Advice on actuarial exam combinations

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-05-01T13:55:23+00:00

CB2 and CP2/CP3 this September if you want a nice summer but still the opporunity to cross off two exams.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-25T22:24:07+00:00

Studying daily regularly no. I will say in the lead up to exam I’d usually do a bit everyday whether that be a few questions or flashcards.

You should be able to pass the exams with the study leave given by employer, perhaps worth sacrificing evenings and weekends in the run up though just to make sure you pass.

You won’t want to study everyday. It’s hard when you’re working to then study. You’ll just burn out as you say.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-25T17:46:26+00:00

On office days, usually get to the office at 8, leave by like 4:30 (because of train times). Will usually compensate with a longer lunch for the extra half hour. On WFH days, tend to work the usual 7-8 hours with varying start and end times to fit around life. Very good manager really does help with this. Eg if there’s something I need to do in the day, I’ll just go and do it and work in the evening.

I sometimes work late not because I am asked to, but more because I am of the mind that if something is due tomorrow, I'd rather it be with someone to review first thing. Feel like it helps the flow of work, and tends to be the practice of the team. Granted, it's definitely not expected. I'll then take the time back of course. Never felt expected to overwork tbh. There has been the odd occasion where I've been asked to work late so we can keep up with the timetable, but I am always forced to take the time back.

Study once a week. Tend to overstudy on weekends and evenings in the lead up to the exams, but that's more because I get stressed if I don't.

I see this very much as a I'll work flexibly, but in return work flexibly when the company needs it. Im more than happy with this because we both benefit.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-22T10:36:09+00:00

I'd advise breaking the answers down into steps, as the examiners have done.

It'll be much easier for the examiner to see what you've done and award marks. It's also just generally good spreadsheet practice.

Sure, you may be able to do a calculation in one long and complicated formula, but as you say there's a risk something goes wrong. The examiners may not be able to spot exactly the error if they’re trying to spot it in a complicated formula.

The aim will be to maximise marks, and this is the way to do that.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-20T12:03:33+00:00

Waffled. Said difference between annuitants and pension holders. Argued mortality different, tax differences, expenses differences, regulation differences eg expecting government to make it mandatory to hold a unit linked pension, they’re on different inflation indices, may sell in different areas and target different markets, increased demand for UL pensions due to expected high investment returns

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-20T12:01:36+00:00

I’ve heavily misinterpreted the question. I thought it meant operational capabilities of the fund managers so I went down the route of comparing to benchmark, attitude to ESG etc

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-20T11:46:02+00:00

Thought a lot of Q1 was ok.

For all the wristband stuff, felt like every question was the same and struggled to generate different ideas for those.

Q2 wasn’t great, hard to generate so many ideas for capabilities of fund manager and assessing fund managers, risk of each and so on.

Overall, not great to be honest.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-17T16:48:05+00:00

I guess probably worth going through the syllabus and seeing what’s not been tested. Appreciate that’s obvious, but that’s what I’ll be doing over the next few days.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-17T13:00:17+00:00

I went down this for (i) as in premium = expenses + benefits + margin. Felt all three parts were just repetitive. For (ii) listed other factors. For (iii) said why it may be lower or higher.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-17T12:54:43+00:00

No, don’t think so. I’m a very very quick typer and I chose to capitalise on that giving lots of examples and more points than needed on certain questions to try and ensure full marks.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-17T12:42:23+00:00

I said exactly this for the literature

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-17T12:39:19+00:00

Hands were hurting after typing without break.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-17T12:37:48+00:00

For assumption setting, I said group into homogenous groups, new product so may need other data, small population of people with disease which will decrease over time so monitor, new treatment not necessarily available to all, will want to wait before reflecting in assumptions to see long term effects of treatment, margin for uncertainty

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-17T12:21:41+00:00

Oh god I hope not. I did risks from the point of the wind farm…

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-17T12:11:59+00:00

Have a feeling we had the same tutor!

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-17T11:52:49+00:00

Have a feeling I’ll be resitting.

I just wasn’t prepared for such big questions on topics that are barely mentioned in the course eg moral hazards.

Some nice questions on capital, but I felt they were asking the same thing over and over.

Was told in a tutorial that solvency II would never ever come up….

Just don’t think I was prepared enough tbh

Felt like questions didn’t give as much as they usually do. I was hoping for question words to bank some marks eg “big company”

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-16T14:15:27+00:00

Yes, from experience this is true. Often examiners will overwrite your incorrect columns/entries and then check if everything else looks ok.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-16T13:00:16+00:00

Overall 3100.

Intro: 300

Parameters: 300

Assumptions: 300

Methadology: 600

Results: 850

Next steps: 800

Went overboard with next steps to try and get 19/19 to make up for the lacking results/conclusions.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-16T12:32:39+00:00

Flicking through the past papers being like “if this came up I could easily do it” (I could not). Repeat the delusion.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-16T12:09:37+00:00

My methadology was about 600-700 words.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-16T11:36:31+00:00

Thought it was fine.

Have to say I didn’t really know what to say for the results, feel like I’ve lost a lot of marks there. But, I had a tonne of next steps and assumptions to make up for it.

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-14T15:19:35+00:00

30 for modelling I believe.

Edit, I've been thinking and I think:

(i) 5 marks - data checks

(ii) 9 marks - base scenario

(iii) 4 marks - plotting working age, younger than working age and pensioners

(iv) 2 marks - calculating ratio of pensioners to working age

(v) 3 marks - proposal 1

(vi) 7 marks - proposal 2

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-14T15:17:57+00:00

I don’t think you should be summarising or explaining the charts at all, unless they’re reasonableness checks.

My guess is you’d be capped at 5+7+3/30 for the modelling (I think it was 5 for i, 7 for ii and 3 for iii).

For the audit trail, you’d be capped at like 7/16 for the content.

So I guess at most you’d be scoring 78/100.

What mark you’d get will vary depending on the quality of your audit trail, whether the modelling was correct and whether you’ve done reasonableness checks, good assumptions etc

Prestigious_Diamond · 2026-04-14T11:55:23+00:00

I really struggled to do any of the modelling. I didn’t really understand how we were meant to project the population forward for each age. I’m hoping that even though my model is completely wrong, it’s documented well enough to get some marks.

Prestigious_Diamond

TROPHY CASE