graham
About
- Username
- graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,032
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Yup!! I fixed it and gave you a double shout-out. Thx!
-
The section you referenced refers to how the NAIC comes up with the various inputs for the R4 calculation rather than the actual R4 calculation itself. Specifically, the floor of 5% refers to the industry RBC%. That value is normally given to you…
-
I don't think so. What made you think it's 0.2 rather than 0.05?
-
You are correct that the expense ratio is not reduced by Other Income in the numerator. But I'm glad you asked that question because I clarified the formula for the expense ratio in the COR as I written it in the RBC article. The is other term in…
-
That applies just to GAAP. I edited the BattleCard to make it more clear. Thx!
-
The reason there's no U/W risk is that it is 100% certain the reinsurer will have to pay out the full $5m every year. (If the ceding company is certain to have $10m in ceded losses and the reinsurer covers the first $5m, they will always have to pay…
-
Oh yes, it looks quite similar. One really has to pay attention to whether the column headings refer to AYs or CYs. In 2019.Spring Q10 the 1st and 3rd tables have CY headings whereas in the middle table, the headings refer to AYs.
-
There actually could be adjustments required regarding loss reserves, especially regarding the treatment of reinsurance, but the question doesn't provide any further information. You basically just have to assume the only adjustments you have to …
-
The short answer is UEP is a "rolling" value, unlike unpaid losses which stay on the books until payments are explicitly made. We don't care what the UEP was a year ago. We only care about the current value. This is explained further below. In ca…
-
I want to say yes, but let me stop and think through it first. Here's what we know: * if an investment is held at fair value on the balance sheet then changes in its value would be unrealized capital gains and this is a direct charge to surplus…
-
Oops, that's a typo. You are correct. I've updated the BattleCard. Thanks for letting me know.
-
Yes, the source text gives two different versions of how to value redeemable preferred stocks of NAIC class 1 and 2. That means at least one is incorrect, possibly both. I did some research but didn't find a definitive answer. I'm sure there is a ru…
-
That topic isn't covered in any detail in the Odomirok source text. I reread that section of Odomirok, which is about half-way down page 137, the paragraph starting with "The new Part 6 has 2 sections." and here are my comments. There was only 1 …
-
Sorry, I guess I didn't make that too clear. It's just a formula from the text. It's on the 2nd last line of page 330 in Odomirok. That sentence says: * AMTI consists of regular taxable income plus 75% of income that escapes regular taxation, s…
-
Yes, there are actually 2 places where you can see this. I try to indicate this in the BattleTables in each wiki article either with a comment or by highlighting a particular question with a tan background. But probably an easier place to see this i…
-
Yup, thx! (But it's actually IRIS 9 rather than IRIS 10)
-
No, nothing special is going on. They ceded and assumed discounted reserves don't have to be the same. This problem just made that assumption to make it easier to solve.
-
It's good to extend your thinking beyond what's been specifically asked before! What were your reasons for putting these coverages in these categories? The reason I ask is that without having specific knowledge each type of insurance, you can oft…
-
Thanks. It's corrected.
-
Yes, they seem to have reversed the labels for the 2 versions of the IRIS 1&2 calculation. * PHS should be removed from surplus aid only if IRIS 4 is unusual If IRIS 4 is within the usual range then no adjustment to IRIS 1&2 is nece…
-
Actually there is! After you login, there's a link to BattleCards filtered by prior exams in the middle box (Combat Training). It's the 4th item: Prior Exams (with scores) And an FYI: When you look at BattleCards by exam, some of them are not par…
-
It's good you're looking at this problem because it's a really good exam problem to study and the answers are very well explained in the examiner's report. Part A: * Yes, you would need to provide 2 of the 8 sample answers to receive full cr…
-
Yes, it seems the solution in the examiner's report made the assumption that the tabular discount was for medical reserves. From your question, I assume you realized that if it was for indemnity then you would not subtract that amount from policy…
-
Interesting. I see the publication date is Oct 25, 2019, which is after the current version of the syllabus was released. This situation has arisen before, where the syllabus isn't consistent with the current standards. The general policy seems t…
-
Yup! I always like to see when students are able to answer their own questions because it shows you're really engaged! Keep up the good work!
-
Sorry, I can see that would be very annoying. I didn't realize it let you keep going with the BattleCards after you were timed out. I've fixed it and tested it myself so it should now take you to the login screen and not let you proceed.
-
Thx! I hope everything goes well tomorrow!
-
I think the final answer of 2.34% is correct, but as you said, the calculation should be: * 0.23 / (5 + 5/1.05^0.5) If you punch into your calculator what's shown in the examiner's report, you get 198%. Your formula is correct, but I don't …
-
In general, the difference between a broker and a producer is that the broker works for the insured (the client) and the producer works for the insurer. (So a producer and an agent are very similar.) Some states actually say producers and agents are…
-
Sorry, glitch in the upload process. They should be there now.