Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > SoA > Modules 6-8
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-15-2010, 10:16 PM
TheSituation28 TheSituation28 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
College: Drexel
Posts: 8
Default Mod 7 Task 3

Can someone out there confirm that they got 546,286 as their baseline claim cost over the first year... Much appreciated. THanks!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-16-2010, 10:49 AM
surdahl surdahl is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 194
Default

Hey, as of right now I have 546,007 but have only found one adjustment so far (smoker / non-smoker changed from 0%/100% to 40%/60%). Am I missing another adjustment? I'm currently working on this, so if you'd like to PM me and discuss that'd be great!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-16-2010, 10:57 AM
surdahl surdahl is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 194
Default

Well this spreadsheet is really starting to annoy me. Yes, I now have a base claim cost of 546,286. I didn't change ANYTHING from my post above, but now it says 546,286. I turned off the manual calculation, so I have no idea why it now shows this number instead of the number I mentioned above. Regardless, sounds like we're starting out at a consistent number!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-16-2010, 10:13 PM
firefly firefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 40
Default

Are you assuming GreenCo is in westcoast? Do you sensitivity test the region? I found it pointless to sensitivity test region since GreenCo's location cannot be changed.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-17-2010, 11:19 AM
surdahl surdahl is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 194
Default

I'm simply stating in my write-up that I received the model with the assumption that GreenCo is on the west coast, and could not personally verify this assumption. I agree that sensitivity testing the location does not make sense, tho it might be easy enough to point out that the difference is/isn't minimal if this assumption was wrong.

Back to the "base" claim cost amount, I have also adjusted for mortality improvement, so now my base amount is equal to $546,152. Is anyone else getting this numnber?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:18 PM
AnxietyAttack AnxietyAttack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 41
Default

For this task 3 I made the following changes to the spreadsheet:

I updated cells D70 and D71 to .40 and .60 respectively for an average of 1.06 in cell D72 which is then fed into G85 to G96. This is for the smoker/nonsmoker assumption.

I also linked cells C85 to C96 to D54 to D65 which I didn't change from what was originally in the spreadsheet. These values are small ranging from -.001 to .002.

I was then going to call that my base claim cost amount and sensitivity test from there. However, I am getting a base claim cost of 410,097, which seems a lot lower than what others were getting. Am I missing something? Were there other aspects of the spreadsheet I should be motifying?

Thank you all so much for any insite you may be able to give me!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:26 PM
AnxietyAttack AnxietyAttack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 41
Default

Perhaps what I should be doing is bringing in 1+ the values in cells D54 to D65 in the mortality trend column (Cells C85 to C96)? That way the SUMPRODUCT formula in cells I85 to I96 give me bigger numbers for the manual rates?
If I do this then I get a base claim cost of 546,422. Does this seem at all reasonable?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-04-2011, 02:36 PM
Danjew's Avatar
Danjew Danjew is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Midwest
Studying for FAP mods
College: University of Texas at Austin Alum
Favorite beer: Shiner Bock
Posts: 3,260
Default

I set the region factor on F85:F96 to 1.01 from the northeast factor G76 based on the statement on the first page of the pdf:


MutualOne is a regional player in the group health market in the northeastern United States.


Since this is the only reference in the document about region I assumed it was all focused in the Northeast.

My base value I have is 550,467.
__________________
These myths were born of hopes, and fears, and tears, and smiles, and they were touched and colored by all there is of joy and grief between the rosy dawn of birth, and death's sad night... These myths, though false, are beautiful, and have for many ages and in countless ways, enriched the heart and kindled thought. But if the world were taught that all these things are true and all inspired of God, and that eternal punishment will be the lot of him who dares deny or doubt, the sweetest myth of all the Fable World would lose its beauty, and become a scorned and hateful thing to every brave and thoughtful man.

-Robert Green Ingersoll "Some Mistakes of Moses"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-04-2011, 02:52 PM
AnxietyAttack AnxietyAttack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 41
Default

I read it as them being located in the Northeast, but I don't that that dictates where their business is coming from. Either way, I sensitivity tested the location and it doesn't have much of an impact on the claim costs.

How did you handle the mortality imporvement piece? Did you add the imporvement to the industry data or multiply the industry data by 1+the given mortality imporments?

Thanks for your input!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-06-2011, 09:37 PM
quicksi|ver quicksi|ver is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danjew View Post
I set the region factor on F85:F96 to 1.01 from the northeast factor G76 based on the statement on the first page of the pdf:


MutualOne is a regional player in the group health market in the northeastern United States.


Since this is the only reference in the document about region I assumed it was all focused in the Northeast.

My base value I have is 550,467.
I am getting the same base value as you are.
In reading some of the older posts on this eom it seems people were focused on finding errors in "Bob's" calculations. While the assignment calls for us to "implement adjustments to your data sources" it seems the main aim is for us to document and sensitivity test the assumptions. Am I missing something here? Are there errors in "Bob's" calculations that we need to fix or is it simply a case of putting in the right assumptions such as the correct Lifestyle factors?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
eom7

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 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 0.27138 seconds with 9 queries