AnLaPe
About
- Username
- AnLaPe
- Joined
- Visits
- 253
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
Thanks, that makes perfect sense
-
I had some trouble with this question as well and found these old posts with good discussion: * https://www.battleactsmain.ca/vanillaforum/discussion/355/spring-2019-q18-b#latest * https://www.battleactsmain.ca/vanillaforum/discussion/341/2019…
-
It has been changed in the current version of exam 2. See Felix`s comment here: https://www.battleactsmain.ca/vanillaforum/discussion/737/comments-regarding-practice-exam-1#latest
-
Neither, the limit is per occurrence. Here's the relevant section from the source (with old limits): So if you have multiple claims arising from a single occurrence, the limit applies to the total, but for multiple occurrences on the same polic…
-
So probably landmark because it opens the door for social inflation with people bringing forth similar complaints toward cities, and insurers should be aware of this risk when insuring cities.?
-
I'd tend to agree with Bastien, and I answered the exact same way he did when doing the exam, talking about the reforms proposed and not the doctrines themselves. When the question was asked in 2019S-7, they used "legal principles". The current w…
-
Should also note that the section on available capital (p. 32+) is not even on the syllabus, and the syllabus for the 2019S exam used a different version of the paper. It is possible that the wording in the question is based on how it was worded …
-
I wondered the same... Looking at the sample answers, it feels like they wanted us to answer with the impact on the natural cat test. Which I guess is technically correct, the natural cat test will impact the final score, so it does "impact the surp…
-
Oh yeah, you're totally right, for some reason I did not consider this at all! I checked and LRC does indeed stay positive for the whole duration using GMA under these assumptions Thanks!
-
Now that I think about it, maybe it makes sense? If the insured was to cancel right before paying the second payment, the company would get more back from the pre-paid acquisition expenses than they expect to pay for the remaining coverage of the pa…
-
I think he means right before receiving the second payment, like so:
-
Cap is indeed for non-pecuniary damages, here's the intro to the source text
-
I think you are right, the Harris text does very briefly touch on the subject, but there does not seem to be enough details to fully answer the question. This question is based on 2019S-7, for which as you said the wiki notes that the pre-judgm…
-
Yes, exactly!
-
This formula works, when there is a premium deficiency, the terms cancel out and the formula equals 0, and when there is not it gives the equity in the unearned premium reserve. It just seems like a more complex way of writing * max DPAE = m…
-
They might have interpreted the "cap" as the "floor" for the margin, but that's pretty poorly worded if that's the case. Interestingly, they double-down on calling it a cap in the examiner's comments... In any case, since this question is closely…
-
@graham unless I'm misunderstanding the source, it seems to me like you had it right initially and it's the solution that is in error. They seem to have gotten confused with the cap for operational risk at 30% of CR0
-
Oh yeah you are right about the MfAD! Seems to me more and more like the second solution is at best poorly worded, if not outright wrong regarding the market risk and required capital. Thank you!
-
The PIPEDA report concerns a property insurance policy, Ontario regulation 664 is only applicable to automobile insurance
-
I think rapid growth can be ruled out because net earned premium is the same under the base and stressed scenarios. This being said, I'm not sure what kind of ripple effect could cause the assets to increase in this scenario... Maybe increased in…
-
This is my understanding, but I'd like confirmation it is accurate * Companies are taxed on their income, and losses reduce the income * The company estimates that the losses will be RR, the AA estimates that they will be APV * For tax purpo…
-
I believe receivables from reinsurers falls under the second category (prescribed factor), as per the table on p. 65: An interpretation that might make some sense, since as you said they say credit risk and not credit required capital, is tha…
-
150k xs 50k means that the reinsurer covers the layer between 50k and 50k + 150k (i.e. the first 150k in excess of 50k). What you are describing would be 50k xs 150k. As for the factor, the cat loss amount are given as of 0 months, so to calcu…
-
So you are saying that the total participating insurers (10m) already excludes B? Since 200 + 9700 = 9900 Because if the total includes the insolvent insurer, then the sum of the remaining solvent insurers will not sum to 100% and there will be a…
-
@graham some comments regarding exam 2: * 3c: Is this mentioned in one of the FSCO papers currently on the syllabus or is it from the FSCO UBI paper that was removed from the syllabus? I see it is very similar to F2016-6 which is identified as …
-
That is not accurate, it is still on the syllabus (although it is misspelled as Glenn v. Scottish). Since Glynn is the one suing his insurer who refused to pay for his medical bills, I believe that would make him the plaintiff and not the defenda…
-
@graham, this question might have been before its time, but it seems the version of the ORSA paper they were referring is now the one on the syllabus. From what I can see from an old version of the paper found online, the previous version did hav…
-
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 mate…