Hi all, What did you think of the exam this time? There was a clear error in paper 1 with the definition of the nominal interest rate derived from the effective rate. I think paper 1 was incredibly time pressured even if you didn't have this error as there was a crazy amount to do in the time available. For paper 2 I thought it was normal standard, just worried about how bad paper 1 was with lack of reasonableness test comparison and final parts due to extreme time pressure yet again. Probably my biggest worry however is the marking for this paper as it seems there's some crazy markers that give zero for signposting when you get full marks off another. It's crazy subjective based off the marking I've seen thus far. Hopefully I don't get a lazy marker this time! They seem to not bother reading half of the paper too. Hopefully the institute are checking for these rogue markers this time. Best of luck to all!
To give context to my latter comment there were 18 marks (36 half marks) difference at the end between marker 1 and 2 and that's not including the individual differences. Hopefully, the institute can concentrate more on this issue than on silly points going forward. I did a hell of a lot of work this time but I have next to zero confidence in the marking process at this stage. Hopefully, the markers will read the full paper and follow the marking scheme this time as a minimum rather than makeup random marks as they go. I guess they aren't paid much to correct each exam but the impact on individuals is high
Yeah paper 1 was a nightmare and that mistake drove me nuts as i didn't realise at the time where my funny numbers were coming from. I didn't get to finish paper 1 model or audit but the parts I did write in my audit were with great detail. Paper 2 was a lot easier and I finished it within the time. Put lots of graphs and tables. Dunno if I passed due to paper 1 though!
Hi, I agree with Gemma regarding the error in the paper. I lost a few 10 mins trying to find out what went wrong because the figures obtained using the incorrect formula were not making any sens at all. It was time consuming to double check the results , contemplate the possibility that there may be a mistake int he formula, decide on the course of action, amend the formula and move on. Will examiners bear this in mind when the correction is being carried out?
Yes, this is the key point. It seems that paper 1 with it's error and Nick's opinion ( i'm guessing he might have wrote the paper) that reasonableness checks are the most important and will be to the detriment of people unnecessarily. let's hope more importantly that rogue markers are pulled up for substandard work. correct the full work and correct properly please. we have zero faith at present
hi where can i see the excel solution for cp2 as i see only their examiner report and initial excel file?
The September examiners report for CP2 makes reference to possible models, audit trail and summary. I cannot seem to find these on the website. Can you please refer me to where I can get these solutions.
I have a doubt. The annual minimum guaranteed investment return is given as 2% pa. The que paper had an error wrt i(12) formula. The examiners report gives i(12) = (1+(i/12))^12 -1 Shouldnt it be the following formula? i(12) = ((1+i)^(1/12) -1)*12 Is the examiners report also showing incorrect formula? Kindly clarify. Thanks in advance!
The formula you have given is correct. It does appear that the examiners report formula is not consistent with earlier subjects, however it does give a sensible value so wouldn't affect the results. In our question paper, produced as part of ASET, we gave the formula you have stated if that helps
