Both readings are about discount rates but the new reading relates to the new IFRS 17 accounting standards. Some material from the old discounting reading will carry over and some of it won't.
I will complete the wiki articles for the new readings over Jan and Feb. (Unfortunately, the Spring 2021 syllabus was released very late this cycle.)
Is CIA.Discnt still a valid reading? I see it on the syllabus but not on the BA ranking table, however it's still in the BA by alphabetical order table
What you're seeing in the syllabus is the new version of the CIA reading on discounting. It's completely different from the old reading even though the abbreviation in the syllabus is the same. This new reading covers the IFRS 17 method for discounting. Here's the link to the new version:
In wiki page CCIR.ARinstr - section Alphabet City, it mentions CIA.Discnt paper in "This is easy and is explained in CIA.Discnt" which makes me wonder if it's covered and why it's not part of ranking table. The replies above answer my questions.That paper is removed from the syllabus and I don't need to worry about it.
If my understanding is correct, I have a small suggestion that it could be helpful to note that the reading is removed from the syllabus in CIA.Discnt's wiki page and in CCIR.ARinstr's related section. It may save time for people like me to figure that out.
Yes, that's a good point, thanks. I have now edited the page but left the link to the explanation and mentioned it's from an outdated reading. Sorry you lost time tracking that down. It should be clearer now.
The CIA duration text also still mentions this reading in a similar fashion.
While digging, I also found that the following battletables referenced the text and the sub-questions were not marked as outdated. Is it because you judged that the material is still covered elsewhere in the syllabus?
The broader issue is the move from current CIA standards to IFRS 17 standards. There are still a lot of syllabus readings related to the CIA standards but now there are also 6 readings related to the IFRS 17 standards and they conflict with each other
Regarding your specific question, when an exam question draws material from multiple readings, it makes it harder for me to keep track of which subparts are outdated and I don't always notice all the instances where this happens. Anything that refers to the CIA.Discnt reading is indeed outdated and I have inserted a note at the top of that reading so that if anyone clicks the link, they will see that right away. In the CIA.MfAD article, I've also marked problems that refer to CIA.Discnt as outdated (by highlighting them in orange.)
The same issue exists with the CIA.Duration reading. That reading uses old CIA standards but is still on the syllabus and refers to the old CIA.Discnt reading which is NOT on the syllabus. I think the exam committee just isn't being careful about maintaining consistency across readings and I don't believe these conflicts can be resolved until the CAS sorts it out on their end.
Comments
Both readings are about discount rates but the new reading relates to the new IFRS 17 accounting standards. Some material from the old discounting reading will carry over and some of it won't.
I will complete the wiki articles for the new readings over Jan and Feb. (Unfortunately, the Spring 2021 syllabus was released very late this cycle.)
Is it CIA.IFRS.DR in the Battle Table?
Sorry for the delay in responding. This post got stuck in my drafts and I just noticed.
It's shown in the Battle Table as CIA.IFRS17-DR. I'm working on this now and the wiki article will be available by the end of January.
Hi,
Is CIA.Discnt still a valid reading? I see it on the syllabus but not on the BA ranking table, however it's still in the BA by alphabetical order table
Thanks
What you're seeing in the syllabus is the new version of the CIA reading on discounting. It's completely different from the old reading even though the abbreviation in the syllabus is the same. This new reading covers the IFRS 17 method for discounting. Here's the link to the new version:
I just forgot to remove the old version from the alphabetical listing. Thanks for letting me know. I have now removed it.
Hi graham,
In wiki page CCIR.ARinstr - section Alphabet City, it mentions CIA.Discnt paper in "This is easy and is explained in CIA.Discnt" which makes me wonder if it's covered and why it's not part of ranking table. The replies above answer my questions.That paper is removed from the syllabus and I don't need to worry about it.
If my understanding is correct, I have a small suggestion that it could be helpful to note that the reading is removed from the syllabus in CIA.Discnt's wiki page and in CCIR.ARinstr's related section. It may save time for people like me to figure that out.
Thanks.
Yes, that's a good point, thanks. I have now edited the page but left the link to the explanation and mentioned it's from an outdated reading. Sorry you lost time tracking that down. It should be clearer now.
The CIA duration text also still mentions this reading in a similar fashion.
While digging, I also found that the following battletables referenced the text and the sub-questions were not marked as outdated. Is it because you judged that the material is still covered elsewhere in the syllabus?
Hi @AnLaPe
I had a medical emergency today (Thursday) so I will hopefully get to your question sometime over this Fri/Sat/Sun.
@graham
Ok, I'm back.
The broader issue is the move from current CIA standards to IFRS 17 standards. There are still a lot of syllabus readings related to the CIA standards but now there are also 6 readings related to the IFRS 17 standards and they conflict with each other
Regarding your specific question, when an exam question draws material from multiple readings, it makes it harder for me to keep track of which subparts are outdated and I don't always notice all the instances where this happens. Anything that refers to the CIA.Discnt reading is indeed outdated and I have inserted a note at the top of that reading so that if anyone clicks the link, they will see that right away. In the CIA.MfAD article, I've also marked problems that refer to CIA.Discnt as outdated (by highlighting them in orange.)
The same issue exists with the CIA.Duration reading. That reading uses old CIA standards but is still on the syllabus and refers to the old CIA.Discnt reading which is NOT on the syllabus. I think the exam committee just isn't being careful about maintaining consistency across readings and I don't believe these conflicts can be resolved until the CAS sorts it out on their end.