there are a couple of rumors, but obviously no hard evidence
There was the rumour about the papers in 2004 that were marked with the wrong key, so people who were confident of passing received band 2.
There are however a far greater number of people who play the lottery compared to those who retab. Even if everyone who had ever failed retabbed that would only be 1,281,990 and the odds of winning the lottery are much lower than 1 in 1,281,990. I would guess that there probably are a few mistakes made but in marking papers that have either passed easily or failed miserably, with the papers around the pass mark I would guess are checked several times for accuracy so the likelihood of someone getting a band 10 and then bumped to a pass would be very minimal. That said there is still a large human element in collating the scores for level 3 (or at least so I understand) so the possibility for errors are there.
Anyway they way I see it is a retab is the ultimate risky asset… the potential for gains is massive but the possibility is very small (or almost nonexistent), I would estimate that the potential upside for me would be a minimum of $23,150 ($650 exam fee + 3 months free time at $7,500 a month) so the initial gamble of $100 seems minimal… As with all risky assets you should only put in what you can afford to lose and I am fortunate enough that I can afford to lose $100. I’d do the same if band 10 next year and still not expect anything to change…
I would think it is more comparable to a call option… Considering max loss is only $100, I wouldn’t call that risky.
Its payoff is like that of a digital/binary option…either you get your full payout of 23 grand or you lose your entire 100 dollar principal. And you are much more likely to lose your entire principal…I’d say that’s a risky asset.
Admittedly the loss of $100 isn’t financially crippling but the definition of a risky asset isn’t defined by the principal (in my opinion), but the likelihood of loss of investment.
If you have an asset where you have a 99.9999% (possibly more) that you are going to lose your principal investment then that is a risky asset regardless of whether the principal is $100 or $100,000.
The idea would be that you wouldn’t assign the core principal of your portfolio to the risky asset layer because the chance of loss is so great (although you couldn’t invest in multiple retabs as no one has (to my knowledge) built a product based on these…).
Essentially it is a binary option as S666 says, although I could add in a flexible amount for the time taken for the retab to be completed, i.e. it is worth more to me if they come back and say the retab has successfully converted to a pass after one day than a week, as I would have already dedicated some of my time to studying.
Assuming you’re probabilities are correct, I guess you’re right. Either way, I think it’s worth a retab if you’re band 10.
Million dollar qs. is OP ready to share the results of his retab? Either way? If yes, then it benefits the forum and all those 1300 band 10 ers. If not, then it is useless debating on the number $100. it is painful being band 10. It is worst. But for the worth of it, it still is on the less desired side of the river bank. A fail is a fail and a pass is a pass. There is some sanctity to why people who pass only frivolously visit AF with the exception of s2000 and a few other benevolent ones.
Bottom line, lest one buys the bait and shares the retab results honestly with the folks the status quo is maintained.
15 months lol… I started level 1… seven years ago in 2009
Yep, it came back as confirmed as a band 10 fail (do I get $1m for answering that?)… But to be honest that doesn’t really give you any insight to whether a retab would be worth it for you or 100s of others, we don’t know if my paper was the anomaly amongst the level 10 fails and the only one marked correct without all band 10 papers being remarked.
As mentioned in an earlier post, I suspect that there are errors in marking as from what I understand it is a manual process, but would wager that these errors occur with 1/2 marks in the papers of people who have failed by a significant margin or passed by a significant margin, I suspect at band 10 the error rate would be less than 0.001% so it would take a significant amount of retabbed papers before an error was discovered.
A bit off-topic here: but with absolutely NO oversight whatsoever from anyone on individual exams (you never get to see your graded exam), I believe it’s highly likely that an occasional mistake is made where one’s score matrix is not even there own. No one is ever the wiser to it since there is no oversight. With such a cryptic and mysterious grading process, this could be a frequent occurrence and never come to light. Regardless of the frequency, I’m certain that it does happen from time to time at best and reasonably often at worse…