Staff-T1
About
- Username
- Staff-T1
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,786
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
My interpretation is that it refers to the overall indication
-
"What exactly does represent the average of accident date of premium liabilities (vs the "normal" average accident date))?" I think you need to clarify this sentence here. Seems like a word or two is missing. Here is where you can find the deriva…
-
Yeap that's what I meant. Future cash flows and fulfilment cash flows have the same acronym which makes things annoying
-
Well PAA LRC = LRC excl LC + LC. If it is non-onerous, then PAA LRC = LRC Excl LC. Otherwise, you would need to calculate the LC and to calculate the loss component, you would need your FCFs and RA. Yes whether onerous or not, there is no need to…
-
I am answering in relation to the original battlecard highlighted - Runoff in that context means winding down an Accident Year until IBNR and case eventually reaches 0.
-
The smaller your income, the smaller your materiality. It's in the same direction. The source is not saying the larger the size, the smaller your materiality. It is saying for a fixed dollar threshold, the materiality as a % of income would be mor…
-
I scanned the PPA paper and it doesn't say so you shouldn't have to know it for the exam
-
No, I think your original diagram is right. I believe your FCF is defined as outflow - inflow so RA should be an outflow - There are a couple of threads on the definition of FCF and whether it is inflow - outflow or outflow - inflow. In summary, it …
-
I don't think you can deny coverage (underwriting) based on these characteristics but definitely allowed for marketing if I recall
-
Gross of reinsurance
-
No examples - You can check the full table on page 30 of the KPMG paper
-
Direct participation features allow policyholders to share in the profit and losses of the underlying business. It is mainly a life insurance concept, maybe universal life or smth. I don't think P&C has policies that have direct participation fe…
-
I don't think the subsequent event paper relates to the time between ruling 1 and 2 as this paper was written in 2012. I think they are just giving a hypothetical answer. Always answer the legal cases EXACTLY as they are in the legal papers source m…
-
The source is just saying it is much harder for a company making 1000M in net income to meet a 2M materiality threshold than for a company making 10M to meet that same 2M dollar threshold. I don't see any contradiction here
-
At the end of the 6th year of projection, the insurer should the deficit on within 15 years on average, and have an 80% chance to recover within 25 years. Yes, it would be 15 years AFTER the 6th year has passed so 21 years in total for criteria 1
-
Did you read the Battlecard for Aviva vs Pastore? It summarizes the conclusion really well + the sample answers from the related past exam question is quite succinct in its summary
-
Regulator and regulatory body can be used interchangeably. The CIA regulates actuaries, and OSFI regulates insurers. The CIA has no power to regulate insurers
-
Yes, you would have to use the issue year method. The reason this simplification works is because the yield curve does not vary by issue year which is not the case in practice, and may not be the case in the actual exam
-
I think it really depends on your examiner. Some may be more lenient, some won't
-
I believe that was not in the study kit. If so, while true it won't be relevant for the exam
-
You would have to understand what each item means - Provisions for credit losses is quite obviously a loss so you'd have to reduce your investment income. However, when the title has "(losses)" in it, you would generally just sum everything for that…
-
Haha I think for the legal cases it is better to just memorise without thinking too much about it. No extra marks for critical thinking here
-
@graham Do you happen to have the syllabus from Fall 2022?
-
Yeap it is correct
-
That's how I would interpret it - They can first get licensed in a province outside the one it was incorporated in and then carry on their business without being regulated by the federal government
-
Initially, the insurer was arguing that the act is ultra vires with respect to Ontario. The company is arguing vs an Ontario act that is trying to legislate to deprive a federally incorporated company of its status and capacity. I think you got it m…
-
I am not sure. The MCT paper only says it is the amount of payables to the insurer not included in A2. This is more an accounting concept rather than actuarial
-
Well how would you determine the deduction without checking your LOC limit?
-
No, risk factors in the MCT are applied to unpaid claims , premium liab etc to get a capital required amount while risk factors in the FCT are more akin to sets of assumptions
-
Yeah it is not on the syllabus