• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

queries

Y

yogesh167

Member
Hi

Can you please help me with the following questions:

1. Ch-10 Section 1.2 what do you mean by-‘financial promotions contain excessive small print which consumers dislike- what do you mean by financial promotions?

2. Ch-11

· Difference between RCR(Peak1) and RCM(Peak 2)?

· Difference between ICA(Pillar 2) and RBS (Peak2)?

· We use best estimate assumptions generally for RBS, EEV and SII. (RBS calculates asset shares, EEV calculates PVIF and SII calculates best estimate of liabilities). I am just confused why its not possible to calculate AS, PVIF etc using any one of the 3 measures?

· What is the reason behind calculation of WPICC(peak 1 for realistic firms) and RCR(peak 1 for regulatory firms) differently, when both of these fulfil similar purpose – i.e. calculating additional capital requirements?

· Why high lapse assumption may be prudent in early term and low rate is likely to be prudent at later durations?

· Page 21- para 1 in bold- this is caused by ‘non linearity’ and ‘non separability’ of individual risks, the latter referring to the ways in which risk drivers interact with each other. I don’t understand this?

3. Ch-12 Section 2. How counterparty risk exposure is increased by long positions in futures and options and decreased by short position?
 
Hi

Hope the following comments help.

1. Ch-10 Section 1.2 what do you mean by-‘financial promotions contain excessive small print which consumers dislike- what do you mean by financial promotions?
Click to expand...

I'd think of financial promotions as marketing communications. COBS defines financial promotions here: http://fshandbook.info/FS/glossary-html/handbook/Glossary/F?definition=G421

2. Ch-11

· Difference between RCR(Peak1) and RCM(Peak 2)?
Click to expand...

They're both assessments of risk capital.
The RCR has just market stresses. The RCM has market, credit and persistency stresses.

(The Peak 1 / Peak 2 differences affect which type of firm has to calculate each of them and in respect of which types of fund.)

· Difference between ICA(Pillar 2) and RBS (Peak2)?
Click to expand...

ICA (Pillar 2) is done by all firms for all types of business. It is confidential for the PRA.
RBS (Pillar 1, Peak 2) is done just by realistic-basis firms and just for with-profits funds. It is not confidential.

· We use best estimate assumptions generally for RBS, EEV and SII. (RBS calculates asset shares, EEV calculates PVIF and SII calculates best estimate of liabilities). I am just confused why its not possible to calculate AS, PVIF etc using any one of the 3 measures?
Click to expand...
Don't forget that only do RBS in respect of WP funds.
EV and Solvency reporting used to be more different than they are now. Potentially, with a market-consistent EV and market-consistent approach for Solvency II the distinction between them will disappear/get very small.

· What is the reason behind calculation of WPICC(peak 1 for realistic firms) and RCR(peak 1 for regulatory firms) differently, when both of these fulfil similar purpose – i.e. calculating additional capital requirements?
Click to expand...

The WPICC is applying the result of the Peak 2 RBS for with-profits funds.
The RCR calculates additional capital required for defined stresses. There's considered to be no need for realistic basis firms to do these stresses, perhaps because they've been required to do the RCM (with more stresses) in Peak 2.

· Why high lapse assumption may be prudent in early term and low rate is likely to be prudent at later durations?
Click to expand...

High lapses may be prudent early on if initial expenses haven't been recouped.

· Page 21- para 1 in bold- this is caused by ‘non linearity’ and ‘non separability’ of individual risks, the latter referring to the ways in which risk drivers interact with each other. I don’t understand this?
Click to expand...

Linearity means that the amount of capital required under a risk stress has a linear relationship with the size of the stress. Many risks are non-linear. For example, if an equity market fall of 25% results in a capital requirement of £25m, it's possible that a 50% fall in the equity market results in a capital requirement greater than £50m, for example because guarantees might bite with the larger fall.

3. Ch-12 Section 2. How counterparty risk exposure is increased by long positions in futures and options and decreased by short position?
Click to expand...
I assume this is about increasing (ie with a long position, being in the position to buy) or decreasing holdings in the bonds/shares of particular companies, and so increasing/decreasing the insurer's counterparty risk exposure to these companies.

Best wishes
Lynn
 
Lynn Birchall said:
Linearity means that the amount of capital required under a risk stress has a linear relationship with the size of the stress. Many risks are non-linear. For example, if an equity market fall of 25% results in a capital requirement of £25m, it's possible that a 50% fall in the equity market results in a capital requirement greater than £50m, for example because guarantees might bite with the larger fall.
Click to expand...


Hi Lynn,

Thank you for your explanation. I have one further question.
The meaning of "non-linearity" is understood, while how it explains that "diversified summation of several stand-alone events using a correlation matrix" may produce a higher capital requirement than "a combination of a certain subset of events happening at the same time"?

I feel that "non-separability" is easier to understand for the effect above, since it just means two events happen together, the
combined impact is worse than if they had happened separately.

However, the explanation for "non-linearity" seems still for single event itself. How it works when events combine?


Thank you.
Regards,
Han
 
Hi Han,
Technical papers on the subject seem to use the expression non-linearity in a couple of different ways.
In addition to that mentioned above, I think one of the issues with using correlation matrices is that it assume a simple linear correlation between risks, whereas, in practice the correlation may be more complicated. Eg two risks may have little correlation for much of the time but high correlation when certain extreme events occur.

Optional further reading: https://eiopa.europa.eu/CEIOPS-Archive/Documents/Advices/CEIOPS-L2-Advice-Correlation-Parameters.pdf.
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/documents/pdf/workshop-b1-baumgartner-and-simler.pdf

Anyone, please feel free to correct the above if you know more :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top