April 2009 - The easy exam 'cos we're sorry September was so difficult exam

April 2009 - The easy exam "cos we're sorry September was so difficult"

Any thoughts?

 

didn't find it that easy

...Didn't really like bits of Q2 (splitting pooled fund) and I got in a tangle with the swap rate in Q4 and the spot rates in Q5.
The pay-off diagrams were also tricky to get done for 6 marks.

Overall, lots of dodgy parts rather than large write-off Qs. Don't think I got it, so it will have to be attempt number 6 for me, or try another ST!
(I passed all the other CA ST and SA exams 1st time so perhaps I just don't get this course!?)

 

I think the swap rate question could become complicated if you do it exactly how they'd like (adjusting rates for exactly 180 days as opposed to just using the 182 day rate, etc...). Incidentally I got a rate of 4.61% and profit of just under 400k.

Agreed that the payoff diagrams were too much for 6 marks! Overall I thought it was a nice-ish exam. My only regret is not leaving enough time to do Q5 and 6 properly as I ended up rushing Q5 and doing just a third of Q6.

I think they will push up the pass mark on this one so will have to wait and see.

 

I didn't like it at all!

I was fazed by the size of the first couple of questions, and left them till later. I don't like wordy questions at the best of times.
When I got round to question 1, I forgot obvious stuff like TWR/MWR for the difficulties with investment performance, which means there will be a load of subsequent points I didn't pick up.
I didn't know where I was going with the swap question: I couldn't see how to use the number of days in each period, so ignored them. And I ended up with a fixed rate of 3.96%, which is obviously wrong, but I didn't say so! And then I couldn't work out why you get 4 marks for calculating the value if it's 4.75%: seemed a straightforward ratio to me (though because I got the previous part wrong I will have got the wrong number).
It wasn't at all clear what they were asking for in the options question with graphs: I wasn't sure whether they might want a commentary on each individual option in part (a).
ST5 exam, I look forward to reacquainting myself with you in September.

 

avanbuiten - is it fair to say that you're quietly confident (given that you referred to it as the "easy exam")?!

I'll admit that it was a kinder paper than the September '08 one, but at the same time I'd be concerned that the pass mark will also go up. General consensus seemed to be that the paper was do-able....but that makes me less confident on my chances.

I wasn't keen on the swaps question or on the zero coupon calculations. I left a few bits out, but they weren't big markers. Could have done with an extra half an hour!

 

No, not really. I don't like it when exams are that easy because it makes it more difficult to distinguish between well prepared candidates and those that just wing it (which you could have done in this exam). I too could have done with some extra time.

Like you say, the pass mark is likely to be pushed up so I'm not confident. Either FA or pass, just not sure which!

 

Where would you have mentioned TWR/MWR?

I thought the difficulties with inv performance measurement 8 mark Question was just a straight bookwork list expanded out for a mark each. (I used PRVICTOR - Projecting results, Randomness, Valns, Influencing, Costs, Time issues, Objectives, Risk-adjustments

anyone else???

Thought the numerical Qs and swap payoffs were under-weighted in marks for the time they took. Couldnt decid whether to try and do properly or go for marks elsewhere, I may have made the wrong choice and got bogged down with the calcs.

 

Timing / Creeping Change / Return a result of just taking extra risk? / Unfair on good high risk stock picking manager / manager may disagree with market view of risk / Change in behaviour e.g. focus on short term gains at expense of long term losses / Costs of measuring / Constraints, etc...

 

I had similar points to these. I also thought the numerical questions were quite long for the number of marks, so I spent more time on the "wordy" questions. I fear that may cost me in the end...

 

Got about .46m for the swap but it took me ages to calculate. I reckon my method was probably wrong though.

Liked the 1st question and I'm sure I got all of the options question (q4?) correct.

My score will be about 50-55%

Will it be enough?

 

Very pleased to have got this, to qualify as FIA on consecutive attempt number 5 of ST5 ! Loads of dodgy bits that I ran out of time to finish off, though. A war of attrition throughout; I think it was an exam where you really had to play to your strengths and do your best with the rest of it.

Good luck anyone else who is thinking of taking this course out- many of my friends have sailed through this one first time so I think it is one of those exams that you either "get" straight away, or struggle with.

 

Ha ha, well done everyone who passed. I didn't! But got a surprise SA3 pass instead so I'll happily take that and be back in September to start another post about how annoyed I am with the easy exam... lol!!! (once we are allowed to post that is!!)

 

Congratulations to those who passed it!

By the way, I got an FA and do you think it is worth trying to appeal? Do you have any friends who tried appealling and was successful?

 

I got an FA too. I won't be appealing.

Might be worth getting exam counselling to gauge whether you have a good case. Usually, the odds aren't in your favour.

 

I agree appeals seldom work.

At least with counselling you get feedback on your attempt and see your actual script if you go for face to face.

It takes time to get either so maybe better putting efforts straight into whole hearted revision rather than wondering what if?

 

I tried exam counselling after the third fail which I was surprised with because by that stage I had passed the rest of the other CA/ST/SA subjects on the first attempt.

We had a useful discussion about the approach for ST5, and the staff Actuary provided a report on how my attempts at each question "measured up". She also indicated verbally which she thought were the overriding reasons for me missing out with an FA on that attempt - mostly misreading specific details on questions and losing out key bookwork points by not being tight enough with recalling lists.

It didn't quite work out on the next attempt though because I got stung by the long IR/ MVPT Q that I hadn't really focused on in my exam prep.

On balance I would recommend counselling. It's a useful independent opinion on your style and approach to the exam, and a good way to focus a study day on a different type of exam prep.

Few tips though:

• Double-check the appointment they give you before setting off for counselling if you work outside of London/Edinburgh. When I went on the first occasion (a three hour journey from Wigan) the Institute had forgotten to pass details of my appointment to the Staff Actuary so the appointment was cancelled and I had a wasted trip. D'Oh!

• Don't get too wedded to what they tell you. Remember to keep on top of the "other" parts of your exam prep which they may not have identified as needing particular attention.

• Remember the actuary almost certainly wouldn't have marked your paper so they won't comment on specific marks you received for each question.

• Get your application in early so that it is most helpful for the next sitting. As Bystander mentions you need to quickly draw a line under previous attempts and to focus on the next. Timely exam counselling will help you do this

Good luck.

 

Q3(v)

Interesting answer in the Examiners' Report to the one that was set in Q3(v):

"Calculate the profit or loss to the pension fund at the end of the swap contract".

I was expecting to see a number, but in fact, for 4 marks, what was required was:

"The fixed rate is higher than the theoretical swap rate so assuming the payments reflect the assumed then the pension fund will be in the money, ie calculation should show a profit, as they have been paid a higher amount from the bank (via fixed) than paid out".

Seems more like a "comment on" rather than "calculate" question to me...