCrøss]

How about 2005 #25C?Still valid based on IASA Ch. 8 and 15.

[342am]

what about 2007 number 42? The new tax papers don't seem to go over dividend received deduction the same way as in the old paper unless I'm mistaken.

[Tim_Boles]

what about 2007 number 42? The new tax papers don't seem to go over dividend received deduction the same way as in the old paper unless I'm mistaken.

Are you referring to the limit on the DRD? I don't think Feldblum addresses the limit in the portion of the paper that's on the syllabus. It might be addressed in an appendix, but I don't think it's covered by the current syllabus.

Tim

[342am]

Are you referring to the limit on the DRD? I don't think Feldblum addresses the limit in the portion of the paper that's on the syllabus. It might be addressed in an appendix, but I don't think it's covered by the current syllabus.

Tim

Yes. Also in part C of the question, they use something for AMT ACE and AMT Prevention that I don't recall him discussing. To my knowledge AMTI = RTI + .75(all income that avoided tax in RTI). So anything else seems to be not applicable.

[Tim_Boles]

Yes. Also in part C of the question, they use something for AMT ACE and AMT Prevention that I don't recall him discussing. To my knowledge AMTI = RTI + .75(all income that avoided tax in RTI). So anything else seems to be not applicable.

I would agree.

Tim

[Beach Bum]

What about #58 in the 2004 exam? I want to say that IS still part of the syllabus, but where exactly in the syllabus is the material on this question addressed?

This problem sucks, another one from the '04 exam. Can someone confirm this was from old paper. Some of the concepts are similar to the Taxable Income stuff we're learning now however this question appeared to be one of those that are pulled directly from a paper's appendix. And I definitely didn't see anything like it in Feldblum.

So, my hope is that I can forget this question and never look at it again and there won't be anything like it on the test.

[IntoTheWild]

Where is 2003 #39 coming from? Is that still covered on this exam?

[fdestroyer]

Didn't see anybody mention this problem. Could anybody lead me to the paper covering the computer modeling?

Thanks

[Tim_Boles]

Didn't see anybody mention this problem. Could anybody lead me to the paper covering the computer modeling?

Thanks

It's the Musulin paper.

Tim

[carrytheCrøss]

Where is 2003 #39 coming from? Is that still covered on this exam?Probably one of the old auto no-fault/tort papers. Don't think it's applicable.

[Tim_Boles]

Probably one of the old auto no-fault/tort papers. Don't think it's applicable.

I agree. It might have been from Keeton, but I couldn't swear to it.

Tim

[Theo Walcott's Hatrick]

:bump:

[thetruthabout]

It was from a paper by Robert Keeton called "Impact on Insurance of Trends in Tort Law." It was removed in 2007.

[richardb]

I think 2004 #25 is off but if not can someone help with the solution...

same for 2004 #21..

Also I think the answer to 2004 #19 should be C, it does state in the IASA book that investment properties are held at amortized cost less encumbrances.

[thetruthabout]

For 2004 #19, 2 is true, see IASA 2-7,8.

For 2004 #21, This is the "square root rule" that's no longer on the syllabus.
The ACL is 50% of the Total RBC.
RBC= R0 + (R1² + R2² + (0.5 * R3)² + (R4 + 0.5 * R3)² + R5²)^.5
RBC X = 2,982 => ACL X = 1,491 => Ratio X = 3.353
RBC Y = 1,803=> ACL Y = 901.5 => Ratio Y = 3.106
RBC Z = 1,000=> ACL Z = 500 => Ratio Z = 3.000
So Z<Y<X (Ans D)

For 2004 #25, this is still on (OSFI MCT pg 18). The UEP margin (8%) is applied to the greater of the UEP or 50% of the NWP for the last 12 months.
So the margin = .08 x max ($20M, .5 X $45M) = $1.8M (Ans D)

[drytellar]

Sorry, but I'm new to this thread and having trouble keeping tracking of the consensus on what's questions are no longer on the syllabus. Is there anyone who's been keeping track who can post a summary?
Thanks a lot!
Drytellar

[src4sd]

2005 #14 refers to issues with "excess profits" statutes. I recall reading something about these, but more as a parenthetical comment and not in the level of detail this question requires.

