Staff-T1
About
- Username
- Staff-T1
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,786
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
It would have to be given in the question
-
You did it correctly
-
This is talking about overall dislocation, not specifically looking at one rating variable
-
This means a single yield curve that will be used for both the LIC and LRC, which has the same average liquidity as a weighted average of the LIC and LRC liquidity
-
Market risk is not relevant to insurance contract liabilities. The purpose of the adjustments is to remove characteristics from the reference portfolio that are irrelevant to the insurance contract
-
Where exactly are you referring to in the simplified example? You'll need to tell me exactly what you are referring to when you mention 2.45% (Page number or Excel file)
-
Page 41 and 42 of the source
-
in a way, yes - However, discounting increases revenue as it reduces the liability. So its more like an unearning of the discount as it is an IFE
-
nope
-
Acquisition cash flows that are not deferred are usually incurred immediately. DAC is what is included in the FCF
-
Major filing usually refers to a full filing (prior approval) Yes, certificate of the officer is always required
-
Motorist is the driver and auto is the vehicle. OCPF 44 is for additional uninsured motorist coverage, beyond the mandated limit
-
It's just recognized with the run down of the LRC
-
1) You can't really cap if it's just a base rate change as that wouldn't make sense. That just means you as talking a lower rate change 2) I do not know about this 3) Basically saying if someone should be charged a lower premium based on the dis…
-
It's less than or equal to 1% of the revenue so you don't need to assess if it's onerous
-
I would say so, yes
-
The wiki is saying there is no difference in how you would asses PAA eligibility, there would of course be difference between the structure of a direct insurance vs reinsurance contract
-
What do you mean by using accounting entries? The LC amortization will flow into ISE and this would be offsetted by the decrease in LRC during the period
-
1) Yes that's right 2) It would be 900 as the acquisition costs flow into P&L directly 3) Increase the LRC 4) Decrease the LRC
-
The author's name is Davidson
-
Yes both answers are correct and you can give either
-
It's because company B is in Ontario and A is in Quebec. They are basically discussing the differences between the two auto systems and potential adverse scenarios, taking into account those differences
-
Yeap I believe it is in the KPMG paper ( I do not have the study kit with me right now) For the exam purposes as long as you can name one of the filing methods that each province uses, I would be surprised if it wasn't enough
-
The table in section 9 shows the comparison between the treatment of compensation for non financial risk between IFRS-4 and IFRS-17. It doesn't say that IFRS17 only includes non financial risk
-
Yes, this would be an LIC item. It's more of logic and understanding how an increase in claims liability would affect your capital required. It is usually just a straight up scaling of the capital required. I don't think there is any specific sectio…
-
1. That's correct 2. Also correct 3. It reflects the uncertainty in the estimation of the liabilities and would not be built into the premiums. It's more of a pad to protect against adverse development, similar to pfads under IFRS 4. I suggest …
-
Contract inception: The date that the contact was entered into. For example, you could enter into a contract at October 31 2023, for a policy effective Jan 1 2024 Initial recognition: The date the contract is first recognized on the balance sheet.…
-
Yeap that's right
-
It says lapse and expense risks are not insurance risks. It doesn't say that lapse and expense risks do not exists for direct insurance contracts
-
1. Yes, that's a mistake in the wiki. IFRS-17 would not apply for UAF as it acts as a levy 2. That's just how it is defined by the standard. It's like a GST on your premiums