ChristoRoyer
About
- Username
- ChristoRoyer
- Joined
- Visits
- 31
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
That answers the need, thank you!
-
I'm not really convinced by the argument of the Supreme Court. I get that the key time was the moment of the accident and that moment of the accident there was a subrogation right. But saying thay is admitting that in the end, it is a fact the insur…
-
Further more, on page. A2-4, something seems contradictory. It says: "[...] an insurance company incorporated in one province could carry on business in another province without being regulated by the federal Government". However, just after, it …
-
Nevermind in that case. It's just the first time I see a long abbreviation (looks like a trick to learn it) like that in the Wiki so I thought that it was just something that was in another Wiki page before. After reading the wiki a second time, I r…
-
I was surprised too at first to see it was based on the non-ceded premium, but when thinking about this more thoroughly, it really makes sense. Actually, I feel like the pool works only because it is based on the non-ceded premium (unless the regula…
-
I had the exact same reasoning victory1995 has. Do you think both answers would be accepted by the graders?
-
Thank you for the summary! There is one detail I'm not sure about the Sample Answer 1. If a payment of $350,000 is made to the insured by the insurer, couldn't we assume it is net of deductible? Meaning the insured has already assume the $1,000 eve…
-
So if I understand well, the assessment is done whenever an insurer becomes insolvent, is that right? So to summarize: * When an insurer becomes insolvant, PACICC can advance the amounts to the policyholders of the insolvent insurer with a loa…
-
Awesome, thank you!
-
Similarly, in Question Fall 2019 #11 b., it is suggested to have a Mandatory program. This way it maximize the take-up. But it also says that we should be using a Bundled coverage to ensure subsidization between low-risk and high-risk. Isn't it re…
-
In that case, what is the inherent between Option and bundled? I thought that bundled wa a synonym of Opt out and Optional a synonym of opt-in. If both options can be opt-in or opt-out, what is the difference between Optional and Bundled?
-
I have a question concerning the cost the government is paying. By calculating the (Frequency X Severity), we get the premium that needs to be paid to cover the losses in average. Am I right to say this correspond to the total premium paid by those…
-
Makes sense, thank you!
-
Ok, that's what I thought! The text ad the wiki is just a bit confusing since it links the Loss Recovery Component to point 2. But that makes sense, thank you!
-
Ohh I see! So Interactive meeting is purely qualitative. Makes sense
-
Can we really say that EPD = TVaR @99%? From what I understood, the EPD is a ratio and the BCAR capital requirement is set so the EPD is at 1%. So technically, EPD is "always" 1%. Am I talking non-sense? (I really might)
-
Does that mean that if a group only has policies with Onerous policies, there won't be a Loss Recovery component? The Loss Recovery component only exists when there is a group with both onerous and non onerous policies
-
But is there a link between the Loss Recovery Component and the allocation when Onerous and non-onerous are grouped together?
-
And is it normal that except for MCT/BAAT, there is no formula in the text? Only Name, Description and Acceptable Range. Was it always like that or it changed this year? It is described in words so it should be enough but I was just curious
-
And just to be sure, when we say PV(Future Cashflow), is this PV(Outflow - inflows) or PV(Inflow - Outflow). If I remember well, FCF is a Liability (since it is a compoenent of LRC), so my guess is that it it the former, is it right?
-
Ok I think I understood now. It is probably just the way it was presented in the Figure 5.1 that confused. In the end, Groups are indeed subsets of Portfolio but they are created after Portfolio (within a portfolio). It is simply a question of seque…
-
In the LC example, why is the Loss Component reduced to 0 directly at time 0.5 instead of being amortized over the 4 quarters like the CSM? Is it because during the period, the futur outflows becomes lowers than the future inflows (claim is now paid…
-
Sorry, I mixed up Base scenario and Reference Scenario. I used them interchangeably in my message. And thank you for your explanation, I think that makes more sense like this
-
Actually, I've just noticed a sentence on p. 12: _A Top-down approach wherby the yield to maturity of a reference portfolio of assets is adjusted "to eliminate any factors that are not relevant to insurance contracts". _ Now I'm even more confu…
-
Ah I see, so we do need to read Section V! I guess we don't need to know every every dates, but I will give it a read. Thanks!
-
And where can we find those filing requirements? Unless it is in the Section V, I don't think I saw them in the CCIR Instructions. Probably just a reading I haven't read yet
-
Actually I've just read that in the assets it is the surpluses and in the liabilities it is the deficit, but in the exam, would it be clear which is which?
-
In the FCT reading, it is said that for the Solvency Scenarios, the criterias for being satisfactory is to have Asset higher than Liabilities (for Going Concern MCT > 1). If we make the assumption that all three adverses scenarios shown here are …
-
And similarly, in the FCT the AA needs to report about the Financial Position of the insurer throughout the forecast period. Is this the same thing as the Financial Position report from the text OSFI-AA?
-
Makes sense, thank you!