graham
About
- Username
- graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,464
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Well, they should accept either on the exam because they are algebraically equivalent. But just in case the grader looks at it and is thrown off (after grading hundreds of other exams!) it might be better to write it out in the standard way.
-
Thanks, we will edit this let you know when it has been reposted. (So you'll need to download it again to get the corrected version.)
-
Your alternative way of thinking about it does seem more intuitive, as it directly compares the difference between the recorded reserves and the actuary's high end range to the materiality standard. By framing it this way, you focus on the actual su…
-
It looks like you are calculating: * materiality standard = (top end of reasonable range) - (carried reserves) I don't think that would be acceptable because then there would NEVER be risk of material adverse deviation. This is because we w…
-
This is discussed in the ASOP.36 wiki article under the heading: One Small Point: * https://battleacts6us.ca/wiki6us/ASOP.36#OneSmallPoint
-
I think the answer to whether it could instead be disclosed in the scope section is no. The Scope section and the Relevant Comments section serve different purposes in the Statement of Actuarial Opinion (SAO). The Scope section mainly identifies …
-
Well, you will definitely get this question right on the exam!
-
The details aren't specifically addressed in the Odomirok source text in chapters 22/23 but my assumption is that while the gain does indeed go into other income, it doesn't alter the regular surplus because it's earmarked within the special surplus.
-
Chapter 18 of the Odomirok text (Insurance Expense Exhibit) doesn't specifically address the item "reserve for rate credits..." Chapter18 focuses on the allocation of expenses and profits rather than the classification and reporting of reserves. …
-
I can see the logic in what you're saying but the treatment of URR in this context is not discussed in chapter 22/23 of the Odomirok text, nor is it specifically discussed in the new reading from the AAA on URR. If you get an exam question where …
-
Yes, I believe your statement is correct. Based on the source text, here's a concise summary of the disclosure items for the SCOPE and RELEVANT COMMENTS sections. The relevant comments section is more open-ended because it depends on context, but th…
-
Very nice! I've linked to your post from here: * https://battleacts6us.ca/wiki6us/Odomirok.22-23-GAAP#Study_Tips
-
The CORRECT answer is to review the primary insurer's Schedule F. The INCORRECT answer is review the reinsurer's Schedule F.
-
It isn't too clear from the source text but the way I read it is that there are 2 deductibles: * The first deductible is the "normal" policyholder deductible which is not covered. The policyholder always has to pay this deductible. * The secon…
-
That's actually not a bad idea. We will look into that but it likely isn't something we could do for this exam cycle. Apologies.
-
Yes, you can ignore the details of FSOC. (The Baribeau reading was removed from the syllabus but it is archived in the wiki which is why you found it by searching.)
-
Both reciprocal insurance companies and RRGs involve mutual risk-sharing among members, reciprocals operate through individual agreements facilitated by an attorney-in-fact where risks are directly exchanged among subscribers. In contrast, RRGs a…
-
I double-checked both Porter chapter 4 (which discusses state-based insurance regulation) and NAIC.Solvency (which also discusses state-based regulation) and the answer to that exam question is not explicitly in either reading. The nearest I coul…
-
Your second question on outdated Battle Cards: Yes, you can ignore the Battle Cards labelled as "outdated". I have already removed all outdated questions except those that are old exam questions. This is to maintain a complete history of old exam…
-
Thx! I have linked to this discussion from this subsection in the wiki: * https://battleacts6us.ca/wiki6us/Klann.ReinsComm#Accounting_Treatment_of_a_Commutation
-
@jasonchw The cheat sheet has been edited to remove that reference. Thanks!
-
It looks like the Dodd-Frank content you're referring was from a reading that is no longer on the syllabus. We will review that section of the cheat sheet and make appropriate changes. Thanks for pointing this out. I will post here when the changes …
-
That's a nice diagram. I hope you don't mind that I took a screen shot and pasted it below. I will then link to it from the wiki so others can benefit from your insights. I have linked to this forum thread from here in the wiki: * https://battl…
-
I believe the examiners' report is incorrect. A percent of income could be a valid option for a materiality standard in the right circumstances. Choosing a percentage of net income as a materiality threshold reflects an assessment based on the in…
-
The explanation after the sample answers in the examiners' report seems to say that multiple approaches to handling the Deferred Tax Asset (DTA) were accepted due to the lack of clarity in how it should be applied. Specifically, treating the change …
-
Hello @mballard I have inserted the "-1" into the earlier comment. Thanks.
-
Hello @Emma The cheat sheet has been corrected. Thank for pointing this out.
-
Never would have thought of that! I like it. (I gave you a shout-out the BattleCard in quiz 2 of that chapter.)
-
This is not explicitly mentioned in the source text as it is for the ARP. In general, it can vary by state but you can assume that these items would make a driver ineligible for the RF or JUA: * no valid driver's license * certain felony convi…