C5 Flashcards
539
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-1 define:Calculation date
539
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-1 define:Calculation date
- Effective date of calculation (Ex: for financial statements, the calculation date would normally be the balance sheet date)
540
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-1 define:Report date
540
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-1 define:Report date
- Date on which the actuary completes the report on his/her work
541
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-1 define:Report
541
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-1 define:Report
- Actuary’s oral or written communication to users about his/her work
542
E (2018.Fall 29a.) 0.500 pts
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-1 define:Subsequent event
an event of which..
542
E (2018.Fall 29a.) 0.500 pts
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-1 define:Subsequent event
an event of which..
- An event (of which an actuary first becomes aware) AFTER the CalcDt but BEFORE the corresponding report date
543
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-1 define:Adjusting event + Ex
..provides evidence..
543
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-1 define:Adjusting event + Ex
..provides evidence..
- Event (after CalcDt) that provides evidence of conditions existing (at CalcDt): results in adjustments
- EXAMPLE: reinsurer insolvency after CalcDt that was due to gradual deterioration occurring before CalcDt
544
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-1 define:Non-adjusting event + Ex
..indicative..
544
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-1 define:Non-adjusting event + Ex
..indicative..
- Event (after CalcDt) indicative of conditions arising (after CalcDt): NO adjustments
- EXAMPLE: reinsurer insolvency due to catastrophe
545
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-2 (6.1 Catastrophic Event):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for 1998 ICE STORM
545
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-2 (6.1 Catastrophic Event):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for 1998 ICE STORM
- EVENT: Jan 5, 1998 (ice storm in Eastern Canada)
- ACTUARY BECAME AWARE: Jan 5 1998 (same day as event)
- SUBSEQUENT EVENT? yes, actuary became aware after CalcDt (12/31/97) & before report date (several weeks after Jan 5, 1998)
546
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-2 (6.1 Catastrophic Event):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the ICE STORM example follow
546
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-2 (6.1 Catastrophic Event):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the ICE STORM example follow
- BRANCH: middle
547
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-2 (6.1 Catastrophic Event):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the ICE STORM example follow
547
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-2 (6.1 Catastrophic Event):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the ICE STORM example follow
- EWDP-inform:
- Error? no –> go to next question
- When? event occurred AFTER CalcDt –> go to next question
- Different? yes, AFTER CalcDt –> go to next question
- Purpose? report on entity as it WAS
- –> FINAL ACTION: inform only
- EWDP-inform:
548
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-2 (6.1 Catastrophic Event):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the ICE STORM subsequent event example
548
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-2 (6.1 Catastrophic Event):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the ICE STORM subsequent event example
- The ice storm doesn’t make entity different retroactively
- The purpose of the actuary’s work was to report on the entity as it was
- But note that premium liabilities would have been understated
550
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-4 (6.2 Judicial Decision):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the ALBERTA MINOR INJURY CAP
550
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-4 (6.2 Judicial Decision):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the ALBERTA MINOR INJURY CAP
- EVENT: Feb 8, 2008 ($4,000 Alberta minor injury cap struck down)
- ACTUARY BECAME AWARE: Feb 8, 2008 (same day as event)
- SUBSEQUENT EVENT? depended on each insurer’s report date
551
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-4 (6.2 Judicial Decision):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the ALBERTA MINOR INJURY CAP follow
551
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-4 (6.2 Judicial Decision):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the ALBERTA MINOR INJURY CAP follow
- BRANCH: middle (if insurer’s RptDt was AFTER Feb 8, so it WAS a subsequent event)
- BRANCH: right (if insurer’s RptDt was BEFORE Feb 8, so it WASN’T a subsequent event)
552
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-4 (6.2 Judicial Decision):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding ALBERTA MINOR INJURY CAP
552
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-4 (6.2 Judicial Decision):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding ALBERTA MINOR INJURY CAP
- For insurers where it WAS a subsequent event (middle branch): EWD-reflect
- For insurers where it WASN’T a subsequent event (right branch):
- If material → RI-withdraw/amend
- If not material → inform (“no action” may not be enough for industry-wide events)
- (thx jaylow96!)
