graham
About
- Username
- graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,034
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
It sounds like you're asking why the formulas given in the text are true. This isn't discussed in the text and isn't something you would need to know, but it's still a good question. I'm just guessing, but here's how I might think about it: If I …
-
Actually, your browser probably didn't crash, but if you literally select all the BattleCards and then shuffle them, it will take a minute or two (or longer?) for the javascript to finish running. (I used a very simple sorting algorithm to save time…
-
For the TBIL calculation, it would be very messy to try to do it in this problem even if you did have the AY breakout of the CY unpaid losses. There is an exam problem where you have to calculate TBIL, 2018.SpringQ4, but it's much easier because the…
-
For a qualified opinion: * The actuary might still state that reported reserves are reasonable BUT that they didn't have enough information to verify the whole amount. For example, suppose the reserves consisted of 2 lines of business where…
-
This is what I would call a math-contest type of problem. It requires algebraic manipulation versus actuarial reasoning. Let * A = surplus Aid * S = Surplus Then here's how to recalculate IRIS 1 * We're given GWP/S = 750 * We want to…
-
I think you might be confusing accident year and tax year. The short answer to your question is that to calculate the tax for tax year 2012, we need discount factors for each prior accident year separately. But from part (a) you only have the discou…
-
Yes, this is confusing. The examiner's report provides 2 acceptable answers, but in accounting there can only be 1 correct answer and they don't tell us which it is. First, DTA (net of DTL) is the same as the change in unrealized capital gains in…
-
Yeah, that was such a cop-out to claim it inadvertently increased the Bloom's level instead of just admitting they screwed up. It looks like your answer is what they called "Approach C". They didn't show the calculation corresponding to that appr…
-
This is not fully explained in Odomirok, but here's what I know should generally be true: * The values on lines 36 & 37 of the U&IE (Part 1) should exactly reverse columns 3 & 4. * This is the "base value" for the UEPR on line 9 of…
-
Funny! I added it to the wiki. Thx!
-
Thanks for noticing that. I fixed it in the practice template and in the pdf that has 2 example problems. It does seem unfair to make people memorize the factors but I can't rule it out on future exams. :-(
-
If I understand your question, the SoS, SoT, and AG would gather all available information and decide whether the particular act can be certified as terrorism. This is just another way of asking whether the definition of terrorism has been satisfied…
-
Yes, if you state your assumption (and the assumption is correct) you would get full credit. The original Webel reading has the old percentage. This is the reading I've labeled Webel.TRIA-1 and it discusses the original version of TRIA. Then TRIA…
-
The key fact here is that the given table for Schedule P - Part 1 is for year-end 2010. In that table, AY 2010 is 12 months old. Now, the other table provided in the question is for year-end 2012, so AY 2012 would be 12 months old in that 2012 ta…
-
Yes, that's correct. The trigger to receive federal payments requires 3 things. The first thing is that the event must be certified. The second thing is >200m losses. The third thing is that the deductible is met.
-
Thanks, I understand your questions better now. To determine if there has been surplus relief, we can calculate these "loss leverage" ratios: * (gross reserves / surplus) before reinsurance = 1100 / 2000 = 55.0% * (net reserves / surplus) afte…
-
The way I interpret those column headings is: * column 14: enter the amounts related to Letters of Credit * column 15: enter the amounts related to Collateral That's because "Letters of Credit" and "Collateral" are 2 different things that …
-
Yup, thx! I gave you a shout-out in the wiki!
-
Yup, you just can't tell. I would definitely study it. If they had wanted to remove it from the syllabus, even temporarily, they easily could have. (There was a taxation question on 2018.Spring (Q 14) and it was already outdated by then.)
-
That is what I would do. (Unfortunately there are no examples in the IRIS source text to demonstrate this.)
-
The simple answer is: * investment income earned DOES NOT include realized gains * investment gain DOES include realized gains You can remember this because investment gain goes with realized gain (so investment gain includes realized gain…
-
I'm sorry - I don't think I understand your question. Which example from the BK.Reins reading are you asking about?
-
Yes, the question that was actually answered in the examiner's report was: * Describe the operation of MSAs. So, I'm not sure how they graded people who (correctly) provided just the rationale. When I wrote the BattleCard answer, I inclu…
-
Oh yes. I didn't actually notice the missing "-" sign. My brain just subtracted it automatically. I will add a footnote in the wiki about that. Thx! (This problem is listed in the BattleTable for the NAIC.IRIS reading because the overall goal of th…
-
P.S. Sorry it took me a few days to post this. I had written my answer but then forgot to click "Post Comment" so it was sitting in my drafts folder.
-
In the version I'm looking at, "Dividends to Stockholders" is shown in parentheses which means it's a negative value. (So including it in the sum of lines 22 to 37 would cause a decrease in surplus.) "Dividends to Stockholders" is money out the d…
-
I'm taking a little bit of guess here: The main consequence of having "no risk transfer" is that the reserves on the balance cannot be reported net of that "reinsurance". In other words, you must use "deposit accounting" instead of "reinsurance a…
-
Unfortunately, this happens more than you would think. Since I began offering content for Exam 6 (both U.S. and Canada), I started noticing answers that were previously accepted that are then subsequently not accepted and vice-versa. My guess it tha…
-
The solid line is below 2017.Spring Q4. (If you don't see it, you might be zoomed out too far - try pressing "cntrl+" to zoom in once or twice. Then you can press "cntrl-" to zoom back out.)
-
Yes, I believe you're right. I changed the example to incorporate the ownership percentage into the market value of the holding company. (The source text isn't very clear about this because in their example, the ownership percentage is 100%.)