Actuarial Outpost (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/index.php)
-   Long-Term Actuarial Math (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/forumdisplay.php?f=29)

 SunnyDale 02-26-2019 07:02 PM

I’m working on ASM manual 1st edition 3rd printing, on page 852, section 46.3.3 stepwise calculations, the first part and third part of the solution, why is the force of mortality used for state 0 to state 2 u01, and state 0 to state 1 u02? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Thanks

 Abraham Weishaus 02-26-2019 08:36 PM

It is an error. Thanks for pointing it out.

 Art_Vandelay 02-28-2019 05:34 PM

behind on my schedule and having a hard time catching up... any suggestions? i just got to reserves, so i'm really getting to the meat of the material.

 Actuarial Brewski 03-01-2019 09:46 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Art_Vandelay (Post 9557806) behind on my schedule and having a hard time catching up... any suggestions? i just got to reserves, so i'm really getting to the meat of the material.
Art, I am in the same boat and also hoping someone has strong advice.. Been moving at a brutally slow pace.. Hoping the speed picks up but not sure if there is enough time left, for me, to grind the rest of the manual and then get to practice problems.

My plan is to solely focus on getting through the remaining lessons by April 1, hopefully at the very latest, and then do practice problems. This means doing nothing but lesson videos and hoping I retain/relearn material in the final month.

Going to be tough and I am not too confident, but if nothing else, should be in a good position for Oct sitting..

 SunnyDale 03-05-2019 07:49 PM

For ASM manual 1st edition 3rd printing, on page 1263, in the solution for Quiz 66-1, why are withdrawals at time 3 and withdrawals at time 4 not subtracted from the risk set at those times? I thought withdrawals at the time of deaths do count in the risk set? Thanks!

 Abraham Weishaus 03-05-2019 08:17 PM

If they do count in the risk set, why should they be subtracted from it?

 SunnyDale 03-05-2019 08:30 PM

Oh... so by “count in the risk set”, it means that Ri is not impacted by withdrawals at time i?

 Outsanity 03-06-2019 07:06 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by SunnyDale (Post 9560834) Oh... so by “count in the risk set”, it means that Ri is not impacted by withdrawals at time i?
No. But the withdrawals at time i will count for R(i+1).

 Chappy 03-13-2019 03:47 PM

Can somebody explain the difference between these two problems.

3-F01:33
S_0 for males is uniform(0,75)
S_0 for females follows uniform(0,w)

At age 60, the female force of mortality is 60% of the male force of mortality.

In the solution, they use .6/15 = .04 and thus w = 25 for a female age 60.

55.14 of ASM 15th edition.
Nonsmokers havea force of mortality equal to one-half that of smokers of equal age.
For nonsmokers, S_0 is uniform(0,75)
(55) is a nonsmoker
(65) is a smoker
Calculate e_65:55

In this problem, the solution uses the fact that the female is a beta distribution with A = 2 and T =10.

What is the difference in these two questions. When I first solved the first problem up above, I original thought it was a beta with A = .6 but couldn't get the right answer. When I solved the second one, I went to smokers being uniform with T = 5 (2/10 = 1/5).

 Chappy 03-13-2019 04:42 PM

Is it because the first problem specifically states that the survival distribution follows a uniform RV? Without that assumption, I would need to assume the distribution is Beta?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:00 PM.