Actuarial Outpost Annuity Conversion Factor
 Register Blogs Wiki FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

#31
10-05-2005, 07:08 PM
 Fuzzy 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

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Harpo 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)
Harpo, I agree that that is how the typical pension plan applies the "popup" annuity. What screwed me up, and seems to have led to the "confusing terminology" discussion were your initial definitions of:
"axy = life annuity while either is alive"
and
"axybar = life annuity while both are alive"

"axy is a 100% joint life annuity"

My actuarial training was based on the Jordan/Bowers definition consistent with your last expression (no "bar"), and "joint life" meaning "both alive". It seemed to me that you initially simply flipped the Jordan/Bowers definitions for the expressions, but (as I admitted later in the thread) you did consistently apply those flipped definitions through your formulation until you got to that last statement. (Although I still think that you inverted the "100% J&S popup" formula you labeled "kinda cool".)

Would you care to comment directly to that "flipped definition" question?
__________________
"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)
#32
10-05-2005, 10:51 PM
 The Matrix Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Somewhere between Predetermination and Causality Posts: 449

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Fuzzy We all care about terminology, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion! If we don't understand the terminology being used, we're not communicating.
Don't lump me in with your tree-hugging, debate club champion-wannabe, terminology-loving friends. I skip the terminology and get right down to communication.

You should know that "terminology" and "definitions" will hold you back. If you went to your doctor and said, "Doc, the tip of my nose hurts", would you feel better if she responded by saying, "Now, is that the distal or proximal, posterior or anterior, region?" and spent 15 minutes explaining the terminology? Is that really "communication"? Is that a good use of the doctor's time? More importantly, is it a good use of your time?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Fuzzy It seems to me that a simple answer to a simple question is beyond you.
Based on the average length of your posts, I'd say this statement better describes you, not Traci.

Seriously, I am not surprised that you did not understand my post. The world is not divided into "black" and "white" in the way that your highly structured mind perceives it. IRL, you probably waste too much time sorting the "grey" beans. You need to learn to deal with ambiguity.

Very few people, including actuaries, speak "Actuary".

One final bit of advice: Demonstrate. Don't explicate.
__________________
If actuarial science ain't easy, you ain't doin' it right.

Last edited by The Matrix; 10-05-2005 at 11:12 PM..
#33
10-06-2005, 12:39 AM
 Fuzzy 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

Quote:
 Originally Posted by The Matrix One final bit of advice: Demonstrate. Don't explicate.
I don't see your rant as doing either, would you care to comment on the original question (simple or otherwise), or are you still trying to figure out how to respond?

"Communication" means not confusing your audience, and not being confused by them. The ones who are paying you believe you know what you're talking about. If you use a term in one instance and change the usage the next time around, are you really communicating?

If you told your doctor that you had a headache, would you be well served if she gave you an aspirin instead of checking out that brain aneurysm she'd find if she asked you a few clarifying questions? (Remember, you're paying her!) Of course, if she doesn't find the aneurysm, you might feel better...for a little while, until you're dead! (Not quite the same level of anxiety as the pension business, I'll admit.)

I think that I understood your post well enough, I'm perfectly comfortable in the grey area, I just don't think that Alfies_Girl would be well served by a grey answer.

BTW, how do you define "axy" and "axybar"? (If you're an actuary, you must speak some "Actuary"; if you're not, what kind of weirdo are you to be wandering around here?) (Of course, some people might say "actuary" and "weirdo" are synonyms...)

TTFN
__________________
"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)
#34
10-06-2005, 03:20 AM
 The Matrix Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Somewhere between Predetermination and Causality Posts: 449

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Fuzzy "Communication" means not confusing your audience, and not being confused by them. The ones who are paying you believe you know what you're talking about. If you use a term in one instance and change the usage the next time around, are you really communicating?
I understand why you're struggling with this concept. You need the structure. Structure implies terminology which implies definitions. My point is really very simple: In the absence of a universal standard, skip the terminology. Really.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Fuzzy If you told your doctor that you had a headache, would you be well served if she gave you an aspirin instead of checking out that brain aneurysm she'd find if she asked you a few clarifying questions? (Remember, you're paying her!) Of course, if she doesn't find the aneurysm, you might feel better...for a little while, until you're dead! (Not quite the same level of anxiety as the pension business, I'll admit.)
You prove my point by reiterating your need for terms and definitions in the first quote, and this is the best you can do? Your fallback argument is to use a clear example of non-communication???

