Urgent request to standardize the language in the battle wikis

user10_Exam6Cuser10_Exam6C
in General

I have noticed discrepancies between the way concepts are named and defined among the battlewikis, and how they reflect the CAS' use of language. I hope these can be corrected (to a certain extent) so that more time can be spent on studying, rather than reconciling the language and ideas.

A recent example I noticed is in the definition of Net Investment Income:

1) the CCIR.ARinstr battle wiki defines "Investment Income for a particular period" as "(investment revenue) – (investment expenses) ". A very general definition that I can use, along with the P&C to figure out whats going on.

2) in the MSA.Ratios battle wiki a new definition appears "Net.InvInc = InvInc + (Realized Gains/Losses) - (Inv.Expenses)".

When I read these, and since I am only in the learning phase (not an expert), I become confused and think this is one of CAS' ways of trying to make things complicated. I still don't know if these definitions are referring to the same item. This wastes time that could be better spent learning the material at a deeper level (for example where things fit into the financial statements and how to properly interpret financial statements values to be used in the calculations).

I hope this issue can be seriously looked at and appreciate all the efforts the creators of BattleActs. Battle on!

Comments

  • user10_Exam6Cuser10_Exam6C

    I would suggest using the same language as in the P&C return, and if possible when you use your mouse key to hover over the battle wiki item (like...acquisition expenses for example?) it display some kind of a pleasant looking box that indicates where in the P&C that item can be found.

  • javidjavid

    Hi,

    Thank you for pointing this out. In the example you gave, they do point to the same formula (as mentioned on page 11 of https://www.casact.org/library/studynotes/Canada-Returns18/pcVI.pdf, the worded description is "net investment income including recognized gains (losses) on investments ").

    I would also like to say that in general, sometimes, with these exams (not just exam 6), notation can be inconsistent as the papers referenced within the CAS syllabus may be written by different people -- it's not that the CAS is trying to make things complicated; it's more so that the authors of those papers chose their own notation.

    That said, your recommendation is a good one and I've forwarded to @graham .

  • javidjavid

    A good example of a valid discrepancy is the one you pointed out on https://www.battleactsmain.ca/vanillaforum/discussion/175/how-is-adjusted-investment-yield-related-to-investment-yield-from-p-c#latest.

  • user10_Exam6Cuser10_Exam6C

    thanks Javid, appreciate your comments

  • grahamgraham

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We will review this (and other items) during our next wiki content review. This isn't a quick fix as it involves a higher level review of several readings to bring the presentation and notation up to a more consistent basis (or if that isn't possible, to point this out to the reader.)

    Thanks,
    Graham

  • user10_Exam6Cuser10_Exam6C

    Really appreciate the reply Graham. You guys are awesome, thanks a lot.

Sign In or Register to comment.