mec06e
About
- Username
- mec06e
- Joined
- Visits
- 9
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
can you explain what the difference is between "investments in affiliated insurance companies" and "affiliated investments" just to point out R0 does have it in the wiki article but it may be worth putting subsidiaries/affiliates in the R0 descri…
-
I also just noticed the paid losses recoverable from reinsurance is not listed on the admitted assets, but is in this solution
-
or are they saying the second tables titled: "part 2A - Unpaid loss and Loss Adjustment Expenses" with the headers below it being: "reported losses" & "Incurred bit not reported" are these only loss (though that's bit misleading since the IBNR…
-
I'm getting a bit turned around in the examiner's report part a is calculating the net losses unpaid and it looks like this includes both Loss & LAE part b is calculating the net loss inc = paid loss + the change in reserves The header f…
-
so you are saying it's an outdated answer?
-
So I guess that is another example of something that can make the Sch P hard to use to eval a Company, since the year over year the triangle data can change at historic evals if the pooling arrangement changes.
-
I'm bit confused here, the pooling arrangement changed in 2012, and according to the solution that new arrangement was used to calc the 2011 evaluations points. But wouldn't that mean the documents filed for 2011 are now wrong? I guess I just w…
-
thank you, I must have missed Unauthorized when writing my notes!
-
is this question a bit outdated? - I thought unauthorized was not included in the surplus aid unless they are certified or reciprocal jurisdictions or are we just assuming the unauthorized are certified or reciprocal jurisdictions?
-
I went about this a bit differently: given: Company Action Level Capital / Net Loss Reserve = .35 re-written: 2(Authorized Control Level Capital)/Net Loss Reserve = .35 so: Net Loss Reserve = 5.7143(Authorized Control Level Capital) given…
-
Isn't GAO.report a discontinued article (not covered on this exam anymore)
-
the 3 in the COPLFR.SAO that are labeled as outdated - since the examiner report is outdated but the questions are actually still relevant
-
all except part c - i don't think part c is covered anymore
-
that's what I was looking for, any change that could be added into the battle cards that it applies to (I think there are like 3 or them) so that we can quickly source that info?
-
sorry I'm a bit lost on this one still, would you be able to explain what math/reasoning you used to get the answer: "Yes; pursue comments regarding MAD if the Appointed Actuary did not already address it."
-
do you think they would have excepted a statement saying that the adverse development would need to be explained but due to the lack of data provided we aren't able to draw a conclusion
-
so you are saying this is the bright-line test but that is: 10% x (net L & LAE reserves) > TAC – CAL so does Company Action Level Capital to Net Loss Reserve = (TAC-CAL)/(net L & LAE reserves)
-
Your coworker asks you to identify if they should pursue comments about material adverse development on a company. They do not have the full statement, but they do know the following: • The ratio of Company Action Level Capital to Net Loss Reserv…
-
Thanks, that makes sense!
-
could this be an instance where another ASOP superseded ASOP 41?
-
after reading the section below I think I understand - it's possible to temporarily remove them when it is warranted (like economic downturn)
-
along the same topic of agg premium, I don't see how the removal of Credit Score as a rating variable can be an argument for it. It seems more like a side note, since it's not really a reason supporting the use of Credit Score as a rating variable
-
so I think my question on the card still stands the NIAC model bills came before M-F not after. the card's question says AFTER M-F
-
so the phrase NAIC model bills refers to bills passed by individual states after McCarron-Ferguson Act?
-
and after reading a the next section L really stands for Loss Reserves not Loss as that would be reserves + paid amounts
-
I think I just figured it out it's the change in the losses after discounting, so if the loss had been paid out in CY+2 then the chg(L^D) for CY+1 would be (7000/(1.05^2)) - (7000/1.05)
-
it may be worth adding to the NIAC.Price article with a link from the Germani.GovtIns question that uses principles 2 & 4 as the answer (bottom of the Germani.GovtIns article)
-
I actually found it in the source material: PDF book marked section labeled "NIAC Price" Paper titled: Casualty Actuarial and Statistical (C) Task Force Price Optimization White Paper section: III. Background: State Rating Law, Actuarial Princi…
-
thank you, that makes sense
-
that makes sense for RF, but I don't think that answered my question about JUA. For JUA there is no servicing of policies as the policies are sent to a servicing carrier. where RF does service the policies. If I'm understanding it correctly I…