What did you think of both the exams? Did the split between life, general and pensions in Paper 2 feel about right? There were only 5 questions in Paper 2: is a wide enough cross-section of the syllabus being tested?
Overall I thought they weren't too bad and the life/general/pensions split was OK. Didn't like the fair value question in Paper 1 much but the final question being a lift from 1999 and in the ActEd tutorials helped! A ten mark opener in Paper 2 wasn't much fun, I panicked a bit at it. The big questions were at least split into reasonably manageable sections but I don't think they tested enough of the course. I was left wondering why I'd bothered to study half of it.
I think the split between life, general and pensions was good - a little bit of each with some reinsurance added in, all in the space of 5 questions. In terms of the type of paper, it was more or less what I expected (thanks Anna for preparing me in the Cape Town tutorial!) although I think the questions were quite hard. I know a number of people came out of the exam room thinking they had studied in vain, because the paper didn't test the core reading. I must say I was hoping for a bit more straightforward bookwork, and less "well my general knowledge of the subject can help me generate ideas for this one". I suppose the proof will be in the pudding, when the results come out.
What the hell was that pension question doing on CA12 ? All of the investment material in relation to splits and balancing investment portfolios is on CA11 not on CA12 (or even the parts which are covered under CA12 i.e. chapters 1-12 and 33 on). Daft.
