CIRCA-F: federal solvency regulations

chrisboersmachrisboersma
in Baer.Intro

Please review the CIRCA-F and CIRC-P definitions and related exam questions.

There seems to be a misunderstanding between: Baer & Rendall, which is about any and all (provincial or federal) regulations that "promote solvency". Where as the McDonald reading refers only to federal regulations that concern solvency for federally regulated (or foreign insurers). A bunch of the questions: Sp2016, F2015, F2012, Sp2017, Sp2018 all have similar answers that come straight out of McDonald (A2-7)..

An obvious provincial regulation that promotes solvency is "adequacy of rates", which is not regulated by the federal government.

Spring 2015 is an example of Baer question when it mentions "promotes solvency"

From McD.Intro

CIRCA-F are relates to financial soundness whereas CIRC-P is broader because it includes financial soundness, as well as relating to insurance regulation in general.

Baer should include any and all regulations that might promote solvency (at all levels)
McDonald should include any and all federal regulations that might concern solvency.

Note: promote suggests there could be legislation that might not concern solvency directly, but may promote it (eg. adequacy of rates). Which makes the Baer definition very broad (almost anything is allowed as long as it promotes solvency) and the McDonald definition (federal legislation) very strict (you better list all 4 items exactly as presented to get full marks).

Comments

  • javidjavid

    Thank you. I'm forwarding this to @graham.

  • grahamgraham

    Hello Chris,

    Thanks for pointing this out. Your comments are valid and I have edited the relevant sections in both the Baer & Rendall, and the McDonald wiki articles.

    Graham

  • bkmlocksbkmlocks

    In the Battlecodes for the Baer Wiki, one of the bullet is

    -6 areas of federal legislation regarding financial soundness of insurance companies: CIRCA-F".

    I think this should say Canadian legislation (federal and provincial)? Since Federal legislation would relate to CIRC-P from McD?

  • grahamgraham

    I think you're right. I have changed that item under the BattleCodes to be consistent with what I wrote above in the BattleTables section.

    The BattleCodes at the bottom was something I did before I came up with the idea of the BattleTables at the top. In the BattleTables section, I list the things you need to know based on past exams so that BattleCodes at the bottom is pretty much the same thing. Do you find the BattleCodes useful given that it's similar to the BattleTables section?

    I didn't want to delete the BattleCodes, but I don't pay too much attention to them anymore and I wasn't sure if others paid much attention to them either. Just let me know. I'm curious. Thx. :-)

  • bkmlocksbkmlocks

    Thank you Graham!

    I agree that the BattleCodes and BattleTables are similar but I particularly find the BattleCodes quite useful for reviewing and for prioritizing what I will remember first.
    There is often a lot of facts in the BattleCards to remember but I tend to focus on memorizing what you have listed in your BattleCodes first and then go back to the other facts.

    The way I see the BattleTable is like a summary/guide to help me understand the different parts of the paper. For example for the Chev.Agriculture paper, the BattleTable tells me that there are 6 BRM that I should know.

    However the Battlecode tells me in more details what is important. For example it tells me that out of the 6BRM, AgriInsurance is the most important and I should be able to list the adjustments to historical yield.

    Please let me know what you think of my approach of using the BattleCodes and BattleTables :)

  • grahamgraham

    Ok, I see what you mean. The BattleCodes give you something in between the BattleTables and the BattleCards. I will leave them in and review them from time to time. Thanks!

Sign In or Register to comment.