Staff_J1
About
- Username
- Staff_J1
- Joined
- Visits
- 207
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Yes, I think you have the right points. Just some extra details for you for the "when using a model outside expertise" * The extent to which the model has been reviewed by experts in the applicable field; and * The risk rating associate…
-
For example 2, you are getting a advance - Think of the advance as like an early pre-payment. For your example, I would think you wouldn't get an advance for 500K from PACICC especially since your loss is only 50k. However, lets say your advance …
-
It seems you asked the same question twice, I will delete the other posting As for your question - Yes, I would say the wiki does cover it briefly. I can't say exactly what CAS means above or what the question was for the exam that lead to CAS sa…
-
Yes, should be >=100%
-
As listed per the source: https://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/en/guidance/guidance-library/appointed-actuary-legal-requirements-qualifications-peer-review-guideline-2023 OSFI believes that the following criteria should be applied in determining the obje…
-
Hello @exam6addoil , sorry for the late response, we were unable to access the forum for the past 2 days so was unavailable to respond. As for your ask 1. What are considerations of determining a model risk rating A - It is quite similar to t…
-
* I agree with you here. The Liability is the more material example. Your reasoning is good and some other potential ones could be - Liability work (e.g., reserves) affects the insurer’s financial statements more (the losses can become very large), …
-
I think it should be the year 2019,2020,2021! Just a question, is this from the PACICC.Comp reading (don't recall this from this paper, so was curious!)?
-
If I understand correctly from your question, The insured already received $525 from PACICC Claim is $50,000 with deductible of $1,000 If PACICC gets a recovery over $525, regardless of amount it will go to the insured since the $525 payment c…
-
Yup, those are the correct formulas - same as what the examiner report shows. The sameple1 and sample2 I wrote above, are just referring to same thing what you mentioned "IF dist goes straight to insurer first" or "IF dist goes straight to PACICC…
-
Sample1 is more if payment is directly made from insurer to insured first. Sample2 is more if payment is made directly to PACICC (who pays the insured). I think for this question, don't think of it from a real life perspective as you mentioned, …
-
Q: How MPIC did not fulfil their duty A: The MPIC did not fulfil its duty because it did not take sufficient and clear steps to inform the insured of the optional underinsured motorist coverage in such a way that the insured could understand and de…
-
As you identified above, the two pools are: Grid Pool and non-Grid Pool. Some differences: 1. The transfer limit you mentioned above * The rating basis (How their premiums are determined): -Grid: Regulated Grid premium rates -non-Grid: In…
-
I'm not I fully see your first part of the question - but I'll try and best answer your 5 points * Both comments/answers are correct. Similar thing I told other students, but don't try to always take a question and answer at face value, as the …
-
Agri-insurance protects producers against production losses caused by uncontrollable natural perils (e.g., hail, drought, flood, disease). It stabilizes farm revenue by covering yield or production shortfalls - essentially, it focuses on physical lo…
-
I assume you are referring to the Example 2 in the Wiki, correct? I get your point, but for these type of questions (the additional compensation, different to Example 1 in the wiki - wording of question important), its a little different. I like t…
-
It does meet all conditions, but I honestly think this is out of scope for the exam - wouldn't worry about it if I was you. But basically the five criteria have to be met for insured services (hospital services, physician services, and surgical-de…
-
I think it's a bit strange to have negative free surplus, so floored at 0 would seem more natural. If anything, if you show your work (getting to the negative surplus) and enter in 0 as final answer based on fact it's a negative surplus, I think you…
-
@exam6addoil as Graham mentioned, even CAS gave 2 answers on whether or not there is a duty to defend - it can fall either way depending on the circumstance. Some questions and situations for the exam don't just have a clear yes or no answer and is …
-
The final ruling is that - Yes, it is a CAT However, original court ruling is that - No, it is not a CAT
-
Yes, from my understanding, your above point is right, due to the allowance, the total premium received by the pool is less than what is originally ceded. Not sure if I understand the 2nd bit but the participation ratio of 14% Company A gets back…
-
I read through the Source Material, and even there, I don't see anything regarding the "disclosures from peer reviewer", seems to be just blend of things you mentioned but also the answers from the examiner report - nothing on "these are the disclos…
-
In Land.Cases, it is under mini Battlequiz 2 - thanks!
-
Yup! Its basically CAS blending two ideas together
-
Not sure I fully follow your question "pricing of risk insured" is essentially yes, how are the rates determined for said-so risk. Underwriting is basically determining if the risk fits the criteria to be taken on. Are you asking if pricing of risk…
-
Yup, this article is outdated, just haven't been able to track/update every question yet
-
Hey, No concrete plan for this possible update but something we are still looking into - just a note, from the comments that CAS releases it is difficult to just have an answer/comment on their overall comment, thus taking a bit of time. Thanks!
-
In the PACICC.COMP article, the portion about "Calculating Additional Compensation: Example 2", this one is like Q4-6 from the excel file. The Example 1 just above that is like Q1-3 from the excel file.
-
The additional amount should still be 36,507. I see your train of thought but the questions 4-6 are slightly different where the question type is the following "Here, the policyholder has already received a distribution from PACICC, but not for the …
-
BUT FOR --> If answer is Yes to the question (Would the result have occurred BUT FOR act/omission of defendant), Then yes defendant NOT liable. MC --> Yup to your two points (BUT FOR can't establish causation + must be reasonably foreseeabl…