September 2007

I think this was asked earlier in the thread:
If you did poorly in Q1 but good in Q2, is that a pass?
If completely messed up in Q1 but did amazingly brilliantly in Q2, is that a pass?

 

there are clearly far too many students mentally scarred by this exam...myself included!

it's like they've asked this question again to see if students have bothered to understand the difference between the rates - if you haven't then ur screwed! forget paragraphs, headings, grammar i.e all the key communication skills we've spent the summer learning....see you again in April is the message!

I've seen alot of comments on the fact there was no slides Q this time.....I was delighted...sick to death of trying to draw graphs with a biro and ruler under time pressure - then you get the nice neat examiners solution with the pretty pictures! (and dont forget the key figures - highlight them with..eh...oh yeh ur same coloured biro!) what a farce

I see this exam is being allowed to continue in 2009 when the 2 day course starts.....dont all rush at once!

 

If we were meant to contrast the two measures then they really should have given us the definitions of the returns. Given this is a communications exam, you would be severly disadvantaged if you were unable to recall what TWRR and MWRR actually mean. Very unfair!

If I was wrong not to write about the MWRR, then I hope I get good marks for how well I didn't write about it!

No one cares about Q2 because everyone would have found it easy. It is Q1 that will sort the pass from the fails.

 

Darrell, is the actual marking scheme for the exam similar to those produced in the CA3 question bank?

 

Thanks, Ian.

I may be a couple of pensioners short of a cohort, but what's the difference between a marking scheme and a marking schedule?

 

A further thought about the "should I include/not include explanation of TWRR and MWRR" occurred to me today.

I believe that one of the previous posters is correct in saying that Mr Colin Spragg, as a trustee of the scheme, should be able to take a bit more technical explanation.

In fact, under Trustee Knowledge and Understanding requirements of the 2004 Pensions Act (sections 247-249, it says here), trustees are required "to have knowledge and understanding of the law relating to pensions and trusts and the principles relating to the funding of occupational schemes and the investment of scheme assets."

Furthermore, it states specifically in the Pensions Regulator's guidance (http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/pdf/scopeGuidanceDBDC.pdf, unit 9b) that trustees should have working knowledge of "the principles of fund management and how performance can be measured", including "Measuring performance including the use of indices."

In short, it would be incorrect, under current UK legislation, for marks to be deducted for including clear and relevant explanations of TWRR and MWRR.


(Of course, you may argue "well, we're not necessarily in the UK". Aha, but Mr Spragg is real! https://secure.creditgate.com/search/search.aspx?AP=Previous&CompanyID=0169723802&CompanyType=O )

 

I don't buy that, Schnorbitz. Even though UK Trustees are required by law to have certain expertise, this is a recent requirement and there is a period of bedding in required. The reality is that a lot of Trustees are lay people and actuaries shouldn't assume a high level of technical knowledge - no matter what the law says they should know. Also it is one thing for a Trustee to understand benchmarking and performance measurement but the difference between TWRR and MWRR in this context is almost irrelevant.

Having said that, I have no idea what the examiners wanted here. As always with CA3 there are reasonable interpretations both ways, but if you don't have the same view as the examiner then you will fail. A rubbish exam.

 

I only briefly mentioned what they meant.

Trustees are lay people, and a brief explanation would be a qucik reminder of what it meant.

Moreover, many of us, who've been taking these exams, didnt know the exact way to explain MWRR and TWRR, i think that it would make sense to include what MWRR and TWRR is.

I agree with examfatigued. Too much subjectivety involved in that kind of exam to be fair to everyone.

Rubbish exam, as it CA2.

 

I think the examiners will take a dim view of folks who couldnt remember the difference between these rates....given they've appeared before and are covered in Acteds 'recap' material.

However as I said b4 this isn't testing communciation skills but whether you knew the difference between the rates - v unfair if you didnt.

I know someone who marked the 2005 Q - those who attempted it (there was a choice of Q's back then) did very poorly which is why hey presto it appears again.....'lets ask this again....they did rubbish last time...saves us thinking up a new Q'

 

Fatigued, I certainly wouldn't expect the Trustee to have already gone through his Trustee Knowledge and Understanding. I just took the view that explaining in a clear and relevant way what the difference between MWRR and TWRR is, and hence what's happened to his scheme, was necessary for the question (and certainly for getting close to 500 words!).

It was lucky for me that my very first visit to a Trustee meeting for a pension scheme was about 3 weeks before the exam. I ended up trying to explain the difference between stochastic and deterministic modelling, of all things! But at least it gave me experience of the level of knowledge that a trustee would have, and the level of explanation that had to be given to the trustees to enable them to take decisions about the investments of their scheme.