If anyone thinks this is still on the syllabus, please let me know where it is from. Thanks!

[richardb]

Just finished the 2005 exam so here is my take on what's out :-

1, 3, 6, 10, 14 and 24

correct me if I'm wrong....

[CaffeineJunky]

Let's try to summarize this:
2005: 1,3,6,10,14,24
2006: 3b, 8abc, 17abc, 29b
2007: 23abc, 34b, 35, 42abc
2008: 14

Any additions or corrections?
Anyone want to take a shot at 2003 and 2004?

[CaffeineJunky]

:bump:

...and I'll take a stab at 2004 (since I just finished this beast)
2004: 2,5,9,21,27,28,32,41,46,47,52,61

Corrected. Thanks to comments below...

[triplea]

Nice, you found it :tup:

I would add 2, 5 to that list, but not 19 or 25 or 28. (I have done the MC only on that exam so far).

[CaffeineJunky]

My selections are based on comments made earlier in this thread.

I'm glad 5 is omitted since I got that one wrong. I got 19 (see post 75) and 28 (see post 21) right and don't see why they were omitted. I may have excluded 25 because it has to do with Canada :shrug:(see post 75)

[triplea]

oh ok. #25 is actually an MCT calculation, so I think it's on there.

28 did seem weird, but I think that is asking for stuff that is included in Exhibit B. 19 is IASA.

[Tim_Boles]

My selections are based on comments made earlier in this thread.

I'm glad 5 is omitted since I got that one wrong. I got 19 (see post 75) and 28 (see post 21) right and don't see why they were omitted. I may have excluded 25 because it has to do with Canada :shrug:(see post 75)

28 doesn't seem valid to me. Some of those items belong in the Relevant Comments section rather than the Scope paragraph.

Tim

[Pokeytax]

Edit: Never mind, I was wrong, all that junk does go into the Scope paragraph (Exhibit A). Exam 7, worst exam.

[kolya23]

I just finished 2001, so here's my best shot:

9, 26, 28, 30, 31, 39, 40, 42*, 47, 51*, 56, 65, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80b, 82, 83, 87, 88, 91, 99

#42 - change to the 3 elements of negligence, and then 42b is questionable
#51 is close, and could be valid like this "List 4 reasons why government participation is necessary, and give an example of a government insurance program in each." from Nyce
#97 - change to IRIS Test #13 (apparently they changed the numbers of the tests

[triplea]

Edit: Never mind, I was wrong, all that junk does go into the Scope paragraph (Exhibit B). Exam 7, worst exam.

ifyp

[Pokeytax]

I thought Exhibit B was contained in Relevant Comments :exams:

[punmanbowler]

Let's try to summarize this:
2005: 1,3,6,10,14,24
2006: 3b, 8abc, 17abc, 29b
2007: 23abc, 34b, 35, 42abc
2008: 14

Any additions or corrections?
Anyone want to take a shot at 2003 and 2004?

Question on 2007, why 42 a & b. c I can understand, but a and b should be perfectly valid.

[Freudian Slip]

Question on 2007, why 42 a & b. c I can understand, but a and b should be perfectly valid.

I think Caffeine got the 06 and 07 NLOS from this:

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=163021&highlight=2009+Edition

Here was my explanation for removing 42ab

Also, 2007 Q42 is probably close to fair game, but the answer in the model solution is different than the TIA answer, so I think he just changed the question to fit the new syllabus.

[zpass]

Let's try to summarize this:
2005: 1,3,6,10,14,24
2006: 3b, 8abc, 17abc, 29b
2007: 23abc, 34b, 35, 42abc
2008: 14

Any additions or corrections?
Anyone want to take a shot at 2003 and 2004?

Is 05/23 off?


Thanks!

[zpass]

:bump:

...and I'll take a stab at 2004 (since I just finished this beast)
2004: 2,5,9,21,27,28,32,41,46,47,52,61

Corrected. Thanks to comments below...

Which paper covers 04/35? Same question for 04/48?

Thanks in advance!


