graham
About
- Username
- graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,987
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Corrected. Thx!
-
Sorry, "co." stands for "company". In version 1 of BattleActs, I used a lot of abbreviations but got rid of most of them. I just missed this one.
-
I don't believe capital required for an MCT component can ever be negative. Even if it isn't specifically floored at 0, I believe that's what you should always do.
-
I marked most of the old DCAT problems as outdated in the BattleCards because even though some of them may still be partly valid, it seemed too confusing to try to pick and choose: * part (a) is somewhat outdated * part (b) is a valid question…
-
The link you included brings up 108 BattleCards. Can you send me the link to the specific exam problem you're referring to?
-
There is overlap between these questions, but you may have to be more specific when answering the second question about how to improve the earthquake risk estimation process. Take a look at these 2 exam problems for that: * part b of https://ba…
-
Yup, thx! (I've edited it.)
-
Yes, that was a change when the reading was updated. In particular, the natural catastrophe stress test changed a little bit. I will take a look at that BattleCard. (When readings change, I don't always catch every instance of where an update needs …
-
Thx! I fixed the typo and added a note in the wiki about the notation I used in the coverage units problem. I like you intuition about how the coverage units calculation works.
-
I think @willm7 is correct, but unless I'm misreading the source text, I think the formula I wrote matches the verbal description in the paragraph. It looks to me like the verbal description provided in the CSOP reading is not accurate? In any ca…
-
Thx! I've linked to your post from this section of the wiki: * https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/CIA.FCT-1#Appendix_B:_P.26C_Risk_Categories
-
Well, there was so little in the updated version of the source text that I thought was testable. I suppose I could have made 1 new BattleCard with a question like this: * What bill did the Ontario government pass to address issues related to Co…
-
It's fixed. Thx!
-
Ok, I've edited the BattleCard to reflect that the formula is valid for PAA only. Thx!
-
Ok, I've looked through the newer version of the 2017 version of this article and there really isn't much difference other than the 'Key Element' called Oversight. In the prior version it was called 'Board Oversight and Senior Management Responsibil…
-
Yes, this is from the Dibra reading which has been removed from the syllabus. I'll mark it as outdated. Thanks. Ok, just checked and it is already marked as outdated in the BattleCards. I couldn't find the question in the BattleTable for PACICC.C…
-
Well, it turns out there are 2 versions of this reading but they both have the same date on the first page. I had no idea I was looking at a different version. I will have to check this out and get back to you. Here's the first page of the copy I wa…
-
That's what I did. If there are a lot of answers, I sometimes just pick 2 or 3 because usually that's what an exam question will ask for. This is not a high-ranked reading, so that's almost certainly all you would need to know. (It's just to save yo…
-
Sorry, the numbers in these problems were generated randomly and I wasn't careful enough to make sure all the numbers were internally consistent. I've inserted a note in the wiki and provided a link to this discussion.
-
I have also linked to this discussion from the wiki here: * https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/CIA.IFRS17-1#Section_5:_LRC:_PAA_and_GMA_Considerations
-
I've corrected this. Thanks! Link below... * https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/CIA.IFRS17-LRC#Section_7:Illustrative_Example-_Loss_Component_Calculation
-
Yes, that was a typo. I've generated 4 new problems with the above issues fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.
-
Hi @willm7 I just looked into this and it's possible that section isn't even on the syllabus anymore. I sent the following question to the CAS and am waiting for their response: There appears to be an inconsistency between the Exam 6-Canada sy…
-
Also, there used to be a syllabus reading on Alberta GRID and non-GRID auto insurance but it has been removed. (A little unfortunate because other readings refer to it.)
-
That's exactly what I thought myself. It seems completely dumb to require you to calculate LRC using GMA just to test PAA eligibility. I think a possible explanation is that if you calculate GMA for one group of business and it's close to PAA, th…
-
I wanted to generate some practice problems like the example in the CIA.IFRS17-PAA reading, but the example contains thresholds not discussed in the main part of the source text. It seemed to me that thresholds 2 and 3 were specific to that example …
-
Yes, because for LRC the entire liability is related to future services. (Liabilities related to services already provided would be classified as LIC.)
-
Yes, that's correct.
-
Ok, I'm back. The broader issue is the move from current CIA standards to IFRS 17 standards. There are still a lot of syllabus readings related to the CIA standards but now there are also 6 readings related to the IFRS 17 standards and they confl…
-
I received a response from the exam committee and have inserted a note into the wiki here: * https://www.battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/CIA.IFRS17#Response_from_the_Exam_6-Canada_exam_committee