Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > SoA/CAS Preliminary Exams > Exam 3/MLC - Actuarial Models
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Bengaluru - Chennai - Hyderabad - Pune
Actuarial Jobs in India
New Delhi - Mumbai - Gurgaon


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #451  
Old 04-27-2012, 08:07 PM
mistykz mistykz is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 171
Default

Definitely multiview, I can't stand not seeing exactly what was entered on the BA II+ (in exam conditions, at least). Just wish the keys were a bit more responsive!
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 04-28-2012, 11:46 AM
Practicing's Avatar
Practicing Practicing is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 868
Default

I don't know how I passed MFE with the BAII Plus.
__________________
P FM MFE MLC C VEE IA FA


Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Weishaus View Post
I thought the actual exam was very similar to one of the last 2 ASM practice exams, but perhaps those underestimate the difficulty of the exam.
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 04-28-2012, 08:34 PM
AdmiralWen AdmiralWen is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 268
Default

Hey guys, I may have a stupid question, but I don't understand something on ASM Practice Exam 1, #11. After you recognize that this is a beta distribution, to find e_x:[5], why can't you just use the recursion formula by finding e_0, 5P0, and e_5?
__________________
VEEs Prelims CAS 5 CAS6
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 04-28-2012, 09:55 PM
dfunkhou's Avatar
dfunkhou dfunkhou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralWen View Post
Hey guys, I may have a stupid question, but I don't understand something on ASM Practice Exam 1, #11. After you recognize that this is a beta distribution, to find e_x:[5], why can't you just use the recursion formula by finding e_0, 5P0, and e_5?
You can, but you still need to condition on breaking down in the warranty period.

Solving implicitly for E(X^5) gives you 2.91667 which ASM also gets by integrating over (0,5) tp0*dt. In general,

E(X^n) = integral (0,n) of f(x)*x*dx + n*np0

So for all values beyond the warranty period, 5, the value 5 is being assigned which we need to discard... So the author subtracts 5*5p0 from 2.91667, then divides by Pr(X<5) because we're conditioning on it. With either approach, direct or by backing it out from the recursive formula, you still need to account for that.

Last edited by dfunkhou; 04-28-2012 at 10:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 04-29-2012, 01:13 AM
psp-fifa-fan psp-fifa-fan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfunkhou View Post
You can, but you still need to condition on breaking down in the warranty period.

Solving implicitly for E(X^5) gives you 2.91667 which ASM also gets by integrating over (0,5) tp0*dt. In general,

E(X^n) = integral (0,n) of f(x)*x*dx + n*np0

So for all values beyond the warranty period, 5, the value 5 is being assigned which we need to discard... So the author subtracts 5*5p0 from 2.91667, then divides by Pr(X<5) because we're conditioning on it. With either approach, direct or by backing it out from the recursive formula, you still need to account for that.
I still don't get this problem... If we're solving the life expectancy within the warranty, why can't E(X^5) be the answer?
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 04-29-2012, 11:25 AM
billyMcStuds4life billyMcStuds4life is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psp-fifa-fan View Post
I still don't get this problem... If we're solving the life expectancy within the warranty, why can't E(X^5) be the answer?

the complete expectation from e from x---5 tpx...notice that the last piece is 5tp0 (the probability of surviving to time 5...meaning lasting beyond the warranty....meaning that this current expectation that you calculated includes the 5*the probability of not getting the warranty....

If your still confused...the other way to doing a "partial complete expectation" is from x---5 tpx(ux) + n*tpx (the n*tpx is not in the integral)....so that very last piece is part of the complete expectation when normally calculating and what it essentially states is surviving through the time period....BUT...

what the questions asks is the complete expectation from those that die within the warranty...so when you think about it like that...YOU DONT WANT THE LAST PIECE! (even though its in the regular complete expectation calc).

but your not done yet.... you have to condition on all those pieces not leaving the time period.....so divide by that probability...

Last edited by billyMcStuds4life; 04-29-2012 at 11:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 04-29-2012, 01:35 PM
dfunkhou's Avatar
dfunkhou dfunkhou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psp-fifa-fan View Post
I still don't get this problem... If we're solving the life expectancy within the warranty, why can't E(X^5) be the answer?
"Calculate the expected number of years to breakdown for those automobiles that break down during the warranty period [between 0 and 5]." So you want E(X|X<5). This is how I worked out the problem, but maybe I'm off? I summed up all Partial Expectations, breaking them up in two PE's - one before 5 and one after 5, and writing them as Conditional Expectations times probability of condition. Then just solved for E(X|X<5). I believe you can get E(X^5) by either evaluating it directly or by backing it out of the recursive formula.

E(X^5) = E(X|X<5)*F(5) + E(5|X>=5)*S(5)
= E(X|X<5)*F(5) + 5*S(5)

=> E(X^5) - 5*S(5) = E(X|X<5)*F(5)

=> E(X|X<5) = [E(X^5) - 5*S(5)]/F(5)

Last edited by dfunkhou; 04-29-2012 at 01:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 04-29-2012, 01:57 PM
Practicing's Avatar
Practicing Practicing is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 868
Default

In ASM example 53D, instead of using reversionary annuities, shouldn't you be able to add 5 times the ten year temporary life annuity for 70 and 7 times the ten year temporary life annuity for 65, then subtract two times the the joint ten year temporary life annuity and then add back in ten times the ten year deferred joint life annuity? I'm coming up with a much different answer that way.

Edit: now that I'm really digging into this, it seems that the solution is assuming that payments to 65 and 70 when their counterpart is dead do not begin until ten years after today, when the question states that those payments end ten years after today. Is anyone else with me?

Edit 2: ok found my mistake. This shit is confusing as hell.
__________________
P FM MFE MLC C VEE IA FA


Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Weishaus View Post
I thought the actual exam was very similar to one of the last 2 ASM practice exams, but perhaps those underestimate the difficulty of the exam.

Last edited by Practicing; 04-29-2012 at 02:23 PM.. Reason: Figured it out
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 04-29-2012, 02:05 PM
Practicing's Avatar
Practicing Practicing is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 868
Default

In fact, all of the terminology seems mixed for reversionary annuities... Do they pay after the later of the certain time period and the death of the other life or do they pay after the death of the other life but stop at the death of the certain period?

Edit: I think I figured it out. It's not one or the other and that's the trouble. So confusing.
__________________
P FM MFE MLC C VEE IA FA


Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Weishaus View Post
I thought the actual exam was very similar to one of the last 2 ASM practice exams, but perhaps those underestimate the difficulty of the exam.

Last edited by Practicing; 04-29-2012 at 02:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 04-29-2012, 02:39 PM
liquidz's Avatar
liquidz liquidz is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Practicing View Post
In fact, all of the terminology seems mixed for reversionary annuities... Do they pay after the later of the certain time period and the death of the other life or do they pay after the death of the other life but stop at the death of the certain period?

Edit: I think I figured it out. It's not one or the other and that's the trouble. So confusing.
do you have TIA? James does a good job explaining it. ASM tends to complicates simple subjects.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.23230 seconds with 9 queries