While fundamental individual rights are unquestionably taken as subjective rights, the same does not happen with fundamental social rights. If they are subjective rights, they are justiciable. The main argument in fav...While fundamental individual rights are unquestionably taken as subjective rights, the same does not happen with fundamental social rights. If they are subjective rights, they are justiciable. The main argument in favor of this understanding is based on liberty. The main argument against is the so called formal argument. In relation to the pro argument, liberty can be either juridical or factual. Juridical liberty has no value without factual liberty, because the right to liberty is only put into practice if one has the factual preconditions for its exercise. The argument against is that their justiciability displaces the competence of the elaboration of public politics from Legislative and Executive to Judiciary Power, what violates the principles of separation of powers and democracy. Nevertheless they are subjective rights indeed, but special ones： they are primafacie subjective rights. There is only one subjective right that is a priori considered definitive： the right to Existenzminimum） Its content is not settled, but it is quite unequivocal that the rights to simple housing, fundamental education and minimum level of medical assistance are part of it. Existenzminimum is then related to the minimum necessary for factual liberty. Against the justiciability of fundamental social rights, there are also arguments related to juridification of politics, administrative discretion and the possible reserve clause. The counter-arguments refer to original and exceptional competence, necessary objective proof of state＇s economical incapability, prohibition of State＇s will, principles of legality and of non-obviation o f Judiciary jurisdiction, Existenzminimun guarantee.展开更多
The core of the presentation that I propose treats about the application of principal component analysis for the estimation of the future earnings of the Segregated Funds. The Segregated Funds are the pools of assets ...The core of the presentation that I propose treats about the application of principal component analysis for the estimation of the future earnings of the Segregated Funds. The Segregated Funds are the pools of assets which have been using in the Italian Insurance Market since mid 80＇s for managing the ＂with profit＂ business, also known as business with ＂discretionary participation feature＂ according to IFRS4 since the income attributable to the policyholders is composed by the net realised gains less a fee and by a minimum guarantee, if any. The discretion of the Management of the Entity lays on the decision on whether and when to realise both the financial gains and the financial losses of the underlying investments. This strategy is tied by the need to manage an appropriate ALM, from the rules included in the local legislation as well as by the policy about the solvency margin （for example a minimum solvency ratio to fulfil that is conditional upon the value of income attributed that year）. The fee can not be changed, i.e., is not discretionary, the minimum granted could be fixed on annual basis-sometimes paid on cash recurrently-or could be promised only at expiration or sometimes promised at expiration or in advance only for death and disability. In case of years so adverse that the Entity is not able to avoid earnings too low, sometimes the entity delivers an additional bonus, in order to compensate their policyholders, which is based above a full discretion. Principal components are used in finance as well as in other fields such as genetic. You can see some of these applications in two of the references advised below. The purposes of the technique of principal components are （1） to increase objectivity of results and their verifiability by third parties such as auditors, （2） make speeder the time spent for the analytical calculations （i.e., runs of the actuarial models） and （3） to render the relationship between the asset composition and the their earnings effectively used for the best estimate liabilities through their contribution in forecasting future cash flows.展开更多
文摘While fundamental individual rights are unquestionably taken as subjective rights, the same does not happen with fundamental social rights. If they are subjective rights, they are justiciable. The main argument in favor of this understanding is based on liberty. The main argument against is the so called formal argument. In relation to the pro argument, liberty can be either juridical or factual. Juridical liberty has no value without factual liberty, because the right to liberty is only put into practice if one has the factual preconditions for its exercise. The argument against is that their justiciability displaces the competence of the elaboration of public politics from Legislative and Executive to Judiciary Power, what violates the principles of separation of powers and democracy. Nevertheless they are subjective rights indeed, but special ones： they are primafacie subjective rights. There is only one subjective right that is a priori considered definitive： the right to Existenzminimum） Its content is not settled, but it is quite unequivocal that the rights to simple housing, fundamental education and minimum level of medical assistance are part of it. Existenzminimum is then related to the minimum necessary for factual liberty. Against the justiciability of fundamental social rights, there are also arguments related to juridification of politics, administrative discretion and the possible reserve clause. The counter-arguments refer to original and exceptional competence, necessary objective proof of state＇s economical incapability, prohibition of State＇s will, principles of legality and of non-obviation o f Judiciary jurisdiction, Existenzminimun guarantee.
文摘The core of the presentation that I propose treats about the application of principal component analysis for the estimation of the future earnings of the Segregated Funds. The Segregated Funds are the pools of assets which have been using in the Italian Insurance Market since mid 80＇s for managing the ＂with profit＂ business, also known as business with ＂discretionary participation feature＂ according to IFRS4 since the income attributable to the policyholders is composed by the net realised gains less a fee and by a minimum guarantee, if any. The discretion of the Management of the Entity lays on the decision on whether and when to realise both the financial gains and the financial losses of the underlying investments. This strategy is tied by the need to manage an appropriate ALM, from the rules included in the local legislation as well as by the policy about the solvency margin （for example a minimum solvency ratio to fulfil that is conditional upon the value of income attributed that year）. The fee can not be changed, i.e., is not discretionary, the minimum granted could be fixed on annual basis-sometimes paid on cash recurrently-or could be promised only at expiration or sometimes promised at expiration or in advance only for death and disability. In case of years so adverse that the Entity is not able to avoid earnings too low, sometimes the entity delivers an additional bonus, in order to compensate their policyholders, which is based above a full discretion. Principal components are used in finance as well as in other fields such as genetic. You can see some of these applications in two of the references advised below. The purposes of the technique of principal components are （1） to increase objectivity of results and their verifiability by third parties such as auditors, （2） make speeder the time spent for the analytical calculations （i.e., runs of the actuarial models） and （3） to render the relationship between the asset composition and the their earnings effectively used for the best estimate liabilities through their contribution in forecasting future cash flows.
