Actuarial Outpost Guo's solution to Fall 2018 LTAM WA
 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

Search Actuarial Jobs by State @ DWSimpson.com:
AL AK AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA
ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NH NJ NM NY NV NC ND
OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY

 Long-Term Actuarial Math Old Exam MLC Forum

#1
11-17-2018, 06:38 PM
 Yufeng Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 140
Guo's solution to Fall 2018 LTAM WA

Solution for Fall 2018 WA is here:

http://deeperunderstandingfastercalc...018_WA_sol.pdf

#2
11-18-2018, 12:27 AM
 KarimZ Member SOA Join Date: May 2015 Location: Pakistan College: Graduate, Bsc Accounting and Finance Posts: 199

In WA 4, would recursion be a valid approach to calculate reserves at time 2?
I am referring to parts bii, cii, dii.
__________________
P FM MFE C LTAM PA

VEEs

FAP Interim FAP Final

APC

#3
11-18-2018, 08:04 AM
 Yufeng Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 140
Yes; you can use recursive tV formula for WA 4

For WA 4, YES; you can use the recursive reserve formula to derive the reserve at any time.

Recursive tV formula should always work regardless of whether the premium is calculated under the equivalence principle and regardless of whether the reserve is gross, net, FPT, or based any other modified reserve method.
#4
11-18-2018, 08:34 AM
 KarimZ Member SOA Join Date: May 2015 Location: Pakistan College: Graduate, Bsc Accounting and Finance Posts: 199

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Yufeng For WA 4, YES; you can use the recursive reserve formula to derive the reserve at any time. Recursive tV formula should always work regardless of whether the premium is calculated under the equivalence principle and regardless of whether the reserve is gross, net, FPT, or based any other modified reserve method.
Thanks Yufeng! Appreciate all the time you have invested to come up with solutions.
__________________
P FM MFE C LTAM PA

VEEs

FAP Interim FAP Final

APC

#5
11-19-2018, 01:16 AM
 KarimZ Member SOA Join Date: May 2015 Location: Pakistan College: Graduate, Bsc Accounting and Finance Posts: 199

Roughly graded my paper. Not all solutions are in my memory. Think im at a score of 66. Not sure if that will make the cut.
__________________
P FM MFE C LTAM PA

VEEs

FAP Interim FAP Final

APC

#6
11-19-2018, 06:21 AM
 Yufeng Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 140
WA 1 -- why the information premiums in the first two years are lower

In case you are wondering why in WA 1 SOA tellls you that premiums in the first two years are lower.

This information is to support their profit signatures 84.74 for Year 1 and 80.35 Year 2. If the premiums are level for all years, then the profit signatures for Year 1 and Year 2 will not be 84.74 and 80.35 respectively.
#7
02-16-2019, 04:46 PM
 BartimaeusOfUruk SOA Join Date: Nov 2017 Location: Iowa Studying for FAP Posts: 20 Blog Entries: 3

For question 9, could anyone explain to me why it's 11p60^(01) instead of 10p60^(01)? Thanks so much!!
#8
02-16-2019, 08:34 PM
 Gandalf Site Supporter Site Supporter SOA Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Middle Earth Posts: 31,227

Quote:
 Originally Posted by BartimaeusOfUruk For question 9, could anyone explain to me why it's 11p60^(01) instead of 10p60^(01)? Thanks so much!!
This thread is as about Guo's WA solutions. If you are asking about MC, the SOA's solutions include a 10p60^(01) and do not include a 11p60^(01). There is a thread about Guo's MC solutions but I'm not going to look for it. I think there are also TIA solutions, maybe not in a separate thread.
#9
02-16-2019, 08:59 PM
 Yufeng Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 140

My solution to Fall 2018 LTAM MC Q9 has a typo in the recursive formula.

In the recursive formula, the correct term should be 10p60^(01). However, I wrote 11p60^(01). I must be drunk that day!

However, my numerical calculation is still correct.

Thanks BartimaeusOfUruk and Gandalf.