You still don't get it, so I'd like to amend my earlier advice: Work on dealing with ambiguity and reading comprehension!
__________________
If actuarial science ain't easy, you ain't doin' it right.
#35
10-06-2005, 09:17 AM
 Fuzzy 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

Quote:
 Originally Posted by The Matrix ... a clear example of non-communication???
Isn't that what we have here? I'll repeat the question which has still not been addressed: "how do you define "axy" and "axybar"?"
__________________
"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)
#36
10-06-2005, 02:04 PM
 Harpo Member SOA CCA AAA Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 32

Per original message:

axy = life annuity while either is alive
axybar = life annuity while both are alive (= ax + ay - axy)

As you indicated, this is opposite of Jordan/Bower. I didn't take time to look it up when I did the post but I figured as long as I used it as I defined it, no big deal.
#37
10-07-2005, 10:50 AM
 Fuzzy 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

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Harpo As you indicated, this is opposite of Jordan/Bower. I didn't take time to look it up when I did the post but I figured as long as I used it as I defined it, no big deal.
Thank you. It probably wouldn't have gotten to be as big a deal except for my (apparently overblown and misdirected, or so I've been told ) sense of clarity in communication and fascination with actuarial expressions. I did admit that your algebra was correct, given your initial expression definitions, except for your final "kinda cool" 100% popup formula at the end (I still think that it is inverted!).

Your restatement at the very end using what I took to be conventional Jordan/Bowers usage ("axy ia a 100% joint life annuity") added to my misinterpretation.

I do, however, appreciate your willingness to get involved and respond directly to a request for assistance in the first place. Thank you for that.
__________________
"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)
#38
03-13-2018, 12:33 PM
 ubermax Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 32
Revisiting This Question

In trying to come up with an expression for the ratio of a 50% J&S pop-up annuity to the unit life annuity, I stumbled on this old post via a Google search .

I agree with Fuzzy's expression for " r " and was wondering if anyone else concurs ??
#39
03-13-2018, 12:47 PM
 JMO Carol Marler Non-Actuary Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Back home again in Indiana Studying for Nothing actuarial. Posts: 37,660

If there is any doubt, you can check Fuzzy's formula yourself by testing the limiting cases. That is, instead of doing a pop-up annuity, see if it works correctly when the amount payable doesn't change on either death - or various other combinations, realistic or not, such as going to zero upon the first death. I'm not going to check it myself - I am not an actuary any more and also I'm too lazy.
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.

My latest favorite quotes, updated Nov. 20, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by rekrap JMO is right
Quote:
 Originally Posted by campbell I agree with JMO.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Westley And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MG This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DoctorNo Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by El Actuario Therapists should ask the right questions, not give the right answers.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
#40
03-13-2018, 03:04 PM
 ubermax Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 32

Quote:
 Originally Posted by JMO If there is any doubt, you can check Fuzzy's formula yourself by testing the limiting cases. That is, instead of doing a pop-up annuity, see if it works correctly when the amount payable doesn't change on either death - or various other combinations, realistic or not, such as going to zero upon the first death. I'm not going to check it myself - I am not an actuary any more and also I'm too lazy.
Thanks JMO ( Carol?) for responding to this ancient thread ; Fuzzy's expression for " r " aligns with my own experience in that I've always thought of the x% J&S with pop-up to be based on the "contingent" version of the J&S - Harpo provided an example near the end of these threads which , to me , aligns with Fuzzy's thinking and so I think Fuzzy and Harpo have the same thought pattern