• 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.

Sep 2009 Qn 6

V

vikky

Ton up Member
Part ii
I had a go at this and had pursuing a risky investment strategy (ALM mismatch) in the hope of higher returns as one of the reasons for Y holding a level of capital significantly higher than reg requirements.This didnt appear on the suggested answer list.Not sure what am I missing here
Part iii
I had exiting capital intensive business lines like With profits business with guarantees as one choice for reducing overall capital requirements.This also didnt make it to the marking list and I cant see why...

Help :(
 
It may be that either or both of your answers would be marked correct. Here are some possible reasons for them not being on the list though:

Part ii)
The riskiness of the investment strategy will be factored into the regulatory capital requirement so it's not clear that there's any need allow for it again here.

Part iii)
I'm not a life insurance specialist, but the thing about exiting capital intensive lines is that it will have an effect but it might take a while to become noticeable, especially for long-tailed lines, since you've still got a lot of that business on the books. Taking out reinsurance on the historic business might be a better answer.
 
I agree. In addition for part (iii), I think exiting WP business might not be a good strategy since this could be the only main profit churning business. However reducing guarantees could reduce capital requirement but would reduce marketability. This question does not consider the options which reduces marketability or profitability.
 
OK, but I would add that one reason why candidates miss easy marks in the later exams is because they over-censor their answers. If the question says, “Discuss how you could …”, don’t leave out answers on the basis that they may have other knock-on effects that make them a poor overall strategy. It’s a remarkably easy trap to fall into. My strategy in CA1 and the specialist subjects was to write down everything I thought of, and it seemed to work.
 
td290 and asp_act's comments are well said.

In addition, exiting a line of business won't decrease your capital requirement in the short- / medium-term, because you'll still have to hold capital in respect of the liabilities you've taken on, whether or not your are taking on any future liabilites. It will only prevent your capital requirement from increasing in the future (all other things being equal).
 
Thank you for your reply Katherine..Surely in the past (in the UK) we have had companies who have sold their with profit funds/business with onerous guarantees to other companies as they clearly wanted to exit that line of business!
I had this in mind when I put this point for part III

Since you do agree with whats said here can I infer that there is scope for gaining marks for points which are not mentioned on the marking schedule(past ii ,riskier investment strategy)
 
can I infer that there is scope for gaining marks for points which are not mentioned on the marking schedule
Click to expand...

I'm afraid not. If it's not on the marking schedule then you won't score marks (unless you're very luck and they give one or two extra half marks for a relevant example or something).

However, since you won't know what's on the marking schedule, I wouldn't recommend trying to second guess whether you should write your idea or not. If you think you have a relevant point, then I'd go with td290's suggestion of
write down everything I thought of
Click to expand...
.
 
vikky, I feel we still haven't answered your question about why your answer to part iii may not have been deemed valid. To be clear, if I'd thought of it, I probably would have written it down for exactly the reason that Katherine said. But then there's the question of whether we can learn anything from the mark scheme.

I think probably the important point here is that "exiting" a line of business can cover a multitude of different possibilities and you probably need to be clear about which one you're talking about. One possibility is that you simply stop writing it and run off your existing business to exhaustion. But this does not produce any immediate capital saving.

Another is that you create a new company with all the business that you want to get rid of and then sell off that company to another company. I can think of several reasons why this may not have been accepted, not least that you're starting to reverse out the transaction you've just done; a trivial answer to the question might be that the group XY could sell off company Y again and return to where it started.

A further possibility is the one I suggested of reinsuring the historic business away. Despite the fact that the group XY would still carry the risk of reinsurer default, the capital requirement would almost certainly reduce. However, this could be regarded as a repetition of an answer the examiners have already given, namely: "The company may also revise its reinsurance arrangements in order to make efficient use of capital", and therefore not be awarded an extra mark.

The mark schemes do sometimes miss valid answers, especially with the more open-ended questions, and occasionally extra marks could be gained for including these answers. However, on the great majority of occasions, if there's something missing from the final examiners report there's a good reason for it and it probably means you wouldn't have got the mark.
 
Katherine Young said:
I'm afraid not. If it's not on the marking schedule then you won't score marks (unless you're very luck and they give one or two extra half marks for a relevant example or something).

However, since you won't know what's on the marking schedule, I wouldn't recommend trying to second guess whether you should write your idea or not. If you think you have a relevant point, then I'd go with td290's suggestion of .
Click to expand...

Katherine, why does ASET then usually consider many points not in the Examiner's Report?
 
Not many points I'd have thought Edwin.

We do put some extra points in though, if we think they're valid points that could easily be included in a future similar question.
 
I think the steer is pen down whatever you can think of and then hope for the best :(
Unfortunately there is very little clarity on how to condition our thought process to answer these questions or where the thought process is going wrong....am going nuts with some of the answers that I see on the marking schedule... :(
 
Last edited:
vikky said:
I think the steer is pen down whatever you can think of and then hope for the best :(
Unfortunately there is very little clarity on how to condition our thought process to answer these questions or where the thought process is going wrong....am going nuts with some of the answers that I see on the marking schedule... :(
Click to expand...

Dude Im the one that is really going nuts! I cant seem to figure out what I'm doing wrong, but l'll just keep going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top