Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Pension - Social Security
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Not looking for a job? Tell us about your ideal job,
and we'll only contact you when it opens up.
https://www.dwsimpson.com/register


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-30-2005, 01:13 PM
Traci's Avatar
Traci Traci is offline
Retired Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
If you think that a "correct" response is to provide another table without ensuring her the ability to check that the underlying formula was proper and correctly used, that is your prerogative. In my opinion, that is an inadequate, and potentially misleading, response.
Whatever

2 people ahead of me had already begun a discussion of the basics using the commutation functions. I figured there was enough there that I didn't need to add to it. If she wants to check her table using a formula, harpo has her on the right path - if she just wants a double-check of her factors, she can PM me.

The only thing I found confusing in harpo's post was his axy and axybar notations -- but "$1 for life = $r while both are alive + jr$ while only spouse is alive + $1 while only member is alive" is right for a pop-up annuity.

Seems like a helpful response overall. But you can tell me again that it's not if you want to.

Last edited by Traci; 09-30-2005 at 01:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-30-2005, 06:33 PM
Fuzzy's Avatar
Fuzzy Fuzzy is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Far from the madding crowd...but closer than I used to be
Studying for the "final" exam
Favorite beer: Carlsberg
Posts: 623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traci
Whatever

2 people ahead of me had already begun a discussion of the basics using the commutation functions. I figured there was enough there that I didn't need to add to it. If she wants to check her table using a formula, harpo has her on the right path - if she just wants a double-check of her factors, she can PM me.

The only thing I found confusing in harpo's post was his axy and axybar notations -- but "$1 for life = $r while both are alive + jr$ while only spouse is alive + $1 while only member is alive" is right for a pop-up annuity.

Seems like a helpful response overall. But you can tell me again that it's not if you want to.
So....you do admit to some confusion...that's nice to hear finally! Is that because the definitions he used for the expressions were contrary to convention, or something else?

Is it also possible for you to admit that the program underlying your table could use a different formula than whatever was used to create the table that Alfies_Girl wanted to check and that by presenting her with a table that
1. differed from hers might not help her determine where the problem in her formulation was; or
2. duplicated hers might not "prove" that both tables were correct, only that they were the same?

Harpo and I were trying to put forth a formula that anyone could use by a proper combination of (single, joint, and contingent) annuity functions (which, hopefully, are properly calculated; if someone else presented a commutation function arrangement, I must have missed it):
1. has anyone checked to see if either presentation is correct?
2. does your program use the same formula?
a. if it does, and the formula has been verified as correct, Alfies_Girl could reasonably rely on your table to review the end work of a prior actuary.
b. if it doesn't, and the formula has been verified, is the formula underlying your table also correct? or is there a possibility that one of them is wrong?

Please, Traci, do not go <sarcastic> on me again, I'm just trying to follow up on something that struck me as a response that was confusing, and now I'm so screwed up that I'm wondering if my program is correct.
__________________
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia." (Charles Schulz)
"We created an environment where we didn't know what we were doing, but it was legal and making profits."(Bill Sharon, chief executive of Sorms)
"As soon as we solve one problem, another one appears. So let's try to keep this one going for as long as possible." (Pepper...and Salt, WSJ, 5/4/2011)
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-30-2005, 06:50 PM
Malik Shabazz's Avatar
Malik Shabazz Malik Shabazz is offline
SOA CCA AAA
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: God bless Chocolate City and its vanilla suburbs
Posts: 12,813
Default

I'm sorry. I've been meaning to check the algebra but I've been too busy at work this week (and my actuarial math books are at the office). I'll try to make some time next week to check the formula.

In the meantime, though, I would recommend the practical approach. If you have some J&S factors -- either optional form conversion factors or annuity factors -- try to match them using the various ax's and ay's etc. If you can match a handful, you may feel comfortable applying your formula more generally, even if its validity has not been proven algebraically.
__________________
If I weren't out here every day battling the white man, I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity—because you can hardly mention anything I'm not curious about. — Malcolm X

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-30-2005, 07:57 PM
Traci's Avatar
Traci Traci is offline
Retired Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
So....you do admit to some confusion...that's nice to hear finally! Is that because the definitions he used for the expressions were contrary to convention, or something else?
Whatever helps ya honey. I was just refering to his descriptions of axy and axybar - it doesn't have anything to do with the convention of referring to an annuity that only decreases on upon the death of the participant as a "J&S annuity"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
Is it also possible for you to admit that the program underlying your table could use a different formula than whatever was used to create the table that Alfies_Girl wanted to check and that by presenting her with a table that
1. differed from hers might not help her determine where the problem in her formulation was; or
2. duplicated hers might not "prove" that both tables were correct, only that they were the same?
Again - I've worked on hundreds of plans and J&S annuity has always meant the same thing. So I'd be pretty shocked if we couldn't match up the factors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
Harpo and I were trying to put forth a formula that anyone could use by a proper combination of (single, joint, and contingent) annuity functions
And that's admirable of you.

