Yup I agree - We should sum both columns (72) and (74) @graham . Technically, the correct definition is not that the LIC/AIC both uses the GMA approach, it is that LIC/AIC is the same under PAA and GMA. The reason it is split out is for presentation purposes
I don't quite understand - if LIC/AIC should be the same under PAA and GMA, shouldn't the figures in (72) and (74) be the same and shouldn't we only be using one of them?
Let's say you measure warranty using the GMA approach and personal auto using the PAA approach. The AIC for warranty would go to column (74) and the AIC for personal auto would go into column (72). The method of arriving at the answer, is the same for warranty and auto, that is taking the PVFCF and applying a risk adjustment. There is no 'simplification' for LIC/AIC measured under the PAA
Comments
Yup I agree - We should sum both columns (72) and (74) @graham . Technically, the correct definition is not that the LIC/AIC both uses the GMA approach, it is that LIC/AIC is the same under PAA and GMA. The reason it is split out is for presentation purposes
I don't quite understand - if LIC/AIC should be the same under PAA and GMA, shouldn't the figures in (72) and (74) be the same and shouldn't we only be using one of them?
Let's say you measure warranty using the GMA approach and personal auto using the PAA approach. The AIC for warranty would go to column (74) and the AIC for personal auto would go into column (72). The method of arriving at the answer, is the same for warranty and auto, that is taking the PVFCF and applying a risk adjustment. There is no 'simplification' for LIC/AIC measured under the PAA