Staff-T1
About
- Username
- Staff-T1
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,786
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Probably cause the insurer feels they could settle for a lower amount in court. I believe he sued them once. He sued them when the final damages to be awarded was determined to be 78K. Guardian paid 50K after the final amount due of 78K was determ…
-
The first argument is that he had a contractual right to recover under his own insurance policy for injuries sustained in the accident. The second argument is that he also had the right to pursue a third-party claim against the at-fault driver, who…
-
Let's say I owe someone 500 dollars. If he decides one day to cancel my debt for no reason, my net worth has gone up by 500 dollars. Apply this example to an insurer. If I have a liability of 580 and this liability disappears, the insurer is now …
-
When the new MCT paper came out, OSFI were trying to minimize the impact of transitioning to IFRS17 on an insurer's capital position (i.e. they did not want insurers to suffer an adverse movement on their capital simply due to the transition to IFRS…
-
You are right in that is what the graph is implying. For IFRS17 implementations, what we would do is similar to the above graph. However, we would not carry out a PAA eligibility test on those contracts < 1 year in length. So, how would you kn…
-
I would just memorize the formulas - These are addendums to the MSA.ratio papers bringing in some new formulas for IFRS17. The MSA.ratios paper is just a paper of various ratios so this is just them adding more IFRS17 specific ratios
-
okay
-
* Yes that's right. So the LRC ex LC (UEP - DAC) is only related to the PAA measurement. If you are not measuring a group of contracts using PAA, then there is **no need **to calculate the LRC ex LC. * Yes to the first statement but see above respo…
-
Nope - You'd need to elaborate on each of them
-
you need to wait 30 days. In Ontario, if FSRA has not said anything after 30 days I believe that they can still require changes after you have implemented the new rates.
-
thats right
-
yifanwang summarised it accurately
-
I believe the latest MSA ratio paper is from 2020. That's the one I have from the latest study kit. Most of the changes for MSA are in the MSA.legends paper though
-
No, the criteria for PAA eligibility is an if an only if statement. Which means if one of the statements doesn't hold (either > 1 year, or significant variability) then the group is not PAA eligible
-
If you are measuring under GMM then it would just be whatever it takes to net your FCF to 0 at time 0
-
independent just means done by an external party who should hopefully have an unbiased view of things. To your point, they are not completely independent. Even auditors are paid by their clients so they are not completely independent
-
I see your points. However, if you circle to section 5.2 of the RA paper to the general CoC formula and take t = 1 as 2023, you will see why the formula makes sense in the sample questions. It really depends on when you would see as the period tha…
-
I would just stick to the first formula posted by OP above
-
The MCT formula has changed last year, so the answer key is no longer correct
-
Very neat! CSP-CSP, I like it @graham
-
Your true profit on this group of contract is 4165. You are holding a liability of 580. At the end of the contract coverage if everything happens exactly as expected, you release your liability for +580, and you realize a profit for +4165. Your tota…
-
Couple of comments on this: * Forecasts of an event do not necessarily translate to a Cat event for a given insured. * But let's say we knew 100% that it was going to hit in an area with substantial exposures. We would then proceed on the left…
-
Yes but the source of those claims are happening in the contract boundary. For example, I have a policy in force for 2023 and I have an accident in June 2023. Yes I could be having payments 10 years later, but the cash flows are due to an event that…
-
Odomirok page 374 is talking about premium liabilities? Are you sure you are referring to the correct article? (Maybe I am looking at the wrong one)
-
That's right. An RSP is solely the consequence of a residual market. The main reason for the take all comers rule is that auto insurance is mandatory
-
I don't see anything on page 12 related to that. Section 5.1 and 5.2 is what OP is referring to
-
You wouldn't explicitly deny them, you'd just charge them an exorbitant price that they cannot afford to pay which would mean they have to go to FARM for coverage. This does not happen in Alberta for example as you would have to charge the minimum o…
-
"The material doesn't explicitly say how the losses are allocated for FARM. However, looking at bullet point 1 and 2 on page 4 it would seem like it is being allocated based on an insurer's Auto book excluding RSP risks" The source does not speci…
-
Financial risk relates to interest rates, inflation, currency, equity risk etc. Economic risk relates to things like politics, regulation, recessions, etc. So no they are not interchangeable
-
The portability rule requires that out of province residents receive care without delay, similar to what you described above. If you have to revert to your home province, that means you would have to go back to ON to receive treatment. Your exam…