Actuarial Outpost > SoA CaN-Do: Task 7
 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

 Enter your email to subscribe to DW Simpson weekly actuarial job updates. li.signup { display: block; text-align: center; text-size: .8; padding: 0px; margin: 8px; float: left; } Entry Level Casualty Health Life Pension All Jobs

#31
08-09-2012, 06:04 PM
 komorgan Member Non-Actuary Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 112

Quote:
 Originally Posted by irana It is 5 years later.
#32
08-09-2012, 06:07 PM
 irana Member SOA Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Canada Studying for Exam C & FAP 7 College: Honour bachelor Posts: 109

I still need help with calculating the inflation!

I assume Energy cost & delievery cost have also changed, since even the first Q (with no inflation) non-labour cost is not matching with the expected value. Any thoughts?
#33
08-09-2012, 06:23 PM
 komorgan Member Non-Actuary Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 112

Quote:
 Originally Posted by irana I still need help with calculating the inflation! I assume Energy cost & delievery cost have also changed, since even the first Q (with no inflation) non-labour cost is not matching with the expected value. Any thoughts?
Even though we don't know the exact values for the 3 different non-labor costs in the first quarter, why don't we just assume that these 3 costs will rise with inflation, as they do in the current model. With this assumption, we should get a pretty good estimate of the inflation rate in a given quarter by dividing the total non-labor cost in that quarter by that observed in the previous quarter (i.e. Quarter X Non-Labor Cost divided by Quarter X - 1 Non-Labor Cost).

But when you do this, be careful when estimating the inflation rate for Quarter 19 (the next-to-last quarter). The sharp drop in non-labor cost between Quarter 18 and 19 is attributed (mostly) to the change from a 2-shift quarter to a 1-shift quarter, not inflation.
#34
08-09-2012, 06:28 PM
 IIRC Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 397

Kind of shooting from the hip here (don't quite remember), but if you recall from the sensativity testing, Energy seemed to be a critical assumption. So in light of Other Costs = (Energy, Delivery, Equipment) and these are tied to inflation...so instead of messing with inflation, how about an Energy factor? Then do A/E. That's was/is my approach for my second attempt. I feel pretty good about it. Response?
#35
08-09-2012, 06:36 PM
 komorgan Member Non-Actuary Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 112

Quote:
 Originally Posted by IIRC Kind of shooting from the hip here (don't quite remember), but if you recall from the sensativity testing, Energy seemed to be a critical assumption. So in light of Other Costs = (Energy, Delivery, Equipment) and these are tied to inflation...so instead of messing with inflation, how about an Energy factor? Then do A/E. That's was/is my approach for my second attempt. I feel pretty good about it. Response?
But how would you compute the A/E? We know the actual total non-labor costs each quarter, but we don't know how much of this is made up of energy cost.
#36
08-09-2012, 06:41 PM
 IIRC Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 397

Um, I did do an A/E, trying to recall. I think what I did was

A = Total Other Costs /

E = (Energy*a factor + Equipment as is + Delivery as is).

In short, moving forward I recommended dropping Energy by a smidge (.98) IIRC.
#37
08-09-2012, 06:48 PM
 ebeebs Member SOA Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: New England Posts: 2,989

Quote:
 Originally Posted by irana How did you change the inflation? There are way too many variables in the Total cost!!
I edited my post. I meant exchange rate, not inflation.

A few posts down from my original you'll see I corrected myself.

I argued to keep inflation the same. I bumped exchange to the new rate, and labor cost a (whatever one was linked to gold). I think I kept the constant part the same. I did not change "other" labor costs.
#38
08-09-2012, 07:00 PM
 komorgan Member Non-Actuary Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 112

Quote:
 Originally Posted by IIRC Kind of shooting from the hip here (don't quite remember), but if you recall from the sensativity testing, Energy seemed to be a critical assumption. So in light of Other Costs = (Energy, Delivery, Equipment) and these are tied to inflation...so instead of messing with inflation, how about an Energy factor? Then do A/E. That's was/is my approach for my second attempt. I feel pretty good about it. Response?
Why did you think energy cost was a "critical" assumption. In my opinion, I don't think it's all that critical for the following reason:

Currently, the model just uses a starting value for energy cost in the first quarter and then rises with inflation in subsequent quarters. I'm assuming that this starting value is based on Can-Do's recent energy costs in similar mining ventures. I don't think these costs would change all that much in just one quarter.

Any thoughts?
#39
08-09-2012, 07:06 PM
 IIRC Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 397

Um, right, that was kind of subjective on my part. When I sensativity test we (I) had to establish how much to stress in the adverse direction...

Well, instead of just X% all the way across, I did %'s that (subjectively/objectively) attempted to capture volatility, i.e. Exchange has some historical volatility, so move it 10% aversely...Equipment likely has no surprises (volatility) so I only moved it 3% adversly.

Energy IMO is somewhat volatile, so I gave it a little more stress and the effect on ending cash was significantly more than say Equipment or Delivery.
#40
08-09-2012, 07:09 PM
 IIRC Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 397

What do you mean by " I don't think these costs would change all that much in just one quarter." I was looking at 18 quarters (2 shifts) of the actual. And I also limited my Actual to 18 quarters... hope this makes sense. I'm shooting from memory. Starting over right now.

 Tags can do, can-do