Actuarial Outpost Future Value Annuity Due
 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

 Long-Term Actuarial Math Old Exam MLC Forum

#1
10-24-2018, 05:28 AM
 JohnTravolski Member Non-Actuary Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 64
Future Value Annuity Due

I'm not quite too familiar with this notation. Observe the following:

I assume that the latter (the one without (m)) refers to:

Am I correct in this assumption?

If so, how can I actually answer the problem? How do you write the former in terms of the latter (referring to the two values in the image)? I can write the former as another sum, but I'm unsure how to write it in terms of the second value (the one without the (m)).
#2
10-24-2018, 08:26 AM
 home_alone Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 428

No
#3
10-24-2018, 10:32 AM
 Jim Daniel Member SOA Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Davis, CA College: Wabash College B.A. 1962, Stanford Ph.D. 1965 Posts: 2,728

Quote:
 Originally Posted by JohnTravolski I'm not quite too familiar with this notation. Observe the following: I assume that the latter (the one without (m)) refers to: Am I correct in this assumption? If so, how can I actually answer the problem? How do you write the former in terms of the latter (referring to the two values in the image)? I can write the former as another sum, but I'm unsure how to write it in terms of the second value (the one without the (m)).
The s-double-dot is the corresponding a-double-dot divided by (in this case) 40E25.

I think that the current textbook does not introduce the s notation for actuarial accumulated value.
__________________
Jim Daniel
Jim Daniel's Actuarial Seminars
www.actuarialseminars.com
jimdaniel@actuarialseminars.com
#4
10-24-2018, 11:33 PM
 JohnTravolski Member Non-Actuary Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 64

You're right, it doesn't. So, in the problem, do you think it's wanting me to write the former as a function of the latter? Or can I decompose the latter into the ratio you mentioned and then go from there? I'm not really sure how to do the problem.
#5
10-25-2018, 12:01 AM
 Academic Actuary Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 9,191

You need a mortality assumption. Does it say anything about UDD?
#6
10-25-2018, 01:10 AM
 Jim Daniel Member SOA Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Davis, CA College: Wabash College B.A. 1962, Stanford Ph.D. 1965 Posts: 2,728

Quote:
 Originally Posted by JohnTravolski You're right, it doesn't. So, in the problem, do you think it's wanting me to write the former as a function of the latter? Or can I decompose the latter into the ratio you mentioned and then go from there? I'm not really sure how to do the problem.
As stated, it's impossible to know what the problem-poser had in mind. I'd write the s as an a over 40E25 and surrender. Without knowing whether you were to assume UDD or use Woolhouse or whatever, there little more to d0 unless he poser wants you to write out the a as a sum. Where did you encounter this?
__________________
Jim Daniel
Jim Daniel's Actuarial Seminars
www.actuarialseminars.com
jimdaniel@actuarialseminars.com