Actuarial Outpost Questions about Effectiveness
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 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

 Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
#11
02-13-2018, 02:27 PM
 cincinnatikid Member SOA Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 2,164

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zzhang Yes, This is only one factor of the model. The final result should compound the other factors. I am working on my own spreadsheet and not sure how to use effectiveness to project earned prem in the next year. So I was hoping someone can help me find the proper formula.
Effectiveness shouldn't change unless you are changing your mix of groups (which creates all sorts of problems). I would use the following approach in a very simplified projection with a static population (usually currently enrolled population):

2018 Premium = 2017 Premium * (1+[(2017 increase)*(1-Effectiveness)+(2018 increase)*(Effectiveness)])
#12
02-13-2018, 02:35 PM
 zzhang SOA Join Date: Jul 2016 College: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Posts: 6

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cincinnatikid Effectiveness shouldn't change unless you are changing your mix of groups (which creates all sorts of problems). I would use the following approach in a very simplified projection with a static population (usually currently enrolled population): 2018 Premium = 2017 Premium * (1+[(2017 increase)*(1-Effectiveness)+(2018 increase)*(Effectiveness)])
Just want to be clear, if the mix of groups stays the same, but the effective dates of rate change are different, then the effectiveness is also changing, right?

Thanks for your formula. Is it an approximate approach? I know my formula is more complicated but does my formula also make sense? (Just want to see if I fully understand the definition of effectiveness)

Also, I sent you a Private Message.
#13
02-13-2018, 02:48 PM
 cincinnatikid Member SOA Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 2,164

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zzhang Just want to be clear, if the mix of groups stays the same, but the effective dates of rate change are different, then the effectiveness is also changing, right? Thanks for your formula. Is it an approximate approach? I know my formula is more complicated but does my formula also make sense? (Just want to see if I fully understand the definition of effectiveness) Also, I sent you a Private Message.
Correct. I was thinking of an annual rate change that occurs at the same time every year, but if you have multiple increases (ex. quarterly trend) or increases that occur at different times of the year, you would have different effectiveness factors.
#14
02-13-2018, 03:11 PM
 JMO Carol Marler Non-Actuary Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Back home again in Indiana Studying for Nothing actuarial. Posts: 37,080

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zzhang Hi, I think you are right, but another question comes up: Here is the situation, rate increased 5% in 2017, with an effectiveness of 0.75; Proposed rate increases 7% with assume effectiveness of 0.6. So how to project the earned premium in 2018 (not consider other factors) P(2018)=P(2017)/(1+5%*0.75)*(1+5%)*(1+7%*0.6) i.e. Step 1: P(2017) / (1+5%*0.75) :Earned premium in 2017 if no rate changed; Step 2: *1.05 : Rate level in 2018 after 5% increase in 2017; Step 3: (1+7%*0.6) : Actual Earned Prem in 2018 after applying effectiveness. or something else? Thanks
I already suggested that you talk to your manager. Now go do it!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by JMO Also, why haven't you asked your manager about these things?
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.

My latest favorite quotes, updated Apr 5, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by rekrap JMO is right
Quote:
 Originally Posted by campbell I agree with JMO.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Westley And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MG This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DoctorNo Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.

 Tags effective rate factor, effectiveness, ineffective, premium trend

 Thread Tools Search this Thread Search this Thread: Advanced Search Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 10:01 AM.

 -- Default Style - Fluid Width ---- Default Style - Fixed Width ---- Old Default Style ---- Easy on the eyes ---- Smooth Darkness ---- Chestnut ---- Apple-ish Style ---- If Apples were blue ---- If Apples were green ---- If Apples were purple ---- Halloween 2007 ---- B&W ---- Halloween ---- AO Christmas Theme ---- Turkey Day Theme ---- AO 2007 beta ---- 4th Of July Contact Us - Actuarial Outpost - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top