Rate Regulatory Approaches
KPMG, “Research Report – Best Practices for Actuarial Involvement in the Regulatory Oversight of Property and Casualty Insurance Rates,” December 2012, pp. 21-31.
RE: Description of Rate Regulatory Approaches
Do we know why pages 17 - 20 were excluded from the reading here? Based on Spring 2015 exam they seem relevant and helpful in the context of understanding the approaches listed on pages 21 - 31.
Comments
Same article:
When they refer to New Brunswick , why do they not call it "Prior Approval with Deemer provision".
Similarly for Newfoundland, why do they not refer to it as a "Flex Rating" system. When clearly it has different rules depending on the changes requested: Decrease - "File & Use" / Increase (on any factor): prior-approval.
For your first question regarding why pages 17-20 were excluded, I emailed that same question to the CAS about a year ago. All they said was that candidates are expected to know relevant material that supports the syllabus material. (Kind of a non-answer. You could really go down some rabbit holes if you took that to heart!)
I think it's wise to cover pages 17-20 even though it's technically not on the syllabus. I kept it in the BattleActs content, and it's pretty easy.
About the deemer provision in New Brunswick, I got that same question in an email a while back and I don't know why they don't call it what you said. I didn't bother emailing the CAS about it because based on my experience with them, I don't think they would provide a satisfactory response.
About flex rating in NF, I agree it looks like flex-rating where the band might be (-infinity, 0) for file & use. Then any rate change outside that range would be an increase and subject to prior approval. Possibly the reason they don't call it flex-rating, and I'm guessing, is that it doesn't appear to be used in Canada at all, and possibly not widely even in the U.S., so instead of complicating things with a new regulatory approach, they just describe it in terms of regulatory approaches that are already familiar.
On a more encouraging note, this is a relatively low-ranked paper, currently at number 32, and well within the bottom 20%. That means there likely won't be any questions other than what's already been asked.