• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

Qu 3 part (ii) Actuarial funding

S

ssawyer

Member
Is it just me, or did there seem to be a screw up in this question?

Of the three contract designs presented (original, design A and design B), only design A had capital units - the others were just accumulation with varying allocation rates. So why did part ii) of the question ask whether actuarial funding would be useful for Design B allocating 8 marks, when the answer is simply "no - the contract design is not compatible, but it would be useful in Design A".

Surely the question that should of been asked was "Would actuarial funding be appropriate for Design A?" - you can then spend 8 marks talking about the effects on the cost of capital, matching of expenses to costs, need to adjust surrender values - all stuff that's in the notes.

Plus it is suspicious that the order of the contract descriptions was original, design A, design B. Did the person setting the question get thrown by the order and think that the second contract in the list was Design B when they meant Design A?

What did other people think...........???
 
Yea you are correct that design A was more suitable for Actuarial Funding. I think the examiners were expecting a detailed answer for part 2 by asking why not Actuarial funding is suitable for design B - Remember we are replying to a "Finance Director so we need to explain every bits of Actuarial Funding here and then say why Design B is not suitable and also why it doesnt require Actuarial Funding.Also perhaps mention that design A is more suitable. - This should carry more than 8 marks in my opinion.

Also the surrender term for both designs are ok for Actuarial Funidng.

Otherwise what you think of the paper? I thaught it was too long with too much reading!!!




ssawyer said:
Is it just me, or did there seem to be a screw up in this question?

Of the three contract designs presented (original, design A and design B), only design A had capital units - the others were just accumulation with varying allocation rates. So why did part ii) of the question ask whether actuarial funding would be useful for Design B allocating 8 marks, when the answer is simply "no - the contract design is not compatible, but it would be useful in Design A".

Surely the question that should of been asked was "Would actuarial funding be appropriate for Design A?" - you can then spend 8 marks talking about the effects on the cost of capital, matching of expenses to costs, need to adjust surrender values - all stuff that's in the notes.

Plus it is suspicious that the order of the contract descriptions was original, design A, design B. Did the person setting the question get thrown by the order and think that the second contract in the list was Design B when they meant Design A?

What did other people think...........???
 
Yes I thought this was a strange question too so I left it till last.

I just ended up listing why design B was and wasn't suitable and hoped for the best.

I was also unsure what kind of thing they were looking for on the question about internal and extrenal funds - I found myself waffling a bit on this one.
 
Back
Top