I've spent enough time in this thread already that I should have just looked up the formulas for you by now to shut you up -- but I think harpo's got it right -- oops, I already said that.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-03-2005, 10:20 AM
Fuzzy's Avatar
Fuzzy Fuzzy is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Far from the madding crowd...but closer than I used to be
Studying for the "final" exam
Favorite beer: Carlsberg
Posts: 623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traci
I've spent enough time in this thread already that I should have just looked up the formulas for you by now to shut you up -- but I think harpo's got it right -- oops, I already said that.
Thanks for your insightful and <sarcasm on>oh soooo helpful<sarcasm off> comments. If I wasn't worried about getting flamed again, I'd be tempted to describe your attitude as arrogant and condescending, but I'm sure that that would only escalate personal attacks. It seems to me that a simple answer to a simple question is beyond you. Maybe it's time for both of us to "shut up", but, yes, it would have been much simpler if you had looked them up and copied them in. BTW, which actuarial expressions/symbols would you have used?
__________________
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia." (Charles Schulz)
"We created an environment where we didn't know what we were doing, but it was legal and making profits."(Bill Sharon, chief executive of Sorms)
"As soon as we solve one problem, another one appears. So let's try to keep this one going for as long as possible." (Pepper...and Salt, WSJ, 5/4/2011)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-03-2005, 12:54 PM
Traci's Avatar
Traci Traci is offline
Retired Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
Thanks for your insightful and <sarcasm on>oh soooo helpful<sarcasm off> comments. If I wasn't worried about getting flamed again, I'd be tempted to describe your attitude as arrogant and condescending, but I'm sure that that would only escalate personal attacks. It seems to me that a simple answer to a simple question is beyond you. Maybe it's time for both of us to "shut up", but, yes, it would have been much simpler if you had looked them up and copied them in. BTW, which actuarial expressions/symbols would you have used?
And you're oh soooo welcome. And I'm glad you were so worried and could refrain from calling me arrogant and condescending.

Fuzz - I got irritated with you in this thread because of the post that contained " ... If you wish to respond to the question, please provide your formula ..."

We don't have to relive it -- but you may wish to consider it for future reference.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-03-2005, 01:47 PM
Harpo Harpo is offline
Member
SOA CCA AAA
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 32
Default Popup Factors

Alfie Girl - I was just trying to give you a few ideas off the top of my head that I thought might be helpful (sorry if you found it confusing). Given the way I defined the terms, I believe the formulas to be correct. If you have further questions, I'd be glad to assist. Just let know.

Traci - "Harpo was just trying to be helpful -- that he may have been confused about the terminology doesn't mean that the rest of us are. If he was, I'd guess he's relatively new to the field."

Thank you. I always knew I liked you. For what its worth, I'm and EA, FSA with 15 years experience (and a "He"). 2 kids, 2 dogs, 2 guinea pigs, 2 wives (oops no, only 1 wife).
: )

Fuzzy - Thanks (I think) for your thoughtful consideration.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-03-2005, 04:04 PM
Malik Shabazz's Avatar
Malik Shabazz Malik Shabazz is offline
SOA CCA AAA
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: God bless Chocolate City and its vanilla suburbs
Posts: 12,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
ax + ˝ × r × ay - (1- ˝ × r) × axy
As far as I can tell, this is a correct formula for a J&S annuity that "pops up" if the beneficiary pre-deceases the participant.

That doesn't mean that some of the other formulas aren't also correct.
__________________
If I weren't out here every day battling the white man, I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity—because you can hardly mention anything I'm not curious about. — Malcolm X

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-04-2005, 12:30 PM
Fuzzy's Avatar
Fuzzy Fuzzy is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Far from the madding crowd...but closer than I used to be
Studying for the "final" exam
Favorite beer: Carlsberg
Posts: 623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malik Shabazz
As far as I can tell, this is a correct formula for a J&S annuity that "pops up" if the beneficiary pre-deceases the participant.

That doesn't mean that some of the other formulas aren't also correct.
Thanks, Malik, but, just to be clear, that "axy" was meant to refer to the (dare I say, "traditional") "joint life" annuity: while both are alive.

Harpo, do you have anything to add about the original expression definitions that apparently screwed me up in the first place? I do appreciate your initial involvement because it got me thinking about the formula, I just regret the tack things took when I got into the "confusing" discussion(s).
__________________
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia." (Charles Schulz)
"We created an environment where we didn't know what we were doing, but it was legal and making profits."(Bill Sharon, chief executive of Sorms)
"As soon as we solve one problem, another one appears. So let's try to keep this one going for as long as possible." (Pepper...and Salt, WSJ, 5/4/2011)
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-04-2005, 02:20 PM
Harpo Harpo is offline
Member
SOA CCA AAA
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 32
Smile pop up factors

Fuzzy,

I have a few plans that have popup benefits. In those plans, the 50%JS popup works as follows:

Normal form - life annuity $1,000/ mo
50%JS Popup - $900/ mo

In this case, the popup would pay
$900/mo while both member and beneficiary are alive
$450/mo if only the beneficiary is alive (after member's death)
$1,000/mo if only the member is alive (pops up to $1,000 if beneficiary dies before the member)

Whatever terminology is used, it comes down to

1000*D = 900*A + 450*B + 1000*C
where
A = factor while both alive
B = factor while only beneficiary is alive
C = factor while only member is alive
D = life annuity to member (regardless of beneficiary)

As I said, sorry if my initial terminology was confusing. I was just trying to illustrate generally how to do it.

Regards.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:26 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 0.52251 seconds with 9 queries