graham
About
- Username
- graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,987
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Actually, I stopped trying to make such specific predictions in the On BattleDay article because it seemed almost random whether or not I got it right. But there still are a lot of things that are predictable about the exam, for example: * The …
-
Hmm...I looked this up on line and for 2018 was it almost exaclty 50-50, but it also appears to change over time. The answer in the examiner's report did not mention a percentage so I have removed that specificity from the BattleCard. It now says on…
-
@javid Were there any BattleCards remaining? I don't see any.
-
Thanks @Study, @javid. I have inserted a footnote in the BattleTable, a note in the wiki article text, and a note in the BattleCard referenced by @Study above: * https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/OSFI.MCT#BattlePlan Thanks for noticing this!
-
Hi @adilvirani and @javid. You're right, and I have made the corrections in the BattleCards. I edited both NB RSP and NS RSP. Thanks!
-
Thanks Chris for noticing this. I have: * added a footnote to the BattleTable in the CIA.PrLiabs wiki article * added an explanation within the wiki article here ==> https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/CIA.PrLiabs#Explanation_of_2017.Spring_Q1…
-
Fixed. Thx!
-
They were misspelled. I think I've found them all and corrected. Sorry about that.
-
Oops. It's now corrected. Sorry it took so long. @im6Candiknowit
-
I've corrected it. Thanks.
-
I've also recalculated the final answer at the link above. The new method changed the capital required for interest rate risk from 1,005 to 975. (And the answer has been included in the BattleCards instead of referring you to the examiner's report.)
-
I think I fixed this a few weeks ago but I noticed I hadn't responded to your post. (I think I also regenerated the random problems when I made the correction. The calculation was carrying more decimals than were visible which is the reason for the …
-
The CIA.DCAT reading doesn't give a definition of surplus sensitivity or how to measure it. I think they use the term very loosely. I would guess that in practice a company would perform surplus sensitivity the same way as any sensitivity analysi…
-
Hello Chris, Thanks for pointing this out. Your comments are valid and I have edited the relevant sections in both the Baer & Rendall, and the McDonald wiki articles. Graham
-
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We will review this (and other items) during our next wiki content review. This isn't a quick fix as it involves a higher level review of several readings to bring the presentation and notation up to a more…
-
Actually, I had not installed that feature to the forum. It looks like a good one though and I will put that on the list for our next site review.
-
Oops, that one was easy to fix. It was a typo in the BattleCard database. (It was mistakenly flagged as "dup"). Thanks!
-
Ok, I put the "?" back in for the foreign exchange risk, so you have to calculate it.
-
Hello GuillaumeV, I'm glad you pointed that out. It is not shown because it is a "duplicate" question. In other words, that question has been asked on subsequent exams. The system is coded so that Custom Battles only shows the most recent time th…
-
Ok, I've added a few comments to the wiki to try to clarify this. See here: * https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/IFA.Solvency2 Basically the source reading is a little sloppy because the terms ENID and ENID loading are conflated. But the way …
-
I've added a brief comment to the relevant BattleCards (practice templates) mentioning that these page numbers are from the A/R (Annual Return) or Q/R (Quarterly Return). Thanks @deborahjia1 for pointing this out. Students coming after you will n…
-
Thanks @genevieve, this has been corrected. BTW, this was actually BattleCard # 32 in the Full BattleQuiz for https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/CIA.Accting Or equivalently BattleCard # 2 for mini BattleQuiz # 6. (There is no Quiz 13. I think th…
-
I believe I've corrected the issues and 8 new Alphabet City problems have been generated. (The bond yield calculation was using more decimals than were visible, and the issue in Step 3a was a typo in the formula.) Thank you for drawing this to my…
-
Ok, I just dl'd the exam and took a quick look. It did look a little harder because there seemed to be more "new" questions. Also, there were more calculations than usual and those problems take longer, which means you'd be under more time pressure.…
-
Interesting. It seems people generally think 2018.Fall was harder than recent past exams. And I do worry they may raise the standard for passing if candidates are better prepared using BattleActs. On the other hand, if they really do not grade on a …
-
So far 3 people have emailed me. One said they thought they did well, one said they felt quite good but not absolutely certain about passing, and one person said it was hard and they don't think they passed. I've also been hearing about a questio…
-
The ELR is probably different for gross. The ELR of 98% in the problem specifically refers to the net undiscounted loss ratio.
-
What I used to do is fill a brown envelope with about 40 sheets of paper and take it to the post office so they could weigh it and put postage on it. I would then bring the empty envelope to the exam and put the exam questions in it at the end. For …
-
Interesting question. I reviewed the MCT paper and the relevant old exam problems, and I couldn't tell for certain because there were no numerical examples for that part of the MCT calculation. I'm assuming you looked in the MCT paper also and di…
-
Oops, thanks. I've correct it now.