View Single Post
  #208  
Old 12-11-2019, 02:36 PM
CuriousGeorge CuriousGeorge is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,632
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblade View Post
Mack 1994 is bothering me.

Why does the weight in the CL estimator imply Cjk is inversely proportional to the variance of the future development factor?
Each variance assumption yields a different minimum variance unbiased estimator of f. For the basic variance assumptions, (constant, proportional, proportional to the square) the MVUE for each can be written with a similar formula, just by changing the weights.

So if you use a formula with a certain set of weights, you are implicitly making a statement about what you believe the variance relationship is (because if you believed it was something else, you are stupid for not using the MVUE for what you thought it was).
Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.16441 seconds with 9 queries