

FlashChat  Actuarial Discussion  Preliminary Exams  CAS/SOA Exams  Cyberchat  Around the World  Suggestions 
DW Simpson 
Actuarial Salary Surveys 
Actuarial Meeting Schedule 
Contact DW Simpson 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
#3




What do you think a reasonable assumption would be about each of the three target employees outlined in the task (i.e. 50k, 100k and 200k) with regards to :
1  The number of years of past service 2  Their initial age When they say "Career Employee" does that mean that they expect us to start the employee (with the three levels of salary) at age 30 with 0 years of prior service? Additionally, Task 1 says "confirm a target defined benefit pension for a career employee of the chocolate factory" but then later below the title in bold it says that "your task [is to] determine whether the proposed benefit formula is appropriate for the following .. " My question is the following : did people put much effort into solving for values that got you above the 70% replacement ratio? or simply say that the 1.3 up to CPP and 1.75 above CPP was not sufficient and move on? Thanks Last edited by hyphis; 06142017 at 03:52 AM.. Reason: Additional Question 
#4




Quote:
As far as the formula. I plan on testing the 3 employees with the given formula, and if it fails to hit 70% for all 3, provide an alternative formula that will. This raises another question though. What is the 70% referencing? It seems the replacement ratio formula (let's say for the CPP) is using 25% of 2 years ago salary, and the denominator of the prior year's salary. This makes it not be equal to 25% but 24% for every year which just looks strange to me. Also note that the Salary input is the "prior year earnings" so for row 1, it's comparing it to two years ago, vs the prior year (but labeling current year!). Are we supposed to be altering something here?
__________________
 Jet Last edited by Jet0L19; 06242017 at 09:21 PM.. 
#5




Quote:
I think one could always stop at just elaborating on given replacement ratios since task 1 didn't ask for an improved formula or anything, but not being able to change that 64% kinda drove me crazy. 
#6




For task 1 i just said it wasn't sufficient. Pretty sure it's impossible due to the 1.5% limit on the higher paid employee and the low covered comp limit for the cpp. I don't think you are required to produce another db formula in task 1. In task 2 you are producing a dc formula that meets the 70% replacement ratio
__________________
Be prepared to be overwhelmed by cuteness!!!! Spoiler: Spoiler: 
#7




I didn't alter any formulas. If we are supposed to that seems like an odd trick to throw at us
__________________
Be prepared to be overwhelmed by cuteness!!!! Spoiler: Spoiler: 
#8




This raises another question though. What is the 70% referencing?
It seems the replacement ratio formula (let's say for the CPP) is using 25% of 2 years ago salary, and the denominator of the prior year's salary. This makes it not be equal to 25% but 24% for every year which just looks strange to me. Also note that the Salary input is the "prior year earnings" so for row 1, it's comparing it to two years ago, vs the prior year (but labeling current year!). Are we supposed to be altering something here?[/quote] Yes, I also confused about this part. Why the worksheet is using the prior year earning to calculate the pension benefit.
__________________
No Plan B, Just Do It! 
#9




Quote:
Since I didn't meet 70% about each of the three employees without revise any formula in the worksheet. I consider it is inappropriate about this formula based on the assumption provided by our colleague.
__________________
No Plan B, Just Do It! 
#10




Yes that's what you are testing
__________________
Be prepared to be overwhelmed by cuteness!!!! Spoiler: Spoiler: 
Tags 
eom 3, eom3, eom3 task 1, eom3 task2 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  

