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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-19-2014, 03:44 PM
picklefeet picklefeet is offline
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
College: Pacific University
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swifthat View Post
Those are different than what I got, but I imagine it's because you used two years of experience.

I also had IC > BF > CM. Mine are about $2.7 > $2.6 > $2.6 (rounding error)
That's what I got. I already submitted this exercise, but got a DNMMR. I remember my solution didn't match the model solution perfectly, but I was pretty pleased at how close it was. Not sure which part they think I need to correct.
__________________
VEE P FM MFE MLC C
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-26-2014, 12:51 PM
chozen418 chozen418 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: May 2014
College: UCONN Alumni
Posts: 67
Default

Anyone have any thoughts on the conservatism in each IBNR methodology?

I understand how the different methods react to changes in claims processing speed, morbidity, trend and large claims but I'm not sure if that's what I'm supposed to talk about.

We don't have much information on those things other than the trend we used for IC and BF...
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-07-2015, 04:15 PM
actuary2015 actuary2015 is offline
SOA
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by picklefeet View Post
That's what I got. I already submitted this exercise, but got a DNMMR. I remember my solution didn't match the model solution perfectly, but I was pretty pleased at how close it was. Not sure which part they think I need to correct.
I'm just working on this now and I also got similar numbers. Sorry to hear that you got a DNMMR. Did you go into a lot of details in terms of justifying the trend chosen, other than just saying it's based on the past xx months of claims experience? Thanks.
__________________
1) Health Foundations 2) Pricing, Reserving & Forecasting 3) Financial Economics 4) DMAC 5) FAC
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-07-2015, 05:16 PM
actuary2015 actuary2015 is offline
SOA
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chozen418 View Post
Anyone have any thoughts on the conservatism in each IBNR methodology?

I understand how the different methods react to changes in claims processing speed, morbidity, trend and large claims but I'm not sure if that's what I'm supposed to talk about.

We don't have much information on those things other than the trend we used for IC and BF...
Agreed. They definitely could have worded this quesiton better. Trend would be an obvious one. Also, the claims completion factor assumed in the CF method would be another one...

chozen418, what did you put down in the end?
__________________
1) Health Foundations 2) Pricing, Reserving & Forecasting 3) Financial Economics 4) DMAC 5) FAC
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-01-2015, 03:22 AM
Roger Wilco's Avatar
Roger Wilco Roger Wilco is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
College: College
Posts: 527
Default

I am getting CF ($2.6) > IC ($2.5) > BF ($2.4)

Makes me a bit nervous because it's different than most others here. Also have an idea for the runout stuff but it I am not positive. Let me know if anyone is working on this and would like to PM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-01-2015, 11:17 AM
DBactuary DBactuary is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 106
Default

By definition, BF takes parts from the CF and IC methods, so I think it should be in between the two. Double check that calculation.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-01-2015, 02:10 PM
Roger Wilco's Avatar
Roger Wilco Roger Wilco is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
College: College
Posts: 527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBactuary View Post
By definition, BF takes parts from the CF and IC methods, so I think it should be in between the two. Double check that calculation.
Thanks, I went back and found an error in my calculation. Now it is
IC > BF > CF with $2.8 > $2.6 > $2.4
Seems much more reasonable.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-13-2015, 11:21 AM
dakuary dakuary is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 118
Default

someone mentioned that there was also medium sized group data in the data. I'm not seeing that. Do they define what small group is in terms of members? Or is that just an old version and now there is only true small group data? All the data in the segment column says "small group". Also, trend in model looks like it is 13% now (what I am using). I am getting similar numbers IC>BF>CF (2.7>2.6>2.56)
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-14-2015, 12:04 PM
Brock's Avatar
Brock Brock is offline
Defending the AO since 2007
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Venture Compound
Studying for GHDP-A
College: Hard Knox U.
Posts: 13,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dakuary View Post
someone mentioned that there was also medium sized group data in the data. I'm not seeing that. Do they define what small group is in terms of members? Or is that just an old version and now there is only true small group data? All the data in the segment column says "small group". Also, trend in model looks like it is 13% now (what I am using). I am getting similar numbers IC>BF>CF (2.7>2.6>2.56)
I calculated the same numbers as you using the 13% trend from the most recent version.

I'm only seeing small group membership and claims data.

I also calculated a 6.4% normalized trend from 2009 to 2010 in the claims data.

Looking at the claims PMPMs and R12, R6, and R3 over the first half of 2011, it looks like there is something driving a larger than historical increase to claims PMPM starting in Jan of 2011. And, looking at R6 and R3, 13% doesn't look like a bad trend assumption.
__________________
|||||||||||||()Ξ████████████████████████████████)
Thanks, Tom's Alt & mod1!
Spoiler:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Statatak View Post
I'm not the sharpest tool on the AO, but I'm comforted by the idea that no matter how vapid and incoherent my arguments are that there may be a kernel of truth buried somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2pac Shakur View Post
i am broken and incapable of thought and a bunch of other stuff

Last edited by Brock; 04-14-2015 at 03:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-14-2015, 04:49 PM
dakuary dakuary is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock View Post
I calculated the same numbers as you using the 13% trend from the most recent version.

I'm only seeing small group membership and claims data.

I also calculated a 6.4% normalized trend from 2009 to 2010 in the claims data.

Looking at the claims PMPMs and R12, R6, and R3 over the first half of 2011, it looks like there is something driving a larger than historical increase to claims PMPM starting in Jan of 2011. And, looking at R6 and R3, 13% doesn't look like a bad trend assumption.
I am calculating that same 6.4% and then for the completed 2011 I am seeing a 6.1% trend. What do you mean by R12.., is that rolling 12, 6, 3? I read something in the module last night that made me think I should increase trend, b/c in the case study they underestimated it. And then for reserves, it says you can use more conservatism. But I think 13% is supportable. There is definitely a spike in January '11, but then calms down for a few months then ramps back up in may and june.

What did you get for impact in 2011 for results in 2010? Is that just the difference in the runout and original calculated reserve? That's what I did.

Last edited by dakuary; 04-14-2015 at 05:14 PM..
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 08:17 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 0.21287 seconds with 9 queries