Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Property - Casualty / General Insurance
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-30-2018, 10:52 PM
Arlie_Proctor Arlie_Proctor is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: N.J.
College: Indiana University
Favorite beer: Becks
Posts: 1,199
Default

There is absolutely no doubt that it is a full employment act for consultants. But I will spend some time in retirement figuring out who lobbied for what. Applied to P&C insurance, the standard is beyond stupidity. It is obvious that it was designed for life insurance and that P&C was shoehorned into it without much intelligent thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Polymath View Post
IFRS 17 is essentially Ambrosia for Consultancies.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-30-2018, 11:00 PM
Colymbosathon ecplecticos's Avatar
Colymbosathon ecplecticos Colymbosathon ecplecticos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlie_Proctor View Post
It is obvious that it was designed for life insurance and that P&C was shoehorned into it without much intelligent thought.
Somehow this seems vaguely reminiscent of some recent events.
__________________
"What do you mean I don't have the prerequisites for this class? I've failed it twice before!"


"I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself."
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-30-2018, 11:18 PM
Arlie_Proctor Arlie_Proctor is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: N.J.
College: Indiana University
Favorite beer: Becks
Posts: 1,199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colymbosathon ecplecticos View Post
Somehow this seems vaguely reminiscent of some recent events.
It does for those of us in the US, and that is a sad fact. We are the only country that specifically trains P&C actuaries in a program separate from life actuaries. The rest of the world simply trains actuaries and releases them into the wild as qualified to practice in either field. In the case of IFRS-17 design, it is obvious that the participating actuaries either had very little experience/expertise with P&C business or that those who had the requisite experience/training were largely ignored.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-30-2018, 11:38 PM
Marcie's Avatar
Marcie Marcie is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 9,448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlie_Proctor View Post
There is absolutely no doubt that it is a full employment act for consultants. But I will spend some time in retirement figuring out who lobbied for what. Applied to P&C insurance, the standard is beyond stupidity. It is obvious that it was designed for life insurance and that P&C was shoehorned into it without much intelligent thought.
Perhaps that's a consequence of not having an independent group of people specializing in P&C insurance outside the US, Arles?

ETA: ninjas!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-30-2018, 11:59 PM
Arlie_Proctor Arlie_Proctor is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: N.J.
College: Indiana University
Favorite beer: Becks
Posts: 1,199
Default

I can't answer that question. I work with some fantastic P&C actuaries around the world, so, I know the talent exists outside the US. We, in the US don't have an exclusive lock on P&C talent. However, in the case of IFRS-17, I don't see much representation of that talent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcie View Post
Perhaps that's a consequence of not having an independent group of people specializing in P&C insurance outside the US, Arles?

ETA: ninjas!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-01-2018, 10:19 AM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,660
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlie_Proctor View Post
There is absolutely no doubt that it is a full employment act for consultants. But I will spend some time in retirement figuring out who lobbied for what. Applied to P&C insurance, the standard is beyond stupidity. It is obvious that it was designed for life insurance and that P&C was shoehorned into it without much intelligent thought.
The Life insurance piece has its own stupidities, and I believe that fact is part of the reason why it doesn't apply in the US. Another big part of the reason is just politics.
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Nov. 20, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Actuario View Post
Therapists should ask the right questions, not give the right answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-01-2018, 12:40 PM
The_Polymath's Avatar
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,184
Default

IFRS 17 for life insurers isnt terrible per se. The CSM is actually a good way to stabilise profits over time. The main problem is one of data. They expect insurers to have saved all their assumptions/data going back decades, which is not realistic. All the legacy business is going to have to be estimated as the data is simply not there. Going forwards, you need to merge actuarial, risk, and accounting with a lot more operational complexity (this is going to be very expensive) given how IFRS 17 is calculated. The reinsurance side of IFRS 17 also needs some improvement as well.

Good for consultants though. I expect lots of work and lots of bonuses for the next 4 years.
__________________
Quote:
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-01-2018, 12:42 PM
The_Polymath's Avatar
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlie_Proctor View Post
It does for those of us in the US, and that is a sad fact. We are the only country that specifically trains P&C actuaries in a program separate from life actuaries. The rest of the world simply trains actuaries and releases them into the wild as qualified to practice in either field. In the case of IFRS-17 design, it is obvious that the participating actuaries either had very little experience/expertise with P&C business or that those who had the requisite experience/training were largely ignored.
Those Lloyd's folks are gonna be very annoyed....
__________________
Quote:
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.30687 seconds with 11 queries