Yes. Now remember, for the Actuary’s estimates, there is a choice between point or range estimates, but if both are calculated, both must be disclosed. In this case you may want to consider the format

Sorry I mentioned it was Rank 4 - IRIS, not IRIS 4. I should've been more clear. This pertains to NII - IRIS 6. It is problem #22 in the Rank 4 section of IRIS problems.

study false information. (Rank 4 IRIS- problem #22)

I have a similar question for Spring 2019 #22. Is the reason they used 10% of the point estimate rather than 10% of the carried reserves for the materiality standard because the question said "in

Based on Spring 2019 #22 part b, I am interpreting this correcting that this should be % of point estimate reserves, rather than % of carried reserves?

Hello, BattleActs TA

For Question #22a, I thought using the actuary's point estimate (or anything the actuary calculated) to calculate a materiality standard was not allowed. Am I confused about this? I thought the materi

Hi for part a), In Opinion C, I thought key word "inadequate" should be used, instead of "are less than the min amt...", but solution didn't mention it at all. Do I have a point? …

When we are giving our opinion, do we give 2 individual opinions on both net & gross and leave it at that? Or do we state (for this example) that net reserves are reasonable, gross reserves a…

For the Opinion here, why do the examiner's reports make no mention of unearned premium for long-duration contracts? If there is no mention of long-duration contracts do we just assume there aren't a…

For a, is it bc we are not given non-tabular discount/tabular discount, therefore PHS = TAC?

Why don't they mention the unearned premium reserves for long duration contracts? Is it because premiums are not in the question?

When looking at risk of material adverse deviation, do we focus solely on net reserves? Or do we also apply the materiality standard of 50% * 7000 = 3,500 to the direct and assumed reserves (e.g. doe…

Is the answer in the Examiner's report to the definition of qualified actuary outdated in 2016 Fall #22 part a, just like 2013 Fall #27 part a and 2016 Spring #20? In other words, I should answer as y

Part (a) asks: