Staff-T1
About
- Username
- Staff-T1
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,786
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Because to annualize Q1, you multiply by 4 since only one quarter has passed. To annualize Q2, you multiply by 2 since you are 50% done with the year, for Q3, you are 75% done with the year so you multiply by 4/3
-
That's right. OCI(X) = AOCI(X) - AOCI(X-1). The change in other comprehensive income is simply the difference between the accumulated other comprehensive income in one period vs the prior period
-
It's a bit difficult to create battlecards for MSA.legend since it is literally just a snapshot of a formula sheet vs when it used to be a part of a study kit with more commentary. I'll think about it and see whether it's possible
-
I believe QC has an option for automatic renewal which may extend the contract boundary beyond one year which is why it is in a grey-ish area
-
The excel would be covered in the MCT article. For the second question I will need to take a look
-
* The number relates to how you would find the actual cells to plug into the formula from the P&C return * Yeah that is from page 92.18 but the more accurate way is to take it from 60.25
-
You would multiply 1202230001 by 4 @jxtang97 Based on the formula: If you are at Q1: your numerator would go from 1202230001 * Q to 1202230001 * 4 If you are at Q2: your numerator would go from 1202230001 * Q to 1202230001 * 2 and so on for Q3…
-
It is just a different way of calculating the same thing. You can use either method in an exam, although usually they will only provide enough information to use one or the other. In the event that there is enough information for both methods, eithe…
-
Yes you don't need to know that any more
-
Because the net claims on page 60.35 is just the remaining unpaid (case + IBNR). To calculate XS or deficiency you'd wanna see whether the development of case and IBNR in a given period is more or less than the actual paid amount which is why you su…
-
Its exactly method 2 - yeah it is still valid
-
I have fixed it - There was some issue on the back end but it should be good now
-
Yes, it is a typo on 4.3.3.2 -> Basically the deduction to capital available can be thought of as a penalty because you don't have "as much" capital truly available since you are owed more from the reinsurer, than what is owed to him. Because of …
-
Let me double check and I'll make edits if so
-
* Cause the price is much higher for medium and high risk homeowners * Yes, subject to the cap of $500
-
Yes @graham
-
Yes, you can use major and full interchangeably. I used the word major because that's what it states in the paper. I only do filings in Alberta so I'm not sure what is more common with folk in Ontario with regards to what they call their filings
-
You are thinking of it from a direct insurance point of view, where a negative CSM (not possible and is instead called a loss component) would be a loss as that means premiums < Expected Losses. However, this is flipped with reisnurance since you…
-
No, I do not have the links, but the files are attached here. The MSA ratios were previously in the study kit
-
Yes, there are no material changes between 2024 and 2023
-
This adjustment would only apply to claims as it is an average accident date adjustment. There is no accident date for maintenance costs so they are are not subject to that. The proof of this adjustment assumes losses and premiums are annual and con…
-
sounds good
-
Yes it should have been applied but was not in the Duration Excel. I think it's an oversight on their part
-
It is a reinsurance concept. You can find it in CIA.IFRS17-1 or the CIA.Duration paper
-
For the purposes of the risk adjustment for the LRC, "other risks" are not relevant, only risks that are directly related to the LRC which are underwriting and reserving risks should be considered. Likewise for the LIC, but you would only reserve ri…
-
You are right, I don't think this question is quite in the paper anymore. That said, bullet 1,3 and 4 are intuitive, and bullet 2 is in section 2.1
-
Yes you are right - I am going to fix them
-
Yes, but if you go into the CSOP paper there is basically nothing on 2100 which is what the wiki is saying
-
I have spent some time thinking about it and came up with new examples for each of the bias-fairness combinations. I also added a key insight that is a reinforcement of the key insight from PQ1. Thanks for pointing that out
-
I don't think so, no. I'd be very surprised if it would be in the exam