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


Upload your resume securely at https://www.dwsimpson.com
to be contacted when our jobs meet your skills and objectives.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 08-16-2017, 05:34 PM
Ginda Fisher Ginda Fisher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 133
Default

I believe the point of the exams is to differentiate who has an appropriate level of knowledge for an FCAS. But of course it's not fair to test material that isn't in the syllabus.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-16-2017, 05:36 PM
Ginda Fisher Ginda Fisher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 133
Default

I believe I have now caught up with all the comments/correction that have been sent to me, except for one question on chapter 2 that I mistakenly thought was chapter 3, and only just forwarded to Jill Petker. If you sent me something that isn't reflected in the errata, and I haven't responded to you, I may have misplaced it, and I would appreciate it if you re-sent it.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-16-2017, 06:17 PM
examsarehard examsarehard is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginda Fisher View Post
Based on my sense of what a FCAS ought to know about reinsurance, it sounds like a perfectly reasonable question, except that the syllabus material was inadequate to answer it. They shouldn't have tested it, of course, but that looks like a giant red flag that they ought to seek supplemental material for the syllabus.
I don't even think the syllabus is inadequate. Reviewing the paper, the entire section is describing how reinstatements work:

Quote:
A cover may be $10,000,000 in excess of $30,000,000 per occurrence. Because the limit is often a substantial dollar amount, the contract provides a limited number of reinstatements. Without reinstatements, the catastrophe cover would provide $10,000,000 of limit, but after the full layer is exhausted, there is no more protection.
Quote:
The treaty effectively has an aggregate limit equal to one plus the number of reinstatements, times the occurrence limit. For a cover with one reinstatement, the same results will be produced for four losses halfway through the layer as for two full limit losses.
Perhaps more examples are needed to drill the concept home? Otherwise it seems fairly well explained.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-16-2017, 07:25 PM
Ginda Fisher Ginda Fisher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 133
Default

I haven't read that material, and am accepting the interpretations of others. But I suspect this discussion might be better suited for another thread. This one is mostly about the new study note on individual risk rating. I apologize for entering the fray without doing my homework. Mostly I just wanted to express an opinion about the purpose of the exams.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-17-2017, 09:54 AM
act_123 act_123 is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by examsarehard View Post
I don't even think the syllabus is inadequate. Reviewing the paper, the entire section is describing how reinstatements work:





Perhaps more examples are needed to drill the concept home? Otherwise it seems fairly well explained.
Reinstatements are addressed adequately. The application using single reinstatements and understanding that the reinstatement only reinstates until it is fully reinstated once is not really covered at all.

I don't think students should have been able to figure that out from the paper.

When the exam was over almost everyone was complaining about this nuance. The only people who understood it were the people who were in reinsurance. I am not making something up. If you want I will look up the outpost thread.
__________________
1 2 3F 3L 4 5 6 7 8 9 OC1 OC2 VEES COP
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-15-2017, 09:52 PM
cmoibenlepro's Avatar
cmoibenlepro cmoibenlepro is online now
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Montreal
Studying for nothing!!!
Posts: 1,129
Default

I have a question on page 59. It says: "To summarize: Table M contains insurance charges and savings by entry ratio and by size of policy, possibly by limit, and other key considerations"

why would the table M have different charges by limit?
Isn't the limit already taken care by the entry ratio?
If I understand correctly, if we are given the entry ratio and the size of policy, then the limit is known.

or did you mean per-occurrence limit, thus Limited Table M methodology?
__________________
SOA:P FM M C FAP1 FA ASA
CAS: OC1 OC2 5 6C ACAS 7 8 9 FCAS

Last edited by cmoibenlepro; 10-15-2017 at 09:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-18-2017, 01:21 PM
Snafet Snafet is offline
CAS
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Studying for Exam 8
Favorite beer: Steamwhistle
Posts: 12
Default

I'm looking at page 76, question 13. The aggregate deductible limit is lower than the per-occurrence deductible. As I understand it, if the aggregate deductible is $40,000, then that would start to limit losses long before the insured ever hits the $100,000 per-occurrence deductible. In this scenario, the insured's losses are limited by the $40,000 in all cases. Then, the distinction between part a and part b of the question doesn't make sense at all.

Am I misunderstanding how this question works?
__________________
ACAS
7 8 9
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-21-2017, 12:09 PM
Calculated Risk Calculated Risk is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
College: UCAS
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginda Fisher View Post
Not actually an error, but something that might be confusing if you are reading the new study note and also old exam questions. Josh Taub, of the Infinite Actuary, points out that:

Pages 10-14: What is described here as the Quintiles Test has historically been referred to as the Dorweiler Test, and what is referred to here as the Efficiency Test has been historically referred to as the Quintiles Test. (Per the original Gillam “Workers’ Compensation Experience Rating” paper, the Efficiency Test is when you don't group risks, but basically otherwise perform the same calculations as the Quintiles Test).



Rebecca and I felt it was worth explaining how this happened:

The different tests have gone by different names (or sometimes no name at all) in past papers. We attempted to clarify the different tests by making sure each had a distinct name. The difference in our selected naming convention and that used in the paper on the prior syllabus wasn’t pointed out until after a substantially final draft of the study note had been sent to the exam item writers.
To further clarify: The first test in your paper is based upon Venter's Paper. You refer to this as the "Quintile Test". However, as Josh pointed out, the actuarial literature has historically referred to this as "Dorweiler's Test". Please note that in Gillam's paper, Dorweiler did not specify the exact number of subgroups to use. Therefore, what you refer to as the "Quintile Test" is actually equivalent to "Dorweiler's Simple Method" utilizing 5 subgroups (or Quintiles). Mahler pointed out that Venter helped develop the "Quintile Test" while working at the NCCI, so I think your naming convention is good moving forward (or prospectively .)
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-22-2017, 02:48 PM
Tacoactuary's Avatar
Tacoactuary Tacoactuary is offline
Member
CAS Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
College: Vanderbilt, UIUC
Favorite beer: Yazoo Sue
Posts: 824
Default

On page 12 column (8) group A-B-C, the average mod is premium weighted right? I get 0.58 not 0.59
__________________
ACAS 7 8 9
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-27-2017, 03:45 PM
BexBeingBex BexBeingBex is offline
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacoactuary View Post
On page 12 column (8) group A-B-C, the average mod is premium weighted right? I get 0.58 not 0.59
You want to use the modified premiums for the weights, not the manual premiums.
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 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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 0.20818 seconds with 9 queries