![]() |
|
|
|||||||
| FlashChat | Actuarial Discussion | Preliminary Exams | CAS/SOA Exams | Cyberchat | Around the World | Suggestions |
D.W. Simpson and Company -- Actuary Salary Surveys |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Why does the UW&Inv EX separate Affiliates from Non-Affiliates? Is this something we'll need to know?
Or the telling question I came up with, is "How could an insurer game the system by not having to separate affiliates vs non affiliates in the exhibit?" Cheers, Gareth Keenan |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Have no idea what you mean by this. Is it relevant to the 2011 syllabus? |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I actually don't know if it's relevant to the syllabus, sometimes when studying for an exam I have stray thoughts about topics that won't be tested. I usually then slap myself. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
An investment in an affiliate is likely separated due to the fact that if the affiliate defaults, it's a greater indicator that you are in financial difficulties.
I think it also helps prevent the shifting around of assets to adjust a particular company's bottom line (that is, make it appear either more profitable for shareholders or less profitable to justify a rate increase). Note: you can still do this, but it's easier to detect when you can't hide it within a bunch of unaffiliated investments.
__________________
The Search is about to begin . . . There is still time left to join. I find your lack of faith disturbing. Wait until you have kids. ![]() Freedom of speech is not a license to discourtesy
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|