D
dannyp123
Member
Hi,
Not sure the best place to write this, so thought I would start here. I just sat the April 2022 CP3 paper and I am pretty frustrated about it. The common message repeated in all the exams is that you do not need knowledge outside of the material provided. The exam should be able to be written based purely on the material provided (advanced material and the exam question itself).
I've done pretty much all the past papers and this has always been the case, but I feel that it wasn't for this exam. Maybe it is just me missing something (very possible). So, the main thrust of the exam was that shareholders were concerned about the finances of the company due to the ranging impacts of a pandemic. The primary question was this:
The shareholders had seen that in the year before the pandemic the company had set aside capital to cover the cost of the risk of a pandemic. So they were confused as to why losses were evident and the solvency ratio had reduced because if the company had set aside money to cover this risk in advance, why wasn't the result neutral...
There was nothing in the advance material to answer that question. The material showed that experience had gotten worse, that assumptions had to be strengthened, that different products had responded in different ways...etc which was all normal stuff - but nothing on why a company putting funds aside for a risk wouldn't be able to cover that risk in the event of it happening.
Very frustrating for me. I can think of reasons why that may be the case, but the issue is that I shouldn't need to be putting theories together outside of the material to answer the MAIN question of the exam. That is not aligned with the whole purpose and principles of CP3 - which is supposedly to test communication skills rather than actuarial knowledge.
Again maybe this is just me... it would be good to hear other people's experience of the exam?
Not sure the best place to write this, so thought I would start here. I just sat the April 2022 CP3 paper and I am pretty frustrated about it. The common message repeated in all the exams is that you do not need knowledge outside of the material provided. The exam should be able to be written based purely on the material provided (advanced material and the exam question itself).
I've done pretty much all the past papers and this has always been the case, but I feel that it wasn't for this exam. Maybe it is just me missing something (very possible). So, the main thrust of the exam was that shareholders were concerned about the finances of the company due to the ranging impacts of a pandemic. The primary question was this:
The shareholders had seen that in the year before the pandemic the company had set aside capital to cover the cost of the risk of a pandemic. So they were confused as to why losses were evident and the solvency ratio had reduced because if the company had set aside money to cover this risk in advance, why wasn't the result neutral...
There was nothing in the advance material to answer that question. The material showed that experience had gotten worse, that assumptions had to be strengthened, that different products had responded in different ways...etc which was all normal stuff - but nothing on why a company putting funds aside for a risk wouldn't be able to cover that risk in the event of it happening.
Very frustrating for me. I can think of reasons why that may be the case, but the issue is that I shouldn't need to be putting theories together outside of the material to answer the MAIN question of the exam. That is not aligned with the whole purpose and principles of CP3 - which is supposedly to test communication skills rather than actuarial knowledge.
Again maybe this is just me... it would be good to hear other people's experience of the exam?