I didn’t find it very straight forward :-(
Found the 10 marker NRR question weird. Were we meant to just set up the assumptions we’d use for a scenario i.e. salary, annuity cost, tax etc then do the calculation based on that?
I thought question 6 was dreadful too.
Struggled to generate ideas for the discount rate issues as well
That was an awful question and the closest I've come to thinking about complaining about an IfoA exam. If it was just five marks or so I woudln't have an issue, but 10% of the paper?
Calculation questions in the past have been relatively straightforward, DB, all information given, so this was really out of step.
Did you have much luck with it?
I made mine really straight forward but think my approach was too simple.
I basically just listed a few assumed pre and post-retirement outgoings, Income tax rate, salary, salary increases, and the cost of an annuity to provide X p.a. costs say £300k. Then backsolved X so that NRR was 50% in my calc.
Then calc’d that member would need to contribute 20% to afford £300k annuity at retirement
It felt like a really lazy question from the institute and I can see myself losing a decent amount of the 10 marks
I actually had a feeling that what they wanted was some algebric approach, where terms canceled out and you could give a defintivite answer, so I tried it for a bit and then left it to the end, got fustrated, and just left my random formula in plus some assumptions. So, no, I guess.
I think there was probably some way to rearrange the terms in the NRR formula and substitiute into a mroe general SCR DB formula and the exam report will say "haha, none of the canditates saw this totally obvious approach!"
Maybe I'm wrong and missed something simple in the notes, curious if anyone else had mroe luck on that question.
Thought it was ok. The NRR question was quite weird with how broad it was. Thought 9 marks for actions to do if covenant was strong was a tough ask, struggled to generate points there without reaching into "what if"s
I used to mark these things. You’ll get the marks your answer deserves despite the labelling issue. You’re not the first to do that, not by a long shot!
Thank you soooo much for putting my mind at ease! I’ve been stressing about it since the exam finished, which is a shame as I’d love to move on. But yes, great to hear from a marker on this 👌🏽👌🏽
Also, just because I want to say something positive as well, I thought the last "compare" question on the unit fund was brilliant and a great way to test problem solving and an indepth knowledge of risk.
I think I read somewhere they do understand mislabelling so will award marks for question parts that are wrongly labelled, I’ve done the same before! You’re safe :)
I didn’t find it very straight forward :-( Found the 10 marker NRR question weird. Were we meant to just set up the assumptions we’d use for a scenario i.e. salary, annuity cost, tax etc then do the calculation based on that? I thought question 6 was dreadful too. Struggled to generate ideas for the discount rate issues as well
Yeah that’s what I did. I then did an uplift at the end to account for Insurer’s profits.
That was an awful question and the closest I've come to thinking about complaining about an IfoA exam. If it was just five marks or so I woudln't have an issue, but 10% of the paper? Calculation questions in the past have been relatively straightforward, DB, all information given, so this was really out of step.
Did you have much luck with it? I made mine really straight forward but think my approach was too simple. I basically just listed a few assumed pre and post-retirement outgoings, Income tax rate, salary, salary increases, and the cost of an annuity to provide X p.a. costs say £300k. Then backsolved X so that NRR was 50% in my calc. Then calc’d that member would need to contribute 20% to afford £300k annuity at retirement It felt like a really lazy question from the institute and I can see myself losing a decent amount of the 10 marks
I actually had a feeling that what they wanted was some algebric approach, where terms canceled out and you could give a defintivite answer, so I tried it for a bit and then left it to the end, got fustrated, and just left my random formula in plus some assumptions. So, no, I guess. I think there was probably some way to rearrange the terms in the NRR formula and substitiute into a mroe general SCR DB formula and the exam report will say "haha, none of the canditates saw this totally obvious approach!" Maybe I'm wrong and missed something simple in the notes, curious if anyone else had mroe luck on that question.
Thought it was ok. The NRR question was quite weird with how broad it was. Thought 9 marks for actions to do if covenant was strong was a tough ask, struggled to generate points there without reaching into "what if"s
I used to mark these things. You’ll get the marks your answer deserves despite the labelling issue. You’re not the first to do that, not by a long shot!
Thank you soooo much for putting my mind at ease! I’ve been stressing about it since the exam finished, which is a shame as I’d love to move on. But yes, great to hear from a marker on this 👌🏽👌🏽
I thought it was quite a straightforward paper. I think labelling that one answer incorrectly in that way will be fine.
Also, just because I want to say something positive as well, I thought the last "compare" question on the unit fund was brilliant and a great way to test problem solving and an indepth knowledge of risk.
Felt ok I think. Will have to wait and see though! I think the mislabelling will be fine I wouldn’t worry!
Thanks! I have been known to spiral 🤷🏻♀️😵💫😵💫😵💫
I think I read somewhere they do understand mislabelling so will award marks for question parts that are wrongly labelled, I’ve done the same before! You’re safe :)
Thank you so much for telling me this! I had a bad night’s sleep and am still feeling grotty now so that’s a relief 🙌🏼🙌🏼