Actuarial Outpost

Actuarial Outpost (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/index.php)
-   EA Exams (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   2019 EA-2L PAK (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=340379)

blueconno 05-07-2019 06:53 PM

2019 EA-2L PAK
 
Here's a Google Form for the 2019 EA-2L PAK, and here's the link to view the responses.

In the next day or two once we have enough responses, I can put together the analysis spreadsheet.

AllIDoisStudy 05-07-2019 08:39 PM

Can you make it so that we can see the summary of responses?

Thanks for putting this together!

blueconno 05-07-2019 08:58 PM

Ah yes, now you should have access to see the results

murball 05-08-2019 08:15 AM

What is everyone's thought on the exam? I thought I did well coming out of the exam, but the PAK is making me doubt myself.

Actuary507 05-08-2019 09:07 AM

Does anybody remember was #43 was? The answers are very split there. I think it may have been something top heavy related but I really cannot remember

murball 05-08-2019 09:09 AM

I think that was the top heavy question where they said the person was paid $60K+ bonus. I believe they said the pensionable salary didn't include the bonus.

lrbenson81 05-08-2019 09:34 AM

Right, but I believe the trick is that Top-Heavy Compensation is required to be 415(c)(3) Compensation, which includes bonuses.

blueconno 05-08-2019 09:42 AM

1 Attachment(s)
We already have over 50 responses, so here's the initial analysis spreadsheet

Pride4Pride 05-08-2019 09:52 AM

I believe that was the question that needed to use 415 comp AND the 2017 year was not a Top Heavy year for benefit purposes due to participation reasons. From what I remember, there as only 1 top heavy year and full comp had to be used.

maestro803 05-08-2019 09:56 AM

here's everything I remember, and what I thought were the answers (not claiming certainty on anything). No memory at all about question numbers.


top-25 paid employee contribution - solve for X:
(assets - LS value + X) / (liability - LS liability) = 110%

plan may ignore service before age 21 - false (age 18)
plan may ignore service when plan was not in existence - true
plan "may always" ignore service prior to a 5 year BIS - true? (seemed obvious but the wording made me nervous)

plan may choose an environmentally conscious investment if benefits to environment outweigh the possible risks to plan - no way.

actuary may use assumptions that differ significantly from the range of assumptions used by others - yes? (what if everybody else is crazy?)

I blew the normalized accrual rate question with the cash balance and DC.. I couldn't get an answer in the range. interest credit on the cash balance to age 65, and then plan basis conversion factor (the larger number)? and actuarial equivalence on the DC balances, and normalized basis conversion factor (the smaller number)? whatever I did didn't work.

contribution dates differ significantly between client's checks and bank statements - actuary MAY NOT just take the client's word. at work, maybe a day or two we can sweep under the rug, but not if dates differ "significantly."

Long AFTAP question - definitely one of the easier ones ever! 13 years minus 8 months (5 months and 3 months). one trick was to ignore the <60% AFTAP during the first 5 years (2010 or 2011 I think, and I think it was a specific certification at 50%?)

"additional accrual needed for top heavy benefit" - strange wording. but just calculate TH benefit and plan benefit and take difference.

multiemployer rolling-5 question - subtract the outstanding liability claim from the UVB

PBGC premium question that did NOT opt out of the lookback - use headcounts as of 12/31/2018, but use funding results as of 1/1/2018.

MVAR question where there was a fully subsidized benefit at age 62 - plan ERF was 1.00 going from age 65 back to 62 (for Smith) or 63 (for Jones); use AE to determine optional form factor.

reversion question - initial excess assets as 900K. transferred minimum required amount to QRP, meaning the total amendment/QRP amount was the minimum 25%. 900K * (1-25%) * 20% tax = 135K

PBGC MGB multiemployer question - ignore amendment that occurred during last 5 years.

accrued benefit question that had a weird salary history with no pattern, some years over the 401(a)(17) limit - highest 3 was the first 3 years. counted 8 years of 1000 hours, and 7 years from the DOP. final benefit ended up being the dollar limit x 7/10.

4044 Guaranteed benefits question - the second participant had <5 YOS at plan term, so he was not vested. but I can't remember if I decided that he had guaranteed benefits or not...

warehouse/non-warehouse - I think my answer was 35? only one group was excludable, can't remember which group, but the termed employees with 250 hours.

NHCE concentration percentage - exclude the CBA employees.

Plan A withdrew, then a mass withdrawal later; treat plan A as part of mass withdrawal? - yes?

2% owner was NOT a key employee - didn't have the salary either to qualify as a 1% owner nor as an officer.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Page generated in 0.11106 seconds with 9 queries