In question #2 part v) of this attempt, why doesn't the Examiner's Report consider Pillar 3 requirement of Solvency II for reporting and disclosure? As there are strict disclosure and reporting requirements, I suppose analysis of EV will also have some requirement per Pillar 3 ,hence making a valid point here. If it was worth higher marks, will this be a correct approach to answer?
Part iv) I understand that the fundamental difference between MCEV and Solvency II EV here is PVIF component. However, the number of marks being awarded for simply expanding on PVIF doesn't seem to be justified as I can't infer enough distinct points in the Examiner's report. Also, there is no mention of MCEV as a Solvency I approach in the Core Reading. Is there any useful tip for tackling this part? Any related wider reading would also help.
Anyone who has attempted, please advise. Thank you!
Last edited: Mar 15, 2022
