javid
About
- Username
- javid
- Joined
- Visits
- 20
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member, Administrator
Comments
-
Yes, you are correct. The final answer is still correct though because the 400 adjustment was used instead of the 380 adjustment. @graham, could we mention briefly in the Battlecard for MCT (#59 - 2015 Spring #23 a)) that the examiner's report ha…
-
I believe it is only unaffiliated brokers. If you search for "line 61" at http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/fi-if/rtn-rlv/fr-rf/ic-sa/pc-sam/Pages/pcVI.aspx, it falls under a different page but it says Receivables from agents and policyholders (i…
-
Thanks for sharing
-
I haven't seen the CAS do that in the past, so I don't think it's highly likely that they would ask to prepare, say, 10.60. I would say focus more on the elements that go into creating these exhibits. For example, if you look at Spring 2017, they pr…
-
Yes, that is correct
-
Please see: https://www.battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/2016.Fall_Q15_Redone (for more context, please see the '2016.Fall #15 Redone' section under https://www.battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/CIA.PrLiabs#Duration_of_Premium_Liabilities)
-
I cannot comment on this directly but will just link to a site which says that most likely you'd pay for it out of pocket and get reimbursed later: https://settlement.org/ontario/health/ohip-and-health-insurance/ontario-health-insurance-plan-ohip/do…
-
I'll quote the definition of accessibility from page 10 of https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/migration/hc-sc/hcs-sss/alt_formats/pdf/pubs/cha-ics/2015-cha-lcs-ar-ra-eng.pdf: "to ensure that insured persons in a province or territory have reaso…
-
@chrisboersma, I believe you are right. I definitely would agree with the calculations in the table as that makes more sense. Going back to the two options given in section 1.2: 1. discounting the amounts in the second and third terms to time t-…
-
Thank you, this change has been made to replace "immigration" with "aliens and naturalization" within the Wiki. We will change it in the battlecards soon. @graham Reference: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-4.html#docCont
-
Hi Francois, Each of "High-Cost", "Comprehensive-Cost" and "Catastrophic-Cost" are production coverages, with specified premium shares that Chris outlined above. Producers would make a selection of coverage level and that would determine the prem…
-
Yes, thanks for linking to the more recent one which does not include this discrepancy. I'll forward your suggestion to @graham
-
@chrisboersma, I think even in the source material it isn't as clear. On page 5 of https://www.cia-ica.ca/docs/default-source/2014/214114e.pdf, we have: Equity in the net UPR: amount by which the net UPR plus unearned (reinsurance) commissions…
-
@graham, do you know why this is the case? I am able to access the link via Chrome perfectly but this appears to be broken for @im6Candiknowit as per the above.
-
This is a good question. It is not fully clear from the way they write it. However, I believe that it's actually the second one min(X, Y + Share of net income...) for the following reason: * Share of net income ... = (page 20.30, line 47) * If…
-
Sorry, are you asking if there are more questions in that section (other than the ones in the Custom Battles - Higher and lower probability)?
-
@miermier: That is correct. I would perhaps replace/clarify "estimated DPAE" with "Equity in the net UPR", so as to write Max DPAE = max(0, Equity in the net UPR). Side note: Just referencing a previous post where I added some commentary on some …
-
Hi @nextsociety , Linking the question here: https://www.battleactsmain.ca/pdf/Exam_(2018_1-Spring)/(2018_1-Spring)_(15).pdf. With respect to part b), there's actually a typo in sample 1: the last line reads Discounted LR = (137,630 + (1,855 …
-
Hi, Agree with @chrisboersma here. My thoughts are that while EPR does cancel out in the formula, the formula is written as the sum of those two components for a few various reasons: 1. Each of ERC and EPR are amounts reported on the balance she…
-
These are actually working for me: (screenshot below to ensure we're looking at the same thing). If you are having problems and I am looking at the same links as you, may I ask what browser you are using?
-
@im6Candiknowit, very nice of you to provide this. Thank you
-
@deborahjia1, I would re-iterate what Graham said earlier in this post. We need two conditions: 1. Need MCT >= 150% for base scenario, all yrs 2. Need assets >= liabs (or equivalently surplus >= 0) for base & all adverse scenarios, al…
-
That is correct, as can be seen in 2017.Fall Q25b
-
Please check again and let me know. All links appear to be working now. Thank you!
-
Thank you for pointing this out. We will make this correction. @graham
-
You are right. That paragraph wasn't the very clear when I first read it too. Looking at some actual Balance Sheets may help here: 1. Page 48 of http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/TOR/ctc.ca/InterimReportQ207.pdf 2. Page 2 of http://www.…
-
Hi, With PACICC, the insured can recover on the claims side as well as on the premium side. On the claims side, you would look at the terms of the insurance contract and then determine the unpaid claim amount (subject to certain recovery limit…
-
Hi, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Battle quiz 7 - Battle card 3: Looking at the question, it seems to refer more to 2018 Spring Q25 iii): https://www.battleactsmain.ca/pdf/Exam_(2018_1-Spring)/(2018_1-Spring)_(25).pdf Battle…
-
Hi, Have you seen this http://www.battleactsmain.ca/wiki6c/2016.Fall_Q15_Redone It goes through the modifications that need to be done under the new method. Also question 14 of https://www.casact.org/admissions/studytools/exam6c/sp18-6C.pdf h…
-
For your first question, please see Graham's 2nd to last response at https://www.battleactsmain.ca/vanillaforum/discussion/58/apv-premium-liabilities-fall-2017-15. For your second question, yes, it is max DPAE