Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > SoA > Retirement Benefits Track > Design and Accounting Exam
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Search Actuarial Jobs by State @ DWSimpson.com:
AL AK AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA
ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NH NJ NM NY NV NC ND
OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY

Design and Accounting Exam Old Retirement Company/Sponsor Perspective (nation-specific) Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-03-2019, 09:59 AM
Prob4Fun's Avatar
Prob4Fun Prob4Fun is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Studying for DA Exam
College: USF
Favorite beer: Free Beer
Posts: 209
Default

I felt much better about this sitting than the last one. I thought the questions were in line with my expectations. I predicted the need to mention the lack of a projection scale on the mortality assumption back in February. I also figured we would see questions on credibility, embedded options, and some fluffy public sector stuff. There was more than usual amount of ISA 19 questions, but I read the “Similarities and Difference” paper (DA-168-19) the day before the exam so it wasn’t too bad.

I agree that the forward and backward duration thing was annoying, but I felt good that I spotted the need to do that. It was otherwise a pretty routine accounting question.

For the Merger question, I recommend that they only merge the plans to avoid the additional funding. If they were to merge and do the buy-out (for Plan A retirees only), it would reduce the funded ratio to below the 80% threshold.
__________________
ASA EA, DAU SS Mod, FE Mod, ERM Mod,
RPIRM, DMAC, FAC
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:01 AM
Prob4Fun's Avatar
Prob4Fun Prob4Fun is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Studying for DA Exam
College: USF
Favorite beer: Free Beer
Posts: 209
Default

I also did not change my recommendation with the Buy-in, because I thought that they would still have to pay the annual premium with a Buy-In.
__________________
ASA EA, DAU SS Mod, FE Mod, ERM Mod,
RPIRM, DMAC, FAC
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:31 AM
JdPActuary JdPActuary is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 122
Default

Interesting, I don't think I took into account that the funded status would decrease after the buyout (the combined funded percentage just squeaked over 80% right after combining the two plans).

Hopefully there weren't too many little things like this that I missed. There's so much analysis to do in such a short amount of time - hopefully partial credit pulls me through...
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:43 AM
johnodin87 johnodin87 is offline
SOA
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JdPActuary View Post
It seemed like a fair exam to me. For the settlement question, I assumed that the 9/30 buy-out retiree liability was calculated at 4%, so I adjusted that by dividing by 1.1. Then I backed it out of the total rolled forward amount, multiplied by 1.15 and added the 9/30 (unadjusted) retiree buy-out liability back in. I know what I got as an answer for the settlement amount because the calculations are still in my calculator's memory but not sure if it's OK to discuss #s until the exam is released.

What did people recommend for the question where you had to choose/justify between 3 alternatives of merging Plan A/Plan B and doing a retiree buyout? I think the options were basically do nothing, merge the plans w/o buyout, and merge the plans w/ buyout.

I recommended option iii (merge w/ buyout). My justification was basically that there would be no minimum funding requirement since combined plan would be 80% funded, reduced admin expenses (only one val required, one set of gov't forms, etc.), and the ongoing reduction in the insurance premiums. Hoping that as long as you chose a recommendation and stuck with/defended it you will get full points.

I felt really rushed but I think I managed to get the key points down for most questions. Tough to know where I stand though because this was my first fully written exam.

Agreed on the settlement, I rolled back the buy-out group liability before pulling it out and then brought the remainder forward and added back the amount given

The merged plan would have been <80% funded after the buy-out (since the Plan A retiree liability is out of the PBO and assets) for not a lot of savings in premiums so I said only merge. Not 100% there but I thought the buy-in question kind of implied this was the result we'd get it
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-03-2019, 10:23 PM
bh393108 bh393108 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Favorite beer: Breckenridge Vanilla Porter
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prob4Fun View Post
I also did not change my recommendation with the Buy-in, because I thought that they would still have to pay the annual premium with a Buy-In.
I wasn't 100% sure where to go with this, but i did change my recommendation because the value of the buy-in contract would be held as an asset, so unlike with the buyout where the funded percentage fell way below 80%, the plan would remain over 80% in the buy-in scenario.....i think

