Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > CAS > CAS Exams > Exam 7 - Estimation of Policy Liability & ERM
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-31-2020, 07:29 AM
actuarialstudent89 actuarialstudent89 is offline
CAS
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Studying for 7
College: American University Alumni
Posts: 4
Default 2019 Exam 7 #6, part a: Contradiction with Clark Paper?

Part a of this question states "Calculate the incremental fitted payment and corresponding normalized residual for accident year 2018 at 12 months using the Cape Cod method."

The examiner's report shows two sample solutions. Solution 1 uses the un-truncated growth function to calculate the used-up premium and ELR. And it sticks with this un-truncated growth function to find the expected incremental fitted payment.

Solution 2 is similarly consistent: using the truncated growth function throughout all calculations.

Although more logical, this contradicts the example provided in Clark, section 4.2. Clark uses the un-truncated growth function to calculate used-up premium, which is then used in calculating an ELR of 59.78%. However, he switches to the truncated version to calculate reserves. For example, AY 2000's growth function is 4.69%, but we instead use the truncated growth function (90.83% - 4.69%) to estimate reserves = 7,002,255 = 86.13%*[$13.6M*59.78%]. The ELR of 59.78% corresponds to un-truncated values, but the 86.13% is derived using truncated values.

I guess I'll use the examiner's report method moving forward, but curious if anyone else has opinions on this.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-31-2020, 01:58 PM
AbedNadir's Avatar
AbedNadir AbedNadir is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Studying for FCAS
Posts: 2,877
Default

it's interesting that the end result is the same, if you do the algebra you should see that things cancel out in the expected incremental calculation. looking at page 68 of Clarke for the CC reserve you also have (g(234)/g(234) - g(x)/g(234)) * ELR ( without truncation ) * g(234) * premium which is equal to the reserve they state. I guess this should be obvious since we already established the expected incrementals are the same under both methods.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-01-2020, 05:32 AM
actuarialstudent89 actuarialstudent89 is offline
CAS
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Studying for 7
College: American University Alumni
Posts: 4
Default

Thanks for the response.

I think my misunderstanding is actually more basic: calculation of a fitted payment versus a reserve. In the case of a fitted payment, we do NOT consider truncation; truncation is only considered in the calculation of a reserve.
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 06:38 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 0.24623 seconds with 11 queries