CIA.Subseq Flashcards
Define: calculation date
Effective date of calculation (Ex: for financial statements, the calculation date would normally be the balance sheet date)
Define: report date
Date on which the actuary completes the report on their work
Define: report
Actuary’s oral or written communication to users about their work
Define: subsequent event
An event of which an actuary first becomes aware after the calcuation date but before the corresponding report date
Define: adjusting event + provide an example
- Event (after CalcDt) that provides evidence of conditions existing (at CalcDt): results in adjustment
- Example: reinsurer insolvency after CalcDt that was due to gradual deterioration occuring before CalcDt
Define: non-adjusting event + provide an example
- Event (after CalcDt) indicative of conditions arising (after CalcDt): NO adjustments
- Example: reinsurer insolvency due to catastrophe
Describe the middle branch for the decision tree for reflecting/not reflecting subsequent events (this is essentially for subsequent events)
EWDP:
- Error? (was there an error?), if yes: reflect, if no: next question
- When? (when did the event occur?), if on or before CalcDt: reflect, if after CalcDt: next question
- Different? (did event make entity different? if not, stop), if yes, on or before CalcDt: reflect, if yes after CalcDt: next question
- Purpose? (what is the purpose of the work?), if report on entity as it will be: reflect, if report on entity as it was: inform only
(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 (Yr End) & before report date (weeks after Jan 5 1998)
(6.1 Catastrophic Event): BRANCH: which branch of the subsequent decision tree should the ICE STORM example follow?
Middle
(6.1 Catastrophic Event): ACTION: according to the subsequent event tree, what action should the actuary take regarding the ICE STORM example
EWDP-inform:
- Error? No -> go to next question
- When? event occurred AFTER CalcDt -> go to next question
- Is Entity Different? Yes, AFTER CalcDt -> go to next question
- Purpose? Report on entity as it WAS
Final action: inform only
(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 the 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
What is the prime consideration when applying the subsequent event decision tree?
PRIME CONSIDERATION: is the event material?
- If not material then usually no action is required
- But sometimes it’s still beneficial to disclose the event
(6.2 Judicial Decision): FACTS: describe the timeline of events for the ALBERTA MINOR INJURY CAP?
EVENT: Feb 8, 2008 ($4000 Alberta Minor Injury cap struck down)
ACTUARY BECAME AWARE: Same day
SUBSEQUENT EVENT? Depend on each insurer’s report date
(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 subsequent event)
BRANCH: right (if insurer’s RptDt was BEFORE Feb 8, so it WASN’T a subsequent event)
(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, then reflect, so withdraw/amend report
- If not material, inform (“no action” may not be enough for industry-wide events)
(6.2 Judicial Decision): Relevant Comments: provide any further 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 other wouldn’t have