graham
About
- Username
- graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,987
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
For investment yield specifically, the formula is actually the same in the current CCIR instructions versus the old version but the financial statements are laid out differently. I'm not really sure how they would ask an exam question or exactly …
-
The second formula above is from section 5.2.2 which is excluded from the syllabus so just use the first formula.
-
I believe that's the case, although that's not explained in the source.
-
I fixed this. You must be looking at an older version of this file. The current version is "v4".
-
The numbers in your second screen shot "46", "46", "47", and "48" are not the BCAR values. They are "% of Gross Capital Required". You have to look lower down on that page in the source at the pink box for the BCAR values. But you're right that t…
-
Well, those questions were based on the MSA reading and the formulas in the MSA reading were never consistent with the CCIR reading. I think you still have to know how to do those problems. If it's an MSA problem then use the MSA formulas and if it'…
-
I don't have it in my study kit either. (Also, the study kit still contains at least 1 case that has been removed - KP Pacific v Guardian - and it contains lots of cases that are not on the syllabus at all.)
-
Hi @adipelino, Yes and no. That exam question was from an older version of CIA.Valn and there is a footnote to the BattleTable in that wiki article that I've copied below. But keep reading further down because I also copied a snippet from CIA.IFR…
-
That was an oversight. They are now marked as outdated. Thx.
-
That was an oversight. I've insert it. Thx!
-
That question was from 2019 and the reading CIA.Valn has different content. In particular, there was a whole section discussing IFRS 17 and the differences versus what was current CIA practice at the time. The answer to that exam question was a bull…
-
Yeah, that was another case where one reading (premium liabilities) was removed, but another related reading (CIA.Duration) was not removed. There is a bunch of stuff in the duration reading that is no longer relevant given the transition to IFRS 17…
-
Corrected, thx!
-
Corrected, thx!
-
Duplicate information removed, thx!
-
Oh my gosh. I wrote that a couple of years ago, but then the whole agriculture program as described in that syllabus reading was terminated. None of that material is still relevant in Canadian agriculture anymore so I didn't think it was worth doing…
-
Sorry about that. Those were new problems and the tolerances were not set properly. I sent you a message. Check the envelope under your user name in the top left portion of the screen.
-
Question 1: The question has an error. They meant to ask you to calculate the MCT at Dec 31, 2019, not 2018. If you're at the end of 2019, then the amount of 60% x 55,000 has already been paid (so it is no longer part of the unpaid amount.) If you s…
-
It's 99% finished. I had oral surgery Tuesday so I had to take a couple of days off. It should be available Saturday Oct 8.
-
This is a situation where it isn't clear. @Staff-T1 @ThrowGrow Section 3 is on the syllabus and has a link to Appendix B1, but the syllabus lists only Appendix B2. This makes it look like Appendix B1 is not covered. However, I had previously aske…
-
Sounds good to me! I've linked to it from this section in the wiki article here: * https://battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/AB.Auto#Executive_Summary Thx!
-
I don't think this calculation hasn't changed.
-
That adjustment is no longer relevant. According to the reading CIA.IFRS17-LRC, average accident dates are calculated using integration which shouldn't appear on an Excel-based exam.
-
I think it's a fair bit more than adjusting the MfAD portion and the page numbers. For example, premiums are not listed at all on the asset, liabilities & equity, or income statement exhibits anymore but premiums played a definite role in tha…
-
Yes, Q11 is out of date. I'm working on updating practice exam 1. I should have it ready next week.
-
Thx @Staff-T1.
-
Corrected, thx! @exampasser (Except I found it in the wiki, not the BattleCards. If there is still a BattleCard that needs to be corrected, let me know.)
-
We're working on some extra practice problems but this is more an issue for the CAS to address. They really should have updated all the readings to IFRS 17 at the same time. Unfortunately, there is now a situation where the syllabus readings are a m…
-
The phrase "consolidation and growth of the P&C insurance market" is something you have to interpret. It just means that larger insurers have purchased smaller insurers so that are now fewer insurers competing in the marketplace and the remainin…
-
* Yes, this is correct. * This exam question is defective because they did not provide any information on the policyholder's loss if any, and the answers to both parts (a) and (b) depend on this. In your example, if the claim amount was $100,00…