graham
About
- Username
- graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,987
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
That's a good question because it highlights a very important update regarding the UBI reading. The exam question 2018.Fall Q16 pulls material from 2 readings: * parts (a) and (d) are from FSCO.PPA * parts (b) and (c) are from FSCO.UBI The…
-
The injured party and the at-fault driver probably entered into this "limits agreement" as a way to expedite settlement. The problem is that this agreement has implications for the subrogation rights of the injured party's insurer. Here's what's goi…
-
Me too, but like Steven Tyler says, "Dream on!"
-
We emailed the CAS a few months ago and their response from June 6, 2019 was: * "Both appendices are not required study material and the syllabus is correct." But I don't trust this. If Appendix B is excluded then many of the prior exam pro…
-
Hey @jptardif2, Hope you're doing well today. The answer to your question is yes. You would add assets until they matched the liabilities then recalculate the discount rate. Here's a full explanation... The concept they are testing in part (b)…
-
I'd be very surprised if they gave you that table on the exam! Also, I found the layout of the table confusing, so I reorganized it in the wiki in a way that makes it easier to understand and interpret, at least for me. (You may have already seen…
-
Hey @jptardif2, I just double-checked and the current version of the ORSA reading listed in the syllabus is 2017 which is the one I used, and I do see a box on page 8. Maybe it isn't orange - maybe it's pinkish? But anyway, it's a box shaded in a…
-
Hey @jptardif2, I think you sort of have it, but you need to be a little more precise: * Let APV = Actuarial Present Value of the claims liabilities, and PV = Present Value of the claims liabilities. It isn't quite right to refer to an ultim…
-
Sorry, that was a typo. The formula for K should indeed have been: * IBNR = (net APV) - (net Case) You can also write (net Case) as (net UCAE). I suppose it is a bit confusing that UCAE includes only case reserves and not IBNR. (If you take…
-
This was a ridiculously hard problem. Even with the examiner's report, that problem takes a while to figure out and I suspect it had a very low average score across the candidates who sat for that exam. In my judgment, that problem is an outlier and…
-
Yes, there is something wrong in that exhibit. The formula listed below the table doesn't match what was used in the table. But I don't think either is correct. When you're calculating AAD for claims liabilities, we usually assume a uniform loss …
-
You can ignore the calculation portion of that exam question because it is from an old version of the premium liabilities reading. The new reading is totally different. These old exam problems are highlighted in tan in the BattleTable in the wiki pa…
-
Ok, this is an extremely difficult problem because it is long and covers 5 different readings: * OSFI.MCT * CIA.MfAD * CIA.PrLiabs * CIA.Discnt * CIA.Duration My general advice is to familiarize yourself with the solution when you first…
-
There are 2 things going on here: * calculation of investment income (for CY2015) * calculation of excess (deficiency) ratio (for CY2015) As you observed we can calculate investment income for CY2015 using the average UCAE across CY2015. I…
-
The syllabus isn't very clear on the difference between capital and suprlus and some old exam problems use the terms in an inconsistent way. In the MCT reading, capital is defined as the sum of various balance sheet items: * qualifying categ…
-
Since this question was worth 1.25 points, you should plan to complete your answer in roughly 4-5 minutes. Recall that calculation questions on Exam 6 generally take longer than essay questions for the same points, but this wasn't intended to be a h…
-
That's a very detailed analysis. I will need to set aside some time over the next few days to go over this.
-
Not quite. The margin is different from the commutation price. In this problem, the margin is just a cushion when calculating the present value of the claims that are being transferred from the reinsurer back to the primary insurer. The commutation …
-
That's a good observation. For part (d), it isn't quite so simple as sample answer 2 in the examiner's report implies. When a company cedes business, there are several moving parts that have to be taken into account and neither the examiner's rep…
-
Oh yes. I was so focused on the middle branch and subsequent events that the right branch of the decision tree slipped my mind.
-
Interesting observation. You're right that it isn't a subsequent event, because the actuary became aware after the report date. That means the subsequent event decision tree doesn't apply. I think the answer is in old CSOP 1800 (Reporting), speci…
-
Absolutely! Alice gave you a shout-out in the wiki!
-
Well, that certainly is an astute observation. I see now that when I inserted the random numbers in the Excel file for Alphabet City, I forgot to force the ceded amounts to equal the gross amounts x the ceding %. It's close but not exact. I fixed my…
-
Ditto that!
-
I linked to your trick from the wiki. :-)
-
Funny!
-
@Francois, @javid This is a bit of a grey area since IFRS 4 was issued in 2004 as an interim standard to be used before the issuance of IFRS 17 (which was in May 2017.) IFRS 17 is going be effective Jan 1, 2021 and will completely replace IFRS 4. …
-
YW! Oh, and I forgot to mention the practice exam I created. That also has implicit predictions. You can get that here: * https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/BattleActs_Practice_Exam