Agree with everyone's comments on the settlement question, i didn't like that it wasn't explicitly clear what discount rate was used to value the buyout liabilities we were provided - i assumed they were at the new 4% rate, but i wish they'd have told us.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-06-2019, 09:32 AM
Prob4Fun's Avatar
Prob4Fun Prob4Fun is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Studying for DA Exam
College: USF
Favorite beer: Free Beer
Posts: 209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bh393108 View Post
I wasn't 100% sure where to go with this, but i did change my recommendation because the value of the buy-in contract would be held as an asset, so unlike with the buyout where the funded percentage fell way below 80%, the plan would remain over 80% in the buy-in scenario.....i think

Agree with everyone's comments on the settlement question, i didn't like that it wasn't explicitly clear what discount rate was used to value the buyout liabilities we were provided - i assumed they were at the new 4% rate, but i wish they'd have told us.
I agree that the plan doesnít drop below 80% with the buy-in, but the stated goal of the buyout was to reduce the $500 premium. I assumed that the premium would not go away with the buy-in, although it wasnít stated one way or the other. Additionally, a buy-in is more expense than the plan keeping the liability (if all assumptions are met). Obviously, the benefit of the buy-in is the reduction of risk and lower volatility, but those didn't seem like the goals from my understanding.

I also assumed that 4% was the new discount rate. But now that you mention it, I donít that it was clearly stated. If that wasn't the case, I would imagine they would give credit for both approaches.
__________________
ASA EA, DAU SS Mod, FE Mod, ERM Mod,
RPIRM, DMAC, FAC
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:43 AM
CrispyCobb CrispyCobb is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Studying for nothing!
Posts: 288
Default

The exams have been posted

US AM: https://www.soa.org/globalassets/ass...au-exam-am.pdf
US PM: https://www.soa.org/globalassets/ass...au-exam-pm.pdf

Canada AM: https://www.soa.org/globalassets/ass...ac-exam-am.pdf
Canada PM:https://www.soa.org/globalassets/ass...ac-exam-pm.pdf

Last edited by CrispyCobb; 05-17-2019 at 10:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:53 AM
rgreenlee's Avatar
rgreenlee rgreenlee is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: in a van down by the river
Posts: 1,075
Default

Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:21 PM
CrispyCobb CrispyCobb is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Studying for nothing!
Posts: 288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prob4Fun View Post
For the Merger question, I recommend that they only merge the plans to avoid the additional funding. If they were to merge and do the buy-out (for Plan A retirees only), it would reduce the funded ratio to below the 80% threshold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnodin87 View Post
The merged plan would have been <80% funded after the buy-out (since the Plan A retiree liability is out of the PBO and assets) for not a lot of savings in premiums so I said only merge. Not 100% there but I thought the buy-in question kind of implied this was the result we'd get it
I definitely missed the detail that the buy-out was only for Plan A retirees. My analysis was based on a buy-out for all retirees, but I think my argument is still sound. I also recommended only merge.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:52 PM
Prob4Fun's Avatar
Prob4Fun Prob4Fun is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Studying for DA Exam
College: USF
Favorite beer: Free Beer
Posts: 209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrispyCobb View Post
I definitely missed the detail that the buy-out was only for Plan A retirees. My analysis was based on a buy-out for all retirees, but I think my argument is still sound. I also recommended only merge.
I wouldn't worry much about that. It's the same result either way. I'm sure we all missed something. Like for question 7(b), I failed to mention ASOP 41 that provides guidance for this situation. Also for 13(b), I only wrote the words "hurdle mortality and hurdle discount rate" but didn't bother to explain them.

There too much information, but even looking at the exam now, I think it was a fair test. I say that until I see the solutions.
__________________
ASA EA, DAU SS Mod, FE Mod, ERM Mod,
RPIRM, DMAC, FAC
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.51766 seconds with 11 queries