Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > SoA > EA Exams
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Fill in a brief DW Simpson Registration Form
to be contacted when new jobs meet your criteria.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-02-2017, 09:04 PM
Mogwai Mogwai is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 207
Default 2017 EA2L - PAK?

Anyone putting together a PAK?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-02-2017, 09:13 PM
DiscreteAndDiscreet DiscreteAndDiscreet is offline
Member
AAA
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 478
Default

Try this:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...rm?usp=sf_link
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-02-2017, 09:15 PM
Double_Zero_Six Double_Zero_Six is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 143
Default

It is 9pm ET...

I feel very frustrated. I put in a lot of time and effort for this 2nd sitting after getting a 5 last year. I went through the 2008-2016 exams extensively and even did the EA2A 415 and 416 questions from 2008-2012. I actually re-did each of the 2011-2016 exams under timed conditions the last 2 weeks before the exam and averaged a score of 97 on those 6 exams. So that's how well I knew the prior exam questions.

Yet they still managed to test things that have never been tested before. This year, the biggest kick to the groin was a 5 point non-discrimination MVAR question where the testing period was all prior years (as opposed to current year) and the testing compensation was FAE5 (which in addition to the plan year being 7/1-6/30 and each year's compensation was limited by 401a17). I don't work in Single Employer, so I have never encountered this and had to wildly guess as to how it should be done. I'm sure I missed a trick somewhere and got the question wrong.

With 2F for the fall 2016 sitting, there were only a couple of 4/5 point calculation questions that came out of nowhere and weren't asked before, which if I remember were the Liquidity Shortfall with extra contributions and the Full Funding Limit, 2 questions out of a 160 point exam. For this exam, I felt like there were a solid 3/4 calculation questions where this was the case, out of 100 points.

If I don't pass this sitting, I really don't think I have what it takes. I have no idea how to approach this exam differently next time. Somehow I didn't feel confident going into the exam because I had a gut feeling they were going to test things that have never been tested before and would completely blindside me, but it is impossible to predict what those questions would be. This is an exam where you either know it or don't. If you've never seen the specific scenario, you won't be able to figure it out during the exam. So I really don't know what to do!!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-02-2017, 09:16 PM
Double_Zero_Six Double_Zero_Six is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mogwai View Post
Anyone putting together a PAK?
These PAKs are almost always wildly inaccurate. I'm just going to wait for the official answers to come out in 3 weeks.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-02-2017, 09:30 PM
Mogwai Mogwai is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 207
Default

Did anyone save point values?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-02-2017, 09:30 PM
Mark529 Mark529 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Double_Zero_Six View Post
These PAKs are almost always wildly inaccurate. I'm just going to wait for the official answers to come out in 3 weeks.
This is my first time taking an EA exam - I hadn't realized they post official answers in 3 weeks and didn't read that anywhere. Where does it list that information?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-02-2017, 09:41 PM
DiscreteAndDiscreet DiscreteAndDiscreet is offline
Member
AAA
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Double_Zero_Six View Post
It is 9pm ET...

I feel very frustrated. I put in a lot of time and effort for this 2nd sitting after getting a 5 last year. I went through the 2008-2016 exams extensively and even did the EA2A 415 and 416 questions from 2008-2012. I actually re-did each of the 2011-2016 exams under timed conditions the last 2 weeks before the exam and averaged a score of 97 on those 6 exams. So that's how well I knew the prior exam questions.

Yet they still managed to test things that have never been tested before. This year, the biggest kick to the groin was a 5 point non-discrimination MVAR question where the testing period was all prior years (as opposed to current year) and the testing compensation was FAE5 (which in addition to the plan year being 7/1-6/30 and each year's compensation was limited by 401a17). I don't work in Single Employer, so I have never encountered this and had to wildly guess as to how it should be done. I'm sure I missed a trick somewhere and got the question wrong.

With 2F for the fall 2016 sitting, there were only a couple of 4/5 point calculation questions that came out of nowhere and weren't asked before, which if I remember were the Liquidity Shortfall with extra contributions and the Full Funding Limit, 2 questions out of a 160 point exam. For this exam, I felt like there were a solid 3/4 calculation questions where this was the case, out of 100 points.

If I don't pass this sitting, I really don't think I have what it takes. I have no idea how to approach this exam differently next time. Somehow I didn't feel confident going into the exam because I had a gut feeling they were going to test things that have never been tested before and would completely blindside me, but it is impossible to predict what those questions would be. This is an exam where you either know it or don't. If you've never seen the specific scenario, you won't be able to figure it out during the exam. So I really don't know what to do!!
In the last 15 seconds of the exam, I came to the conclusion that the effect of the limitation year on the 5 year FAE had no effect on the answer. Since the benefit formula uses testing compensation as a component and the answer is a percentage of testing compensation, testing compensation has no impact on the answer.

I felt adequately prepared for the material covered, but I found ambiguous phrasing on a number of problems unnerving.

What was up with the variable premium question where they wrote that there were 114 employees and 114 active participants but never confirmed that the total participant count was 114?

Another one was a I/II/III question where it said the accrued benefit attributable to mandatory employee contributions was the accumulated balance "expressed as an annuity payable at normal retirement". I was uncertain whether "expressed" was intended to mean "converted to" (which would make the statement true) or if the statement was meant to read as though the accumulated balance itself was an amount payable as an annuity (which makes the statement false).

The question on post-EA continuing education requirements was a bit too cruel for my taste. Do they really expect any EA candidates to memorize administrative details of being an EA?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-02-2017, 09:41 PM
DiscreteAndDiscreet DiscreteAndDiscreet is offline
Member
AAA
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 478
Default

Point values:

1
1
3
3
1
1
3
3
2
4
5
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
3
3
3
3
1
5
1
1
2
3
1
1
3
3
5
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
4
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-02-2017, 09:49 PM
Mogwai Mogwai is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscreteAndDiscreet View Post
In the last 15 seconds of the exam, I came to the conclusion that the effect of the limitation year on the 5 year FAE had no effect on the answer. Since the benefit formula uses testing compensation as a component and the answer is a percentage of testing compensation, testing compensation has no impact on the answer.

I felt adequately prepared for the material covered, but I found ambiguous phrasing on a number of problems unnerving.

What was up with the variable premium question where they wrote that there were 114 employees and 114 active participants but never confirmed that the total participant count was 114?

Another one was a I/II/III question where it said the accrued benefit attributable to mandatory employee contributions was the accumulated balance "expressed as an annuity payable at normal retirement". I was uncertain whether "expressed" was intended to mean "converted to" (which would make the statement true) or if the statement was meant to read as though the accumulated balance itself was an amount payable as an annuity (which makes the statement false).

The question on post-EA continuing education requirements was a bit too cruel for my taste. Do they really expect any EA candidates to memorize administrative details of being an EA?
Yeah that VRP one was quite confusing. It said 114 active participants and 114 employees. And didn't say anything about any other participants (vested terms or retirees). I just used the 114 and calculated the VRP cap and used that.

What about that weird question with the cash balance plan asking about the accrued benefit?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-02-2017, 09:49 PM
Mark529 Mark529 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscreteAndDiscreet View Post
The question on post-EA continuing education requirements was a bit too cruel for my taste. Do they really expect any EA candidates to memorize administrative details of being an EA?
Completely agree! This was the only question I had to completely guess on.
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 03:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 0.48350 seconds with 10 queries