IFoA SA4 study materials
IFoA SA4 study resources

IFoA SA4 study plan

IFoA SA4 · Give each week a clear focus.

8 weeks · About 7 hours per week

Week 1

Claims management, reserving and capital modelling & Financial reporting, valuation of liabilities and performance analysis

  • Build a one-page map of the reserving chain from claim notification through to booked reserves, naming the data fields each stage consumes

  • Reconstruct the chain-ladder algorithm from memory on a 5x5 development triangle and reconcile the result to a Bornhuetter-Ferguson estimate

  • Derive why the expected loss ratio in Bornhuetter-Ferguson stabilises immature origin periods and state the assumption that breaks

  • List the五项 components of an insurer's balance sheet under a market-consistent framework and explain how each is valued

  • Draft a 300-word note explaining IBNR to a non-actuary finance colleague without using the word 'triangle'

Your checkpoint

A worked reserving spreadsheet with chain-ladder and Bornhuetter-Ferguson side by side on one triangle, plus a 300-word plain-language note on IBNR

Week 2

Claims management, reserving and capital modelling & Application of actuarial judgement to complex, unstructured general insurance problems

  • Diagnose three failure modes of deterministic reserving (regime change, latent claims, case-estimate drift) and propose a stochastic alternative for each

  • Compute a bootstrap or Mack standard error on the week-1 triangle and interpret the range in business terms

  • Explain how reserving uncertainty feeds the SCR via reserve risk and construct a simple one-year vs ultimate risk comparison

  • Identify which reserving judgements would be most sensitive to a change in inflation assumption and quantify the sensitivity

  • Write the assumptions-and-judgements section of a reserving report as if for an internal audit reader

Your checkpoint

A 600-word reserving uncertainty memo with a quantified sensitivity to claims inflation and a clear statement of the three largest judgement calls

Week 3

Product design, pricing and underwriting for general insurance & General insurance market context, regulation and the operating environment

  • Decompose a gross premium into risk, expense, commission, profit and risk margin components and show how each responds to a 10% loss ratio deterioration

  • Compare technical pricing, market pricing and rate adequacy for a soft-market commercial line and state the underwriting action each implies

  • Summarise the prudential regime's key capital and reporting requirements for a general insurer in under 400 words

  • Explain how premium-rate monitoring, exposure growth and mix change distort a reported loss ratio

  • Identify three underwriting levers available when a portfolio is loss-making and rank them by speed of effect

Your checkpoint

A one-page rate adequacy dashboard for a hypothetical motor portfolio showing loss ratio, rate movement, mix shift and recommended underwriting action

Week 4

Reinsurance, risk transfer and capital management & Enterprise risk management and governance for general insurers

  • Distinguish quota share, surplus, excess of loss and aggregate stop-loss by their effect on frequency, severity and tail volatility

  • Calculate the net cost of reinsurance for a worked example and explain why the cheapest cover is not always the best buy

  • Map reinsurance recoveries, counterparty default risk and reinstatement provisions onto the capital model

  • Identify the governance bodies and controls that should approve a reinsurance programme and the evidence they would expect

  • Explain how a reinsurance structure can create or destroy an incentive to underwrite carefully

Your checkpoint

A reinsurance programme proposal for a mid-sized insurer with cost-benefit analysis of two structures and a governance sign-off trail

Week 5

Enterprise risk management and governance for general insurers & General insurance market context, regulation and the operating environment

  • Build a risk register for a general insurer covering at least eight risk categories with an owner, a metric and an escalation trigger for each

  • Explain the difference between risk appetite, risk tolerance and risk limits using a concrete example for each

  • Describe how the ORSA process links strategy, risk profile and capital and what a weak ORSA looks like to a supervisor

  • Evaluate three emerging risks (for example cyber accumulation, climate litigation, AI in claims) for their potential to invalidate current reserving or pricing assumptions

  • Draft the questions a non-executive director should ask about a capital model they cannot see inside

Your checkpoint

A risk register with at least eight risks, each with owner, metric, trigger and a one-line mitigation, plus a five-question board challenge list

Week 6

Application of actuarial judgement to complex, unstructured general insurance problems & Communication of technical results to technical and non-technical audiences

  • Work through two unstructured case scenarios and produce a structured answer under time pressure, stating assumptions before calculating

  • Practise framing an actuarial problem by identifying the decision, the decision-maker and the information they actually need

  • Rewrite one technical paragraph three times for a regulator, a board and a policyholder audience

  • Present a numerical result verbally in under two minutes with a headline, the key caveat and the recommended action

  • Critique a weak written answer and identify what made it hard to follow

Your checkpoint

Two timed case-style written answers (45 minutes each) plus three audience-specific rewrites of the same technical paragraph

Week 7

Professionalism, ethics and the Actuaries' Code in general insurance practice & Communication of technical results to technical and non-technical audiences

  • Apply the Actuaries' Code principles to three scenarios: pressure to soften reserves, a request to omit an unfavourable assumption, and a conflict over who the client is

  • State the correct escalation route and the point at which a matter becomes a whistleblowing or reporting obligation

  • Distinguish acting as an employee, a consultant and an expert witness in terms of duty and communication

  • Explain the role of peer review, model documentation and professional judgement disclosure in defending a technical position

  • Write a short note to a non-actuarial manager explaining why an actuarial judgement cannot simply be overridden by preference

Your checkpoint

Three one-page ethical scenario responses, each identifying the principle at stake, the action to take, the escalation route and the record to keep

Week 8

Application of actuarial judgement to complex, unstructured general insurance problems & Communication of technical results to technical and non-technical audiences & Professionalism, ethics and the Actuaries' Code in general insurance practice

  • Sit a full timed mock under exam conditions and mark it against a self-built rubric covering structure, assumptions, communication and professionalism

  • Close the three weakest areas identified in the mock with targeted re-study and re-testing

  • Compress the entire syllabus into a two-page memory sheet of frameworks and checklists

  • Rehearse delivering a recommendation to a hypothetical board in five minutes with a one-page summary

  • Review the ethics scenarios from week 7 and confirm the answers still hold under time pressure

Your checkpoint

A completed timed mock with self-marked rubric scores, a two-page memory sheet and a prioritised list of remaining gaps

Milestones

Week 2: Can reproduce chain-ladder and Bornhuetter-Ferguson from a blank sheet, quantify reserving uncertainty and explain it in business terms without notes

Week 4: Can price a reinsurance structure, explain its capital effect and describe the governance route to approval, all in one sitting

Week 6: Can produce a structured answer to an unseen case in 45 minutes with explicit assumptions and an audience-appropriate summary

Week 8: Mock exam completed under time pressure with self-assessed rubric scores in every domain and a written gap-closure plan for any domain scoring below target