graham
About
- Username
- graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,987
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Hey Danielle, Thanks. I'll fix that next time I upload the practice exam.
-
The question 2016.Fall Q15 is from an outdated version of the premium liabilities paper. If you look in the examiner's report for 2018.Spring Q14, there is a comment from the examiners on the last page of the solution that now warns test-takers to n…
-
I don't quite understand what you're asking. The formula you stated isn't quite right. You should be using APV for liabilities rather than MV. Then you basically multiply the whole thing by the interest rate risk %. Note that the question actuall…
-
Hello ineedcoffee Another thread on this topic is: https://battleactsmain.ca/vanillaforum/discussion/comment/97/#Comment_97 My general feeling on discounting of maintenance expenses is that I would not bother discounting them, but I would incl…
-
You're so funny. You should have your own youtube channel. I've added a note and a link to here from the wiki. Thx!
-
The second option is definitely the one to use. That is similar to what I see in the examiner's reports. (PV = (0.3 - 0.1) / (1 - 0.1) / 1.05^0.5 + ... The first is far too long and wordy and the third option is too short because if your number i…
-
This is something that isn't very well explained in OSFI's earthquake paper. The answer I included in the BattleCards is directly from the examiner's report, and the answer in the examiner's report is directly from Section 4 of OSFI's earthquake …
-
It would be good if there were a single reference for all of these formulas, and I will work on putting something like together in the future. (I know that doesn't help you now.) For exam questions like these, you can usually take an educated gue…
-
Sorry, Thanathos52, I think I missed your question, but see link in above post.
-
Yes, and just so everyone knows where it is: * https://battleactsmain.ca/vanillaforum/discussion/112/question-18-d/p1
-
I think the issue here is my notation. I have changed it to make it clearer. When I wrote APV(@investment rate), I meant the normal APV of claim liabilities calculated at the original yield. And when I wrote APV(@investment rate - MfAD), I meant …
-
Oh chrisboersma, I recognize a fellow OCD-er when I see one. Thanks for the absolutely and totally complete answer to potatorambo's question! Obviously I will just link to your answer from the wiki. (The link to this thread is currently only …
-
Hmm...I believe you guys are correct. If we let NPR = Net Premium liabilities, then the simplest way I could think of expressing the answer is: * if under the new (lower) yield NPR > 30% x NWP ==> margin goes up * if under the new (lower…
-
Yes! That's something I had spent time working out when I was studying for this exam myself: * D > 0: ** deduction from CapAvail, CapReq not affected ==> (MCT lower) * D < 0: ** CapAvail not affected, reduction to CapReq ==> (MCT…
-
(I added a link to this from the Chev.Agric wiki article!)
-
Sorry, my bad. I misread your original post. You're right that it should say "negligence causing financial damage". (I had corrected this in the wiki article for Dav.NonPec, but I forgot to change it here.) Thanks for pointing this out.
-
First, note that this topic is discussed primarily in the CIA Discounting paper (versus the CIA Accounting paper). Anyway, I looked at the following 2 additional exam problems that ask you to calculate the discount rate: * 2016.Spring Q13 *…
-
Hi jc2018, Where are you seeing the comment "negligence involving catastrophic personal injury"? I thought I removed it and replaced it with "negligence causing financial damage". Are you looking at an old version of that wiki ariticle? (See Batt…
-
Yes, basically, funds held to secure payment are included in MCT capital available. Thanks chrisboersma for the reference to 4.3.3.2. Your question is going to a depth that is probably not required for the exam, but it always enhances understandi…
-
Yes, in 2017.Fall Q17b, the $100 in reinsurance premium was considered ceded premium. This assumes that reinsurance premiums come of out gross premium, but I don't know the specific accounting rules for how reinsurance premiums are actually paid. It…
-
Yes, that's correct. I've changed the BattleCard. Thanks.
-
Thanks chrisboersma. miermier: I have changed the BattleCard to say that the mall sued for 2m (not 3m). chrisboersma was right that the insurer would automatically pay the first 1m because that was within the policy limit. The issue was the diffe…
-
This has been corrected. Thanks!
-
Thx chrisboersma. I've linked to this post from the wiki. This arms-length principle, as well as the no risk-limiting features principle, is just a way making the concept of reasonably self-evident a little more precise. It gives the user guidanc…
-
That's correct. It works the same way as losses when there is reinsurance. As chrisboersma indicated, the key formula is: * net = gross - ceded For example, if an insurer has a 25% quota-share treaty with a reinsurer, and the insurer receiv…
-
Exactly!!!
-
Yup, that's correct.
-
I don't recall seeing any exam rules concerning rounding. I have noticed they use 4 decimals in the examiner's report when calculating discount factors, but I don't think they would be strict about that. You could probably get away with 3 decimals. …
-
Ok, I see. The answer in the examiner's report does have that line at the end about facility. As far as I can tell, however, this is a typo. The old version of the DPAE calculation involved facility data (see 2015.Spring Q28). But there is nothing i…
-
Thx chrisboersma. Instead of changing the answer, I have restated the question to make the given answer correct. The restated question would be: premium: 1,000 probability of loss: 6% expected severity: 150 (net of premium) And just to be c…