graham
About
- Username
- graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,987
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Oops, @exam6_pass. I read the question too quickly and I don't like my original answer to you. Here's a better answer: * To calculate the PACICC assessment for company A, you would calculate the assessment separately for each jurisdiction. * S…
-
Yes, that's correct. Assessment is done by jurisdiction so when they ask for Company B's assessment you can ignore jurisdictions where Company B has no business. In this problem that means you can ignore everything aside from Alberta. If Company …
-
Sure, no problem @victory1995: The short answer is that we don't want to include FutRe (Future Reinsurance Premium) when calculating net premium liabilities for the primary insurer, but we do have to take the cost of FutRe into account somewhere …
-
This is confusing exam question. The 2M in future income is not capped because because the Trilogy cap only applies to non-pecuniary damages. Loss of future income is a pecuniary damage. When the question asks how the Trilogy cap will be applied,…
-
Yes, sorry about that. There have been a few changes in the syllabus since I created Practice Exam 1. All the stuff on HTM, AFS, and HFT was from a reading that has been removed. Also, the Alphabet City problem in CCIR.ARinstr requires some knowl…
-
I think that's a very good idea to let the CAS know.
-
Ok, I see what's going on now. There is an error in the examiner's report solution to 2017.Fall Q13a.i that I didn't notice before. In that problem they specifically included cash as part of investment income but this is not correct. There was a sim…
-
I wouldn't have thought so, but they have asked questions in the past where you had to know those things. :-(
-
It's a bit sneaky. You have to click on a link in the FSCO document to go to an external website and then click on yet another link to get the actual simplified guidelines. The direct link is below. http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/filing-guidel…
-
From page 20.10 of the sample quarterly statement (asset side of the balance sheet), investments include: Investments: * Short Term Investments * Bonds and Debentures * Mortgage Loans * Preferred Shares * Common Shares * Investment Properties …
-
The examiner's report solution to 2016 Spring Q 14 has errors in it. First, in part (b) they mislabeled the years. The investment income they calculated was for 2014 and 2015 (not 2013 and 2014). And I hadn't noticed the error you pointed out above …
-
Yes, very good point. I just assumed that 12% was far enough outside the (-10%, 10%) range to still be outside after rebasing but I really should have checked. Thx!
-
Technically -15% is outside the range (-15%, 5%), but I don't think FSCO makes that distinction. The website does say between -15% and 5% but I'm guessing exactly 15.0% is still ok. What probably happens in practice anyway is that there would be a f…
-
I see what you mean and I wondered about that too. A strict reading of the source document says you still cannot decline / cancel / non-renew / surcharge based on UBI data, but it might be ok to deny a claim if UBI data indicated dishonest answers b…
-
The definition of runoff given in the CIA reading on runoff is calendar year emergence. If you have $1,000 of liabilities for a specific group of claims on Dec 31, 2020, then there will likely be some development on those claims during 2021, 2022, 2…
-
Oh yes, I made a mistake there. It should be net written premium (not premium reserves). And the loss reserves should be net loss reserves. I've made the correction in the wiki here: * https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/BCAR.Cdn2018#Harder_Versio…
-
That is correct. If you haven't seen it, this also is mentioned in the wiki here: https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/AAA.CrdSc#Related_Syllabus_Readings
-
You're correct. They were trying to make the problem easier by giving you the value of PV gross so you didn't have to calculate it, but sometimes their given information is not internally consistent. There were also other errors in the examiner's re…
-
Hey @bkmlocks, 1) I found this reading unclear in some places myself. I don't know what they mean when they refer to the explicit valuation approach. They don't seem to explain anywhere what it is. I googled it but I couldn't find anything. 2)…
-
A strict interpretation of the reading implies that an adjusting event and an event that must be reflected in the work are not the same thing. An adjusting event can either be material or non-material. If it is material then it must be reflected.…
-
I'm glad you asked this because it shows how closely you have to pay attention to exactly what you need for the formula and what you're actually given in the problem. Ok, here's what's going on: The APV provided in the 3rd triangle is the APV of …
-
Ok, I see what you mean. The BattleCodes give you something in between the BattleTables and the BattleCards. I will leave them in and review them from time to time. Thanks!
-
You have raised a good point. After I looked through the syllabus again, I believe your conclusion is logical. I will amend the wiki and link to this post. The MCT reading states: * Federally regulated P&C insurers are required, at a min…
-
I think you're right. I have changed that item under the BattleCodes to be consistent with what I wrote above in the BattleTables section. The BattleCodes at the bottom was something I did before I came up with the idea of the BattleTables at the…
-
That is a good observation and the question has come up before. Take a look in the CIA.PrLiabs wiki article at this link: * https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/CIA.PrLiabs#Maintenance_Expenses
-
I think it was intended as a trick question. I suspect some candidates may have thought the GRID program was the same thing as public auto insurance, not realizing the difference between being a regulator and a provider. If the question had been …
-
Hey @bkmlocks, I looked this case up online (as well as other legal cases in the syllabus) and that's where I got this extra information. I found that doing a google search was sometimes more helpful in understanding a case than reading the CAS s…
-
Hello @xuchaofan , Sorry, I forgot to make the change. I believe I've now made changes in the appropriate places in the wiki and in the BattleCards. (There were 2 BattleCards, number 5 and 30, and one place in Section 2 of the wiki under "Risk Ma…
-
Hi @bkmlocks, * I think you have the right idea. The reading doesn't specifically tell you how to do all the adjustments to the initial capital available but it makes sense to do what you said: add the equity adjustments and subtract debt and o…
-
I have communicated with the CAS about this but their answers have not been clear. The concept of Plausible Adverse Scenario (PAS) is discussed in detail in the CIA.DCAT reading and that reading has been removed from the syllabus. That makes me t…