I thought this was a slightly peculiar exam, which is par for the course in these later subjects of course.
I imagine the impact of fronting the two questions as equity release and securitisation was intended to throw the candidates off balance, before us realising that the questions were actually largely about ICA, solvency and pricing.
I found the two longest parts, 1 iii and 2 iii, fairly tricky to write on: largely because of the inevitable issue with trying to guess what the examiner might put on the marking scheme. In particular, the 28 mark question on the vaguely phrased 'process and issues' of securitisation.
I assumed that the bulk of the marks for the 18 mark ICA question could be gleaned from a quick recap on the bookwork followed by an in-depth analysis of each specific ICA risk (credit, market, insurance etc) as it related to the specific products.
More of a guess and throw everything in on the 28 mark securitisation - but I tried to cover how to measure profit, some of the most relevant assumptions in calculating profit, (morbidity, persistency, expenses, tax), and a fairly lengthy section on TCF as the securitisation affects the WP funds.
Other parts of the questions seemed more straightforward.
Interested to hear other people's thoughts.