553
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-4 (6.2 Judicial Decision):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the ALBERTA MINOR INJURY CAP
553
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-4 (6.2 Judicial Decision):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the ALBERTA MINOR INJURY CAP
- This example was complicated by the fact that some insurers would have completed their report by Feb 8, while others would not have
554
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.3 Reinsurer Failure):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the REINSURER FAILURE example
554
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.3 Reinsurer Failure):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the REINSURER FAILURE example
- EVENT: Jan 15
- ACTUARY BECAME AWARE: Jan 15 (same as event)
- SUBSEQUENT EVENT? yes, actuary became aware after CalcDt (12/31) & before report date (several weeks after Jan 15)
555
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.3 Reinsurer Failure):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the REINSURER FAILURE example follow
555
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.3 Reinsurer Failure):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the REINSURER FAILURE example follow
- BRANCH: middle
556
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.3 Reinsurer Failure):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the REINSURER FAILURE example
556
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.3 Reinsurer Failure):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the REINSURER FAILURE example
- EWD-reflect
- Error? no –> go to next question
- When? event occurred AFTER CalcDt –> go to next question
- Different? yes, BEFORE CalcDt (failure provided evidence of prior deteriorating conditions)
- –> FINAL ACTION: reflect
557
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.3 Reinsurer Failure):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the REINSURER FAILURE example
557
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.3 Reinsurer Failure):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the REINSURER FAILURE example
- Action depends on cause of failure: here reinsurer failure had been buidling prior to CalcDt
- Failure AFTER CalcDt simply provided further evidence of conditions existing prior to CalcDt
- If failure was due to a catstrophe, path through decision tree would be: EWDP
- In other words, final action would be to inform only.
558
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.4 Change in Markets):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the STOCK MARKET DROP example
558
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.4 Change in Markets):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the STOCK MARKET DROP example
- EVENT: 1st week of Jan (big drop in stock market)
- ACTUARY BECAME AWARE: 1st week of Jan
- SUBSEQUENT EVENT? yes, actuary became aware after CalcDt (12/31) & before report date (several weeks after 1st week of Jan)
559
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.4 Change in Markets):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the STOCK MARKET DROP example follow
559
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.4 Change in Markets):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the STOCK MARKET DROP example follow
- BRANCH: middle
560
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.4 Change in Markets):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the STOCK MARKET DROP example
560
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.4 Change in Markets):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the STOCK MARKET DROP example
- EWDP-inform:
- Error? no –> go to next question
- When? event occurred AFTER CalcDt –> go to next question
- Different? yes, AFTER CalcDt –> go to next question
- Purpose? report on entity as it WAS
- –> FINAL ACTION: inform only
- EWDP-inform:
561
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.4 Change in Markets):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the STOCK MARKET DROP example
561
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-5 (6.4 Change in Markets):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the STOCK MARKET DROP example
- Main issue is whether the market drop provided evidence of conditions in existence PRIOR to CalcDt or not
- It was decided was that it did NOT (different from the ‘reinsurer failure’ example)
562
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.5 Missing Claims):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the MISSING CLAIMS example
562
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.5 Missing Claims):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the MISSING CLAIMS example
- EVENT: before Jun 30 (claims database was missing claims)
- ACTUARY BECAME AWARE: Aug 5
- SUBSEQUENT EVENT? yes, actuary became aware after CalcDt (Jun 30) & before RptDt (RptDt is after Aug 5)
563
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.5 Missing Claims):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the MISSING CLAIMS example follow
563
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.5 Missing Claims):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the MISSING CLAIMS example follow
- BRANCH: middle
564
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.5 Missing Claims):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the MISSING CLAIMS example
564
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.5 Missing Claims):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the MISSING CLAIMS example
- E-reflect
Error? yes ~–> FINAL ACTION: reflect (in other words, correct the error!)