I think 04/46 52, and 47 are still on.

[MathForMarines]

Is 05/23 off?


Thanks!

I think this is a valid question

[MathForMarines]

Which paper covers 04/35? Same question for 04/48?

Thanks in advance!


I think 04/46 52, and 47 are still on.

#35 is from the XS profits paper that was removed from the syllabus for this year.

#48 sounds like it could be from an old paper, but it could just be reworded to ask you how OASDI is funded and how that differs from a private retirement fund.

[CaffeineJunky]

2005 #43...where the heck is this on the syllabus??

[Tim_Boles]

2005 #43...where the heck is this on the syllabus??

It's not. That's a lousy question. Tabular discounts involve mortality and other contingencies. We aren't given the necessary information to calculate a tabular discount, nor would it be on the syllabus if they did provide the necessary information. ARGH!!!

Tim

[Wolfy]

I would have to say that 2005 #43 is a reasonable question. See Feldblum Notes pg.3.

Its asking for the discount on IBNR which would not directly use the table.

[TOTEM]

The question is straight from the example in the paper.

[triplea]

But this is scary...so every Feldblum example is fair game? :shudder:

[Pokeytax]

Sholom aleichem :shudder:

[triplea]

Let's try to summarize this:
2005: 1,3,6,10,14,24
2006: 3b, 8abc, 17abc, 29b
2007: 23abc, 34b, 35, 42abc
2008: 14

Any additions or corrections?
Anyone want to take a shot at 2003 and 2004?

I just took 2005. I agree with all exclusions, with the exception of #6. Can that be answered by Wagner? It's the ISO question on rates vs loss cost promulgation.

Also, is the SS trust fund investment rules in the Monograph? I know they do talk about investments in equities but I do not recall any current rules. (#23a)

[Pokeytax]

Don't think the precise list they wanted us to regurgitate for #6 is testable, although we need to know why they promulgate loss costs versus rates and the limited anti-trust issue (expenses).

23a) is off (although we should know that the fund is almost entirely invested in non-marketable special-issue securities representing loans to the general fund). 23b) and 23c) are fair game (although there's really only one argument given for it, "$$$$$").

[CtrlAltDelete]

I just took 2005. I agree with all exclusions, with the exception of #6. Can that be answered by Wagner? It's the ISO question on rates vs loss cost promulgation.

Also, is the SS trust fund investment rules in the Monograph? I know they do talk about investments in equities but I do not recall any current rules. (#23a)

I agree the SS trust fund investment rule should be excluded.

Off-topic, but I feel like 2005 exam has a lot of Notes related questions and some of the least favorite accounting treatment questions (retroactive reinsurance, LDD accounting, structured settlements, etc...). 2009 could bring back 2005.

[MyKenk]

Bring it.

edit: I don't anticipate any posts I make for the rest of the week being any more helpful/sensible than that. Sorry in advance.

[triplea]

There will be a relatively simple tax and LRD question on this years' exam.

[CtrlAltDelete]

I doubt it'll be on the exam considering someone's mock exam has it already.

[MyKenk]

AAA's on the committee, didn't you know? he's a mole. He leaks all these questions, putting doubt into our head that they'll be asked. he secretly hates us all.

[MyKenk]

calculate CY XX EP will be on this year, if patterns mean anything.

:shrug:

[MyKenk]

Not the place for that comment. Oops.

[triplea]

AAA's on the committee, didn't you know? he's a mole. He leaks all these questions, putting doubt into our head that they'll be asked. he secretly hates us all.

I'm not though :tfh:

[triplea]

We will also have a question on asbestos. Just fyi ;)

[triplea]

2006: 3b, 8abc, 17abc, 29b



Three things:

(1) I agree with this list
(2) Where are questions like #16 coming from?
(3) I saw that they asked about the Actuarial report on this one :swear:

[CaffeineJunky]

(2) Where are questions like #16 coming from?
:swear:


That was a bit of a head scratcher, but definitely one wher you could b/s your way through :-)

[triplea]

Could be an easily repeated question...just change to "use and file" or "no file", even prior approval, and then maybe ask for some disadvantages too.