Staff-T1
About
- Username
- Staff-T1
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,570
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
I believe the graph is mislabeled. I'd follow what's said in the table
-
Just the word version should suffice imo
-
I would agree that the word "only" should be removed. Otherwise, it is the best answer available of the 4 options
-
This fell through the cracks - Just focus on the ifrs17 version, no need to bother with IFRS4
-
* Risk factors don't need to be memorized, I just did not put them in the file * Yes, it should be on the net capital available. That's an oversight on my end
-
The maturity date reflects the duration of the yield curve. For example, if your maturity date is 3 years away, that would mean that claim payments that will be paid out should be discounted using the yields implied by a bond maturing in 3 years. Yo…
-
It's not covered. Apologies for not coming back to this - I believe this was answered in a few other questions so I did not come back to this
-
yup you can always use 0.1%
-
No, that's off the syllabus
-
You are right - But i wanted to group them together to capture the spirit of what is trying to be said. The net assets are basically the capital available but for foreign branches. However, most people are more familiar with capital available than n…
-
You are bringing the liabilities back to Jan 1 2025, and assuming that the payment date is June 30th 2025. That's why you have to discount by half a year or 0.5
-
It's 0 because at initial recognition, you set the CSM to perfectly offset that FCF. Section 5.3 of the LRC paper. Yes, the formula holds as long as you are using PAA
-
Yup you are right. I will mention that both files are the quarterly version of the files and they should be the same, but the strange thing is when you check the P&C validation file, it is not stated that 201811919 = 602559932. I don't really kn…
-
BAAT/MCT assumptions to be reviewed by the peer reviewer is stated in 4.3 at the bottom "In addition to the peer review of the valuation of actuarial and other policy liabilities and the FCT, for life insurers, the peer reviewer will review the w…
-
It's the same thing they just flipped the signs. You just need to be consistent whether you want it to be inflow - outflow or outflow - inflow. The former is more common and preferred
-
Have you tried looking up what 602559932 and 201811919 are referring to in the P&C annual return rather than just looking at the MSA format? The instructions are in the wiki on how to map them to their corresponding locations.
-
Just looking at the loss ratio means you are assuming that a company has no expenses. A loss ratio of 50% could be onerous if your expense ratio is 55%. If you said combined ratio then yes
-
* They are, they just go directly into your ISE. It is stated in the question * Because they are attributed to the group of contracts and those contracts only incept in 2024
-
Just pasting this here in case people are confused about the UEP used in the PAA LRC: https://battleactsmain.ca/vanillaforum/discussion/1740/sample-18#latest
-
Yes, I should have clarified that there is no FARM PPV in AB as you don't need it with a grid. There is FARM for CV. Sorry I usually just think in PPV terms for Exam 6
-
So the problem with this question is as follows: * In the sample LRC Excel, they mention that UEP = Prem Received - Earned Premium. Okay good * In the LRC paper, UEP = Pem Received - Earned Premium. Also good. * In sample 18 which is the init…
-
No it is not - They just flipped the signs so that outflows are now a negative and inflows are a positive
-
In the syllabus section for CCIR - It says that verything in the Excel provided: the core, quarterly and annual return is covered which is basically the entire P&C return. Page 60.45 which is listed in the syllabus is also where the calculation…
-
Yeah I have noted this a few times over the years to many people. Just use the first definition and ignore the second one
-
Answered this in your previous question but yes just ignore part (d)