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)
-   -   Guo's solution to Fall 2018 LTAM WA (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=336559)

 Yufeng 11-17-2018 07:38 PM

Guo's solution to Fall 2018 LTAM WA

Solution for Fall 2018 WA is here:

http://deeperunderstandingfastercalc...018_WA_sol.pdf

 KarimZ 11-18-2018 01:27 AM

In WA 4, would recursion be a valid approach to calculate reserves at time 2?
I am referring to parts bii, cii, dii.

 Yufeng 11-18-2018 09:04 AM

Yes; you can use recursive tV formula for WA 4

For WA 4, YES; you can use the recursive reserve formula to derive the reserve at any time.

Recursive tV formula should always work regardless of whether the premium is calculated under the equivalence principle and regardless of whether the reserve is gross, net, FPT, or based any other modified reserve method.

 KarimZ 11-18-2018 09:34 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Yufeng (Post 9482444) For WA 4, YES; you can use the recursive reserve formula to derive the reserve at any time. Recursive tV formula should always work regardless of whether the premium is calculated under the equivalence principle and regardless of whether the reserve is gross, net, FPT, or based any other modified reserve method.
Thanks Yufeng! Appreciate all the time you have invested to come up with solutions.

 KarimZ 11-19-2018 02:16 AM

Roughly graded my paper. Not all solutions are in my memory. Think im at a score of 66. Not sure if that will make the cut.

 Yufeng 11-19-2018 07:21 AM

WA 1 -- why the information premiums in the first two years are lower

In case you are wondering why in WA 1 SOA tellls you that premiums in the first two years are lower.

This information is to support their profit signatures 84.74 for Year 1 and 80.35 Year 2. If the premiums are level for all years, then the profit signatures for Year 1 and Year 2 will not be 84.74 and 80.35 respectively.

 BartimaeusOfUruk 02-16-2019 05:46 PM

For question 9, could anyone explain to me why it's 11p60^(01) instead of 10p60^(01)? Thanks so much!!

 Gandalf 02-16-2019 09:34 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by BartimaeusOfUruk (Post 9546239) For question 9, could anyone explain to me why it's 11p60^(01) instead of 10p60^(01)? Thanks so much!!
This thread is as about Guo's WA solutions. If you are asking about MC, the SOA's solutions include a 10p60^(01) and do not include a 11p60^(01). There is a thread about Guo's MC solutions but I'm not going to look for it. I think there are also TIA solutions, maybe not in a separate thread.

 Yufeng 02-16-2019 09:59 PM

My solution to Fall 2018 LTAM MC Q9 has a typo in the recursive formula.

In the recursive formula, the correct term should be 10p60^(01). However, I wrote 11p60^(01). I must be drunk that day!

However, my numerical calculation is still correct.

Thanks BartimaeusOfUruk and Gandalf.

 All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:13 PM.