graham
About
- Username
- graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,987
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
I got a slightly different answer: 8,436. Maybe due to rounding?
-
There is no definite value, but non-trivial often means greater than 1% chance of occurring. If a scenario has only a 1-in-a-million chance of occurring, it would not be a plausible adverse scenario because 1-in-a-million would be a trivial proba…
-
Source of earning refers to underwriting income, investment income, or other income. That should be as specific as you need to be here.
-
If the insurer has to pay only a small amount, they won't have incentive to treat their customers better next time. (They would continue treating their customers poorly by denying valid claims if they know there is only a small penalty.) They would …
-
The Trilogy ruling is from a different reading that you may not have gotten to yet: * https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/Dav.NonPec It's number 20 in the Ranking Table.
-
You're right that you wouldn't be able to calculate OCI. You would have to be given the value of OCI directly. I added a note about that below the BattleTable. It's footnote 3: * https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/CCIR.ARinstr#BattleTable
-
The implication of the 4K cap on what are deemed minor injuries is that minor injuries are "no big deal". In other words: a person with minor injuries should just take their $4,000 compensation and stop whining and wasting the court's time. So being…
-
Hi Tony, There is no specific definition for the term "risk factor". Examples of risk factors would be things like market risk, credit risk, insurance risk. Or you could be more specific with examples like flood risk, earthquake risk, etc.
-
No, you don't need to include that, but this is a common question on this type of problem. For excess(deficiency) problems, you don't include investment income for the first CY in the calculation. The reason is that here we're calculating the exc…
-
Yes, the "but for" test is applied because the accident was not reasonably forseeeable. The question that must be asked for the "but for" test is: * Would the accident still have happened but for the action/omission of the defendant (manufac…
-
Yup. Thx!
-
It's just the judge that made the original ruling on the motion, and: * A motion is a process for requesting that a judge make an order. All you need to know here is that the judge sided with the insurer in the original ruling.
-
Ok, I'm with you now. I believe this was actually a defective exam question because you don't need the decision tree to assess whether it's a subsequent event. For that, you only need the calculation date and report date. If the actuary becomes awar…
-
It does seem like the member company is being reimbursed twice but the reimbursement in (i) and (ii) are actually for different things. Here's the paragraph from the source text where the answer to that question comes from: For (i), the membe…
-
Let's go back to AY2016 for a moment. You calculate the emergence for AY2016 just like in this section of the wiki: * https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/CIA.MfAD#Calculating_APV_.28Actuarial_Present_Value.29 But for AY2015, you have to rebase…
-
You're welcome!
-
You're welcome!
-
It's a general pricing concept that if an insured incurs losses and makes claims to the insurer, their future premium rates will go up. In the formulas, the quantity PremRt would go up if the insured makes loss claims and therefore Prem$ would go up…
-
The larger context is that Facility Association is a non-profit enterprise. It's funded by private insurers. So in contrast to private insurers, FA is not seeking profits or market share. The ideal situation is that private insurers figure out a way…
-
I think in either case, the producer is compensated. The mechanism just depends on what the government in each province wants to do. They can either make sure there is a properly capitalized fund for when claims occur or they can finance deficits wh…
-
I think it's probably good to move on. Sometimes things make more sense if you leave them and come back to them later. If you get a question on this, it would probably just require you to have memorized the answer. One last thing: The premium rat…
-
That factor is an adjustment that gets you from the PV(AY) to PV(UPR). The mathematical details come from Appendix A in the CIA Premium Liabilities reading. Given the following notation: The appendix derives the formula below. You can see the…
-
Hi, question (1) * There are no silly questions here! This reading is long and complicated and you really have to grind to learn it well enough for the exam. * The reason there is no t = 3.5 is that the discounting takes the unpaid amounts …
-
I think you have a good point because the question is about a DCAT (FCT) report and the purpose of that is different from a valuation. It was confusing because the examiners were trying to create a question that ties together 2 different readings…
-
An event can be both a subsequent event and an adjusting event so I think the statement of the question is ok. (Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying.)
-
I think the examiner's report is incorrect. It should say written exposures. Here's the relevant paragraph from the source text:
-
I don't think you're heading in the right direction here: * There is no mention of a reinsurer being involved, so I don't think you even need to consider (1). You can just assume the AA is working on a reserve analysis for the primary insurer. …
-
I have pasted that short section from the source text below. Note that it doesn't provide many details. Take a look and see if that answers your questions. I think for this, all you have to do is memorize a few key points. (About your first question…
-
I've pasted the section in the source text related to cost-sharing below. It isn't very detailed so there isn't much more I can say about this: