exam6again

About

Username
exam6again
Joined
Visits
155
Last Active
Roles
Member

Comments

  • Q25 vs. Q11, if the payment pattern is for the expected future cash flows, then we are directly use the ratio? i am a bit confused to when we can directly multiply the ratio and when to calculate like the way in Q25
  • is LR = losses/EP? why we use ELR*Direct Unearned Premium net of cancellations to get the losses? why Direct Unearned Premium?
  • what is this calculating?
    in Q13 Comment by exam6again March 15
  • why we use the weighted average from undiversified CTE?
    in Sample 9 Comment by exam6again March 12
  • The company's operating target corresponds to a 200% Minimum Capital Test (MCT) ratio, why we want 2MinCapReq instead of 2CapAv/MinCapReq?
  • why 1.5 * Cap Req?
  • why 2 * (CapAV/(1.5 * CapReq))? should it be 2 * [CapAV/(CapReq/1.5)] which is 2 * (CapAV/CapReq1.5)? which is 3(CapAV/CapReq)
  • are they not the same? CapAv / CapReq * 1.5 vs.1.5 * CapAv/ CapReq maybe i should write (CapAv / CapReq) * 1.5like this, but then 2 * (CapAv / CapReq) * 1.5) is still 3 * (CapAv / CapReq), i still got divide by 3 instead
  • where does it show that "removing the premiums received but not the directly attributable acquisition expenses"
  • "2250 if following the CAS method", it isn't 2500 for CAS method? i get more confused now. In short, can I use 2500-250 which is 2250 for the LRC using PAA at initial recognition like above Alice's example?
  • is it because we are calculating the CSM here, so we can't use PAA at initial recognition? @graham
  • Please read what you comment at the bottom of the IFRS17 sample question, you got LRC is 2500 in the equation but 2250 in the comment, so 2250 or 2500?
  • MCT Ratio = CapAv/minCapReq = CapAv/(CapReq/1.5) = CapAv/CapReq1.5, so 200% Minimum Capital Test (MCT) ratio, would it be CapAv/CapReq1.52 which is CapAv/CapReq3, why are we not dividing by 3 but dividing by 1.5 then multiply it by 2?
  • due to mid-term cancellations, should the subtraction DUP*adjustment for cancellation instead?