graham
About
- Username
- graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,045
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Interesting. I don't think this type of thing is uncommon however. It does come off as gaming the system but regulators would (should?) generally be aware of what's going on. As long as Advantage is itself healthy, it should be ok I believe.
-
We're checking into this.
-
I'll look into it. Thanks.
-
Fixed. Thx!
-
Fixed. Thx!
-
This is what I'm seeing in the solution: I see that as a "spike" along the latest diagonal. Am I looking at the same thing you are?
-
Well, technically yes, but I don't think it makes any difference in practice. Statutory guidance phrases it as “cost or amortized cost,” but from a purely practical dollar‐value perspective, it ends up being the same thing if there’s no premium or d…
-
This was changed in the 2020 of Odomirok's Financial Reporting text. You are correct that the valuation formula here should now include cost. I have edited the Battle Card and added a footnote to the Battle Table here: * https://battleacts6us.c…
-
We'll fix that but it won't be re-uploaded until later. Thanks!
-
Done. Thanks.
-
I believe that problem is marked as outdated, isn't it? The updated answer is in Quiz 2, Battle Card 1.
-
Oh, I see now. My eye ran over the question and in my mind I was thinking of NFIP, not the customers of NFIP. Thx! The Battle Card is corrected (and a new Battle Card with the effects on potential customers will be uploaded the next time the Batt…
-
Note also that reasoning like this is not cut and dried and I think an increase in private flood insurance could also be interpreted as pulling back of government flood insurance. In that scenario, that would limit availability in general. But do…
-
I'm not sure you reasoning is correct. Private insurers may only operate in certain areas or choose not to cover high-risk zones, leaving gaps in coverage options for some homeowners so that would limit availability.
-
Is this the Battle Card you are referring to? This is what I see in Quiz 5, Card 3. And the answer is:
-
Done. Thx!
-
We have added a footnote to the wiki in NAIC.SSAP-65 to mention the error in the examiners' report: * https://battleacts6us.ca/wiki6us/NAIC.SSAP-65#BattleTable Thanks for pointing this out.
-
Done. Thx!
-
Here is a Word doc that has that information:
-
This capping comment in Q13 has now been removed.
-
No, the orange highlights indicate that it is outdated so you don't need to study this question or this reading. When a reading is removed from the syllabus, I remove it from the Ranking Table but leave the wiki page intact. This is to maintain a…
-
We will look into putting that information together.
-
Yup, thanks!
-
You raise a good point: if the treaty truly applied only to business written in 2013, then any leftover UEPR from earlier multi-year policies wouldn’t be ceded. In real world practice, you’d carve that out and only cede the portion written in 2013. …
-
Corrected, thanks!
-
Apologies for the delay in responding to your question. We will respond shortly.
-
Apologies for the delay in responding to your question. We will respond shortly.
-
I think the table you're referring to in the wiki is here: * https://battleacts6us.ca/wiki6us/Odomirok.8-9-IS#:~:text=net%20investment%20income,the%20year This description of net investment income earned comes directly from the Odomirok tex…
-
Here's the thread you referred to: * https://battleacts6us.ca/vanillaforum6us/discussion/693/rma-cash-flows
-
I've adjusted the Battle Card for 2015.Spring 8a. Thanks!