Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > SoA > Group and Health Track > Pricing, Reserving & Forecasting
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson International Actuarial Jobs
Canada  Asia  Australia  Bermuda  Latin America  Europe


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-16-2008, 09:07 AM
DudeMan's Avatar
DudeMan DudeMan is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: teh Po'
Studying for shts&ggles
Favorite beer: Ginger Beer
Posts: 11,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowcat View Post
did anyone else get the same as streetballer? i'm actually getting BF in the middle. (IC lowest).

I also looked at historical trends and am thinking of using something lower than 12%.
I thought by definition BF is between Incurred and CF methods. Either way, my Incurred method has lowest, followed closely by BF and then CF is by far the highest. I'm not sure how reliable the CF method is for this project. Claims lag is 6 months. Only 1 out of 6 months has CF greater than 80% and 1 other > 70%. Normally, I would be looking to set a pure premium for 4 of the 6 months.
__________________
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-17-2008, 11:08 PM
Golden Monkey Golden Monkey is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 21
Question

This could be a dummry question.

I try to understand better in the case study Incurred Claim method, when it trends in 12% annually, why starting from July, the formula is = (1+12%)^(3.5/12)?

Where this 3.5 comes from?

Confusing!!!
__________________
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. -- Confucius
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-18-2008, 08:20 AM
DudeMan's Avatar
DudeMan DudeMan is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: teh Po'
Studying for shts&ggles
Favorite beer: Ginger Beer
Posts: 11,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Monkey View Post
This could be a dummry question.

I try to understand better in the case study Incurred Claim method, when it trends in 12% annually, why starting from July, the formula is = (1+12%)^(3.5/12)?

Where this 3.5 comes from?

Confusing!!!
They use a 6 month average from 1/1/2005 - 6/30/2006. Midpoint = 4/1/2005. You are trending from 4/1/2005 to the midpoint of July '05 (7/15/2005) for a total of 3.5 months.

I did mine using 12 months rather than 6. I also used 12.9% (CY 2005 / CY 2004) trend rather than 12%
__________________
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-18-2008, 11:38 AM
gppbb gppbb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 245
Default

I am using 200401 thru 200512. How come I see a negative trend from 2004 to 2005? Did anyone else see the same? I think for conservative purpose, I will use a positive trend, but I have a hard time justifying a 10% trend given a negative trending observation.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-18-2008, 12:31 PM
DudeMan's Avatar
DudeMan DudeMan is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: teh Po'
Studying for shts&ggles
Favorite beer: Ginger Beer
Posts: 11,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gppbb View Post
I am using 200401 thru 200512. How come I see a negative trend from 2004 to 2005?
Bad idea. Only half of the months in 2005 have completed claims. Closest you should use is 200406-200505.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gppbb View Post
Did anyone else see the same? I think for conservative purpose, I will use a positive trend, but I have a hard time justifying a 10% trend given a negative trending observation.
Some months do have negative trend from 2004 to 2005. Coincidentally, those also happen to be the months that had huge positive trend from 2003 to 2004.
__________________
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-18-2008, 04:24 PM
gppbb gppbb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GraffixMan View Post
Bad idea. Only half of the months in 2005 have completed claims. Closest you should use is 200406-200505.


Some months do have negative trend from 2004 to 2005. Coincidentally, those also happen to be the months that had huge positive trend from 2003 to 2004.

Guess I wasn't clear on what I meant. I used 200401-200506 for developing the CF stuff. The second half of 2005 was just used to calc paid claims.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-16-2009, 01:57 PM
BurnTheMidnightOil BurnTheMidnightOil is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 123
Default

Did anyone else notice a funny error in the model solution spreadsheet for Task1 - CFM method?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-17-2009, 09:41 PM
DaBears DaBears is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In my happy place
Posts: 182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BurnTheMidnightOil View Post
Did anyone else notice a funny error in the model solution spreadsheet for Task1 - CFM method?
Yes
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-06-2009, 12:05 PM
Kram Kram is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 76
Default

hmmm... i'm having the same trend problem that gppbb had
i suppose i'm the only one working on this thing now ... anybody out there?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-31-2009, 11:49 AM
stallion78 stallion78 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Buffalo Wild Wings
Studying for FSA Modules
Favorite beer: Hobgoblin or Stella
Posts: 46
Default

I agree with everyone on the trend issue. Due to lack of details in the EOM Exercise Overview, we have no basis for determining what could be causing such a strange trend pattern (a sudden increase in level of managed care could be bringing down trends, change in mix of services, favorable provider contracting, etc), and therefore, have little basis to go off of when determining what an appropriate trend value is when calculating IBNR.

Has anybody looked at the difference between Medical and Rx claims? The trend pattern is dramatically different. Also, the Rx lag pattern doesn't even come close to matching reality. Medical claims is showing a fairly similar lag pattern to that of Rx claims. Rx claims should be at least 90% complete after the second month of runout. I wish the SOA would spend a little more time making sure their exercises were reasonable reflections of reality.
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 08:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 0.28257 seconds with 9 queries