Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Fill in a brief DW Simpson Registration Form
to be contacted when new jobs meet your criteria.


General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-20-2018, 01:07 PM
Gods_Dice's Avatar
Gods_Dice Gods_Dice is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 202
Default Quick question about Limited Fluctuation Credibility theory

In determining Z, do you have to use the expected count, or can you use the actual count? I remember it being expected, but I have a spreadsheet here where the spreadsheet owner used actual. Is that acceptable?

For instance:

34 actual claims vs. 57 expected claims.

Actual A/E is 59% and the original assumption we are looking to adjust is 97%.

The spreadsheet calculates Z as sqrt(34/1082) = 18%

So the potential new value is ((1-.18) * 97%) + (.18 * 59%) = 90%.

Is this acceptable? Or should Z instead be sqrt(57/1082) = 23%? This would obviously change the potential new value slightly.

Thanks.
__________________
ASA
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-20-2018, 01:12 PM
Colymbosathon ecplecticos's Avatar
Colymbosathon ecplecticos Colymbosathon ecplecticos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,910
Default

Suppose that you observed 0 instead of 34. Does that answer your question?
__________________
"What do you mean I don't have the prerequisites for this class? I've failed it twice before!"


"I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-20-2018, 01:18 PM
Gods_Dice's Avatar
Gods_Dice Gods_Dice is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colymbosathon ecplecticos View Post
Suppose that you observed 0 instead of 34. Does that answer your question?
Great point. I thought it looked wrong, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something because the guy who put this together is usually pretty sharp.

Thanks again.
__________________
ASA
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-20-2018, 03:19 PM
Duke of Chalfont Duke of Chalfont is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 38
Default

To be clear:
With 0 observed claims you would apply 0% credibility. It should be actual.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-20-2018, 04:16 PM
Colymbosathon ecplecticos's Avatar
Colymbosathon ecplecticos Colymbosathon ecplecticos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Chalfont View Post
To be clear:
With 0 observed claims you would apply 0% credibility. It should be actual.
Think about this. It makes no sense.

If you know the expected number of claims, as is the case in the OP, then use it. The full credibility standard was presumably computed using this estimate.

If you don't know it, estimate it the best that you can. The observed number is such an estimate.
__________________
"What do you mean I don't have the prerequisites for this class? I've failed it twice before!"


"I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself."
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-20-2018, 04:22 PM
Marcie's Avatar
Marcie Marcie is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colymbosathon ecplecticos View Post
Think about this. It makes no sense.

If you know the expected number of claims, as is the case in the OP, then use it. The full credibility standard was presumably computed using this estimate.

If you don't know it, estimate it the best that you can. The observed number is such an estimate.

The theory is based on expected. Sometimes the best estimate of expected is actual.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-20-2018, 04:58 PM
Duke of Chalfont Duke of Chalfont is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 38
Default

Hmmm, perhaps I didn't think things through as I have usually seen actual used in practice (mostly in a mortality context).

But how does the expected relate to the full credibility standard? Obviously in this case the 1,082 was just set arbitrarily in effect. If you have 1,500 actual claims but only expected 500, would you still apply partial credibility? Seems counterintuitive to me to apply partial credibility there, but again I am approaching this from a mortality context. 0 deaths gets 0 credibility no matter what the expected is in my books, but mortality is different in that the actual and expected are not likely to be very far off.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-20-2018, 05:10 PM
Colymbosathon ecplecticos's Avatar
Colymbosathon ecplecticos Colymbosathon ecplecticos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,910
Default

If your full credibility standard is 500 claims and you expect 1500, then you have achieved full credibility and Z=1. Z is always between 0 and 1.

You are correct that the expected (total) number of claims is not used in computing the full credibility standard. The expected number of claims per exposure is typically used to give a measure of the full credibility standard in exposure units. Typically, car-years for auto insurance and life-years for human mortality.
__________________
"What do you mean I don't have the prerequisites for this class? I've failed it twice before!"


"I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-20-2018, 05:12 PM
Colymbosathon ecplecticos's Avatar
Colymbosathon ecplecticos Colymbosathon ecplecticos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,910
Default

Oh, and 1,082 isn't an arbitrary number.
__________________
"What do you mean I don't have the prerequisites for this class? I've failed it twice before!"


"I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-20-2018, 05:14 PM
Colymbosathon ecplecticos's Avatar
Colymbosathon ecplecticos Colymbosathon ecplecticos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Chalfont View Post
0 deaths gets 0 credibility no matter what the expected is in my books, but mortality is different in that the actual and expected are not likely to be very far off.
Translation:


Yeah, we expected 500,000 of these million people to die this year, but not one of them did!

Okay, leave our best estimate at q=0.5.
__________________
"What do you mean I don't have the prerequisites for this class? I've failed it twice before!"


"I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself."
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 03:20 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 0.21871 seconds with 9 queries