Difficulty of FM vs. P

[AJSeagles3]

I understand the concepts of "financial mathematics" are very different from probability, so many of you will be inclined to answer this in wishy-washy fashion. Please don't. Ha.

I'm just now starting to look at some concepts for exam FM, and it would seem to me that it's more straight-forward and simply easier stuff than in P. Would you say I have the correct general idea, or am I way off-base?

[managuense]

The first FM had somewhere near an 80% pass rate. Whether or not the next sitting for that exam will ge a give-away, like the last, is anyone's guess.

[Krieger]

FM is easier, if only because it's more applicable to reality.

[AJSeagles3]

FM is easier, if only because it's more applicable to reality.

Hey, I can't even count the number of times I've tested positive for a serious disease and was glad I knew how to calculate the likelihood of the positive result being incorrect.

Haha.

(yes, I'm kidding)

[Ken]

I know a lot more people who failed P than failed FM.

[Krieger]

Hey, I can't even count the number of times I've tested positive for a serious disease and was glad I knew how to calculate the likelihood of the positive result being incorrect.

Haha.

(yes, I'm kidding)

I've used the methods of FM to determine how much I'm getting '''''ed by the student loan people.

[krzysio]

FM is the easiest exam, unless they start asking serious questions about duration, immunization and yield curve. But even with those, it is just hard to make it more difficult than P.

And either of these two is peanuts compared to M. Named so because in this new 2005 system, it is the Mother of All Exams.

Yours,
Krzys'

[bv12]

Is the FM Exam alot easier than the old Exam 2? I took 2 last year and failed but I only started studying 3 weeks before it. There was just too much to study. I know the FM material covered is probably half what it was for Exam 2 but is the difficulty of the questions easier, harder or in line with what it was for Exam 2?

[wat]

Is the FM Exam alot easier than the old Exam 2? I took 2 last year and failed but I only started studying 3 weeks before it. There was just too much to study. I know the FM material covered is probably half what it was for Exam 2 but is the difficulty of the questions easier, harder or in line with what it was for Exam 2?

It's easier mainly because approximately 75% of the syllabus was cut off. The old Course 2 was made up of macroeconomics, microeconomics, finance and interest theory. For Exam FM, only the last subject is tested, while the other subjects really did represent about 65-75% of the syllabus. So the amount of information tested certainly is limited - this is what contributed to the higher scores on FM in May.

For the record, though, there will be an addition of financial economics to the actuarial exams beginning in 2007. It's not definite where it's getting added, but there's talk about adding the parts to either Exam M or C and pushing some of that information down to Exam FM.

[Ken]

The amount of material on the test is less and it is easier than past interest theory problems.