565
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.5 Missing Claims):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the MISSING CLAIMS example
565
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.5 Missing Claims):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the MISSING CLAIMS example
- If actuary had become aware AFTER the report date, this wouldn’t be a subsequent event
- We would then be on the RIGHT BRANCH of the decision tree and ask these questions instead: (see wiki)
- Would the event be reflected IF it had been a subsequent event? yes –> go to next question
- Does the event invalidate the report? yes –> FINAL ACTION: withdraw or amend report
566
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-3 (6.6 Late Reported Claims):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the LATE-REPORTED CLAIMS example
566
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-3 (6.6 Late Reported Claims):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the LATE-REPORTED CLAIMS example
- EVENT: Nov 20 (case reserve increase by ceding insurer)
- ACTUARY BECAME AWARE: Jan 12
- SUBSEQUENT EVENT? yes, actuary became aware after CalcDt (12/31) & before RptDt (several weeks after Jan 12, 1998)
567
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-3 (6.6 Late Reported Claims):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the LATE-REPORTED CLAIMS example folow
567
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-3 (6.6 Late Reported Claims):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the LATE-REPORTED CLAIMS example folow
- BRANCH: middle
568
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-3 (6.6 Late Reported Claims):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the LATE-REPORTED CLAIMS example
568
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-3 (6.6 Late Reported Claims):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the LATE-REPORTED CLAIMS example
- EW-reflect:
- Error? no –> go to next question
- When? event occurred BEFORE CalcDt –>
- FINAL ACTION: reflect
569
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-3 (6.6 Late Reported Claims):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the LATE-REPORTED CLAIMS example
569
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-3 (6.6 Late Reported Claims):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the LATE-REPORTED CLAIMS example
- This situation often arises for reinsurers
- It is NOT the same as a data error or missing claims
570
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.7 Change in Industry Benchmarks):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the CHANGE in INDUSTRY BENCHMARKS example
570
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.7 Change in Industry Benchmarks):FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the CHANGE in INDUSTRY BENCHMARKS example
- EVENT: Jul 15 (new industry LDF benchmarks released)
- ACTUARY BECAME AWARE: Jul 15
- SUBSEQUENT EVENT? yes, actuary became aware after quarterly CalcDt (6/30) & before report date (several weeks after Jul 15)
571
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.7 Change in Industry Benchmarks):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the CHANGE in INDUSTRY BENCHMARKS example follow
571
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.7 Change in Industry Benchmarks):BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent event decision tree should the CHANGE in INDUSTRY BENCHMARKS example follow
- BRANCH: middle
572
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.7 Change in Industry Benchmarks):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the CHANGE in INDUSTRY BENCHMARKS example
572
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.7 Change in Industry Benchmarks):ACTION: according to the subsequent event decision tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the CHANGE in INDUSTRY BENCHMARKS example
- EWD-stop
- Error? no –> go to next question
- When? event occurred AFTER CalcDt –> go to next question
- Different? event did NOT make entity different - LDFs don’t change much from qtr-to-qtr –>
- FINAL ACTION: nothing
573
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.7 Change in Industry Benchmarks):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the CHANGE in INDUSTRY BENCHMARKS example
573
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-6 (6.7 Change in Industry Benchmarks):Relevant Comments: provide any further relevant detail(s) related to the CHANGE in INDUSTRY BENCHMARKS example
- This situation could arise for a new company without its own credible data (must rely on industry benchmarks)
574
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-2 decision tree:What is the prime consideration when applying the subsequent event decision tree
574
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-2 decision tree:What is the prime consideration when applying the subsequent event decision tree
- PRIME CONSIDERATION: is the event material? (if not, no action is required)
575
E (2017.Spring 27a.) 0.750 pts
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-7 decision tree:Identify circumstances under which a subsequent event must be accounted for (3)
575
E (2017.Spring 27a.) 0.750 pts
CIA.SUBSEQ: All
Qz-7 decision tree:Identify circumstances under which a subsequent event must be accounted for (3)
- If the event is MATERIAL
- If the event reflects an ERROR
- If the event makes the entity DIFFERENT relative to the timing/purpose of the actuary’s report
590
E (2016.Spring 10b.) 0.750 pts
CAS.GovtIns: ALL
Qz-1 intro:Identify the LEVELS of government involvement in insurance (3) + examples
sole, partner, competitor
590
E (2016.Spring 10b.) 0.750 pts
CAS.GovtIns: ALL
Qz-1 intro:Identify the LEVELS of government involvement in insurance (3) + examples
sole, partner, competitor
- Government as SOLE provider (CPP)
- Government as a provider in PARTNERSHIP with private insurance (crop reinsurance)
- Government as a provider in COMPETITION with private insurance (WC in some states)
591
E (2018.Spring 10a.) 0.500 pts
CAS.GovtIns: ALL
Qz-1 intro:Identify REASONS for government participation in insurance (5)
FCC(ES)
591
E (2018.Spring 10a.) 0.500 pts
CAS.GovtIns: ALL
Qz-1 intro:Identify REASONS for government participation in insurance (5)
FCC(ES)
- For FILLING NEEDS unmet by private insurance (terrorism)
- May occur when private insurance is not economically viable
- After 9/11 terrorist attack in NYC, private market withdrew coverage
- When insurance is COMPULSORY (BC auto)
- If compulsory, but not offered by private market (for whatever reason) –> government must provide
- For CONVENIENCE (flood)
- Government may already have necessary structures in place
- (government already provides disaster relief after floods)
- For EFFICIENCY (auto)
- Agent commissions eliminated ? lower expense ratio ? lower premiums for consumer
- For SOCIAL purposes (medical)
- Private market is motivated by profit
- This is sometimes at the expense of social purposes like universal medical coverage