@Dash rebuild last year's broker report with this year's figures, same structure.
Live in Slack or Microsoft Teams
Rebuild the reinsurance broker report
The report the reinsurance broker asks for every year is rebuilt with this year's figures while keeping last year's structure and definitions, so the two are comparable. Dash marks every figure it could not source rather than estimating it, and names the definitions that changed underneath the numbers.
Get started for free Chat with Dash, the AI teammate that works inside Slack and Microsoft Teams.
Rebuilt. Same eleven sections, same order, same definitions. Two things moved underneath the numbers and both change how the comparison reads.
- Sourced · nine of eleven sections in full
- Partial · the large loss table · two claims still open, shown at reserve with that stated
- Not sourced · the reinsurance recoveries line for Q4 · left blank, not estimated
The first change is the definition of a large loss. Last year's report used a threshold set in 2019 and never revised. Applying the same threshold this year moves eleven claims into the table that would not have qualified under an inflation-adjusted one.
I have kept the old threshold, because changing it silently would make the year-on-year comparison meaningless, and flagged it in the notes with both counts shown.
The second is smaller and easier to miss. Two lines were reclassified in the ledger in March, so the same business now sits in a different section than it did last year. The totals are unaffected. The section comparison is not, and it looks like a shift in the book when it is a filing change.
Can you leave the Q4 recoveries blank? He will ask about it.
He will, and the blank is the better thing to be asked about. I could fill it from the treaty terms and the paid losses, but that produces a number we calculated rather than one we hold, and it would sit in a table where every other figure is sourced.
I have put a one line note under it saying what is missing and who holds it, so the question has its answer attached when he gets there.
Teams @Dash rebuild last year's broker report with this year's figures, same structure.
Rebuilt. Same eleven sections, same order, same definitions. Two things moved underneath the numbers and both change how the comparison reads.
- Sourced · nine of eleven sections in full
- Partial · the large loss table · two claims still open, shown at reserve with that stated
- Not sourced · the reinsurance recoveries line for Q4 · left blank, not estimated
The first change is the definition of a large loss. Last year's report used a threshold set in 2019 and never revised. Applying the same threshold this year moves eleven claims into the table that would not have qualified under an inflation-adjusted one.
I have kept the old threshold, because changing it silently would make the year-on-year comparison meaningless, and flagged it in the notes with both counts shown.
The second is smaller and easier to miss. Two lines were reclassified in the ledger in March, so the same business now sits in a different section than it did last year. The totals are unaffected. The section comparison is not, and it looks like a shift in the book when it is a filing change.
Can you leave the Q4 recoveries blank? He will ask about it.
He will, and the blank is the better thing to be asked about. I could fill it from the treaty terms and the paid losses, but that produces a number we calculated rather than one we hold, and it would sit in a table where every other figure is sourced.
I have put a one line note under it saying what is missing and who holds it, so the question has its answer attached when he gets there.