Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > CAS > CAS Exams > Exam 8 (old Part 9) - Advanced Ratemaking
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Life, Health & Pension

Health Actuary Jobs
Insurance & Consulting jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows

Actuarial Recruitment
Visit DW Simpson's website for more info.
www.dwsimpson.com/about

Casualty Jobs
Property & Casualty jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #3241  
Old 10-14-2017, 08:57 AM
cmoibenlepro's Avatar
cmoibenlepro cmoibenlepro is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Montreal
Studying for Vegas
Posts: 1,792
Default

time to study
__________________
SOA: P FM M C FAP1 FA ASA
CAS: OC1 OC2 5 6C ACAS 7 8 9 FCAS
Reply With Quote
  #3242  
Old 10-14-2017, 10:32 AM
LongestRoad LongestRoad is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjc2142 View Post
got some spare time to start memorizing agg variance, risk load formulas and practice panjer. Not even gonna bother with non-poisson panjers. If first ever panjer problem on this exam is something like negative binomial, I will be so pissed
Was just wondering if I should bother with Panjer at all. Completely forgot it was even something I read about until I saw one of the 2013 questions on it
Reply With Quote
  #3243  
Old 10-14-2017, 10:33 AM
LongestRoad LongestRoad is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polak View Post
Doing Bahnemann cookbook problems and I'm confused by something about the first one (page 49). If $6810 is the average severity of claims greater than 5,000, am I crazy to think I should be able to just subtract $5000 from 6810 and say the mean excess severity above $5000 is $1810? He calculates it out to $1813, and the Bahnemann math does get that answer even if you don't round anything. It doesn't make any sense to me why I can't just reduce all the excess claims by $5000. I actually did a similar subtraction thing for all of them, without ever using 1- F(x), and got answers very close to his but not quite the same. It seems like a perfectly legitimate way to go about solving the problem.

Maybe I'm just tired...
I thought the same thing, so I'd be curious as well as to why our method wouldn't be reasonable
Reply With Quote
  #3244  
Old 10-14-2017, 11:42 AM
Tacoactuary's Avatar
Tacoactuary Tacoactuary is online now
Member
CAS Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
College: Vanderbilt, UIUC
Favorite beer: Yazoo Sue
Posts: 1,129
Default

__________________
ACAS 7 8 9

Last edited by Tacoactuary; 10-14-2017 at 11:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3245  
Old 10-14-2017, 12:51 PM
Polak's Avatar
Polak Polak is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacoactuary View Post
I feel like this means I'm right and should be given credit for what I did.
Reply With Quote
  #3246  
Old 10-14-2017, 12:53 PM
Polak's Avatar
Polak Polak is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,515
Default

In other news, TIA #3 has proven definitively that I do not actually understand any of the material on this exam. Any oddly phrased questions I will have to partial credit my way through by making assumptions that make them similar to ways I've seen the information presented in the past.
Reply With Quote
  #3247  
Old 10-14-2017, 12:56 PM
Polak's Avatar
Polak Polak is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,515
Default

Also the prospect of being given distributions in Bahnemann instead of being told what things like E[X^2;a] equal is horrifying.

Wait, you want me to determine E[x^2;a] via integration? F***. I haven't done that since P. Next problem.
Reply With Quote
  #3248  
Old 10-14-2017, 01:03 PM
Polak's Avatar
Polak Polak is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,515
Default

Also the phrase "Expected aggregate losses limited to $500" is ambiguous. Is that an occurrence limit or an aggregate limit?

Spoiler:
It's an occurrence limit...
Reply With Quote
  #3249  
Old 10-14-2017, 02:46 PM
LongestRoad LongestRoad is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polak View Post
I do not actually understand any of the material on this exam. Any oddly phrased questions I will have to partial credit my way through by making assumptions that make them similar to ways I've seen the information presented in the past.
Yeah, like, I can calculate Table L charges all day- but ask me to tell you *why* it accounts for things differently than ICRLL or Limited Table M? Yeahhh maybe, but probably just a big nope from me
Reply With Quote
  #3250  
Old 10-14-2017, 03:05 PM
LongestRoad LongestRoad is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 464
Default

Anyone have a memory trick for knowing the difference between the PAFs from rules 13B and 13C (for ISO Experience rating). I constantly get them mixed up and anytime I try to understand what they're actually doing I feel like I'm just reading the same words for both of them
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
#hawaii2019, #vegas2018, abelian grape rocks, amirite?, careeracas not lookin bad, doyouwanttobuildasnowman, f*ck my life, gimmebackmysummer, hawaii, ineedthemoney, it'sthefinalcountdown, lastfallexamever, make my falls great again, nopanjersplz, panjerkampfwagen, studyingistemporarytotal, willyplz

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 0.30778 seconds with 10 queries