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
  #251  
Old 01-01-2020, 08:09 PM
NormalDan's Avatar
NormalDan NormalDan is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: NJ
Posts: 10,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jumpyshrimp View Post
how many study days/hours do you guys have? I negotiated with my company (a small one) to finally get 5 study days plus the exam day. I heard many big companies offer 15+ days even for repetitive exam takers?
Exam day plus 120 hours for first attempt, 110 for second... materials paid for up to $1K (not including cost of registration)
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 01-01-2020, 09:08 PM
trueblade's Avatar
trueblade trueblade is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Castlevania
Studying for Freedom
Posts: 1,206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jumpyshrimp View Post
I heard many big companies offer 15+ days even for repetitive exam takers?
To make you feel better, I got kicked out of the study program because I made no exam progress in consecutive 18 months, been using vacations to study for fellowship exams for a while
__________________


ACAS 7 8 9
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 01-02-2020, 01:01 PM
SkolChicago SkolChicago is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,215
Default

Finally started today, got through Mack this morning and now on Hurlimann. So far I'm not really a fan of the way CF does his outlines. I'd rather have the notation sprinkled in than in a list format, and he's super brief. Might just jump to the source now on Hurlimann and revisit CF after.
__________________
ACAS 7 8 9
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 01-02-2020, 02:17 PM
Unrealistic Ace's Avatar
Unrealistic Ace Unrealistic Ace is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkolChicago View Post
Finally started today, got through Mack this morning and now on Hurlimann. So far I'm not really a fan of the way CF does his outlines. I'd rather have the notation sprinkled in than in a list format, and he's super brief. Might just jump to the source now on Hurlimann and revisit CF after.
This is how I felt going through it the first time. I'm pretty certain CF assumes you have read the paper before reading the outline. In my opinion, if including examples/problems, CF has most of what is likely testable in it. I have added a few extra things from the source in my notes, but not a whole lot honestly.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 01-02-2020, 02:21 PM
Unrealistic Ace's Avatar
Unrealistic Ace Unrealistic Ace is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreddyBabe View Post
I emailed CAS about this. Admissions Manager Stephanie Litrenta replied on 12/10, "Iíve reached out to the exam 7 leadership to address this. I will follow up with you when I hear back"

Until I hear otherwise I will use t*=√(p) since that is what was on previous examiners reports. Until they clear up the inconsistency, they might have to provide the formula for t* as they did in S18Q3.
I'm glad you emailed them about it. I was asking all kinds of questions about it last year.

To add a little bit to what you have already said, definitely use t*=√(p) unless otherwise stated. Also, remember to use the same value of t* for the relative MSE across all methods instead of changing it to match each method, i.e, only the credibility values change in the MSE formula (t, p, q are the same throughout).
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 01-02-2020, 04:43 PM
SkolChicago SkolChicago is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,215
Default

The formulas for Hurlimann in CF are pissing me off and don't seem to make sense. Can you guys tell me what I'm misinterpreting?

Let's say you have a 4x4 triangle. The paper assumes that the reserve for the oldest year (year 1) should be 0 as it is at ultimate yes? But the way the formula is written for the reserve is R_i = Sum(S_i,k) from k = n - i +2 to k = n (apologies for notation). For the oldest row, that would imply the reserve should sum the incremental paid losses at periods 3 & 4, which doesn't make sense to me.
__________________
ACAS 7 8 9
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:07 AM
Unrealistic Ace's Avatar
Unrealistic Ace Unrealistic Ace is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkolChicago View Post
The formulas for Hurlimann in CF are pissing me off and don't seem to make sense. Can you guys tell me what I'm misinterpreting?

Let's say you have a 4x4 triangle. The paper assumes that the reserve for the oldest year (year 1) should be 0 as it is at ultimate yes? But the way the formula is written for the reserve is R_i = Sum(S_i,k) from k = n - i +2 to k = n (apologies for notation). For the oldest row, that would imply the reserve should sum the incremental paid losses at periods 3 & 4, which doesn't make sense to me.
Right below that formula, it says "where i=2, ..., n". This means the formula doesn't apply to the oldest row (i=1). For i=2, k=n-2+2=n. So I believe the formula is OK.

I'll mention as an aside, that even though Hurlimann states this formula (page 83 of the source paper) it really doesn't seem to ever come into play in the actual calculations again when credibility is applied. I think CF just states it here for consistency. I skipped this formula altogether in my notes.
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 01-03-2020, 12:26 PM
trueblade's Avatar
trueblade trueblade is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Castlevania
Studying for Freedom
Posts: 1,206
Default

Shapland: Include process variance by replacing the future incremental losses with simulated values from a Gamma distribution. The gamma distribution is fit by setting

Variance = ϕ*(future incremental loss)

Here's the part that confuses me. Shouldn't Variance = ϕ*(future incremental loss)^2 because the power z should be 2 under Gamma error?
__________________


ACAS 7 8 9
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 01-03-2020, 02:10 PM
Unrealistic Ace's Avatar
Unrealistic Ace Unrealistic Ace is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblade View Post
Shapland: Include process variance by replacing the future incremental losses with simulated values from a Gamma distribution. The gamma distribution is fit by setting

Variance = ϕ*(future incremental loss)

Here's the part that confuses me. Shouldn't Variance = ϕ*(future incremental loss)^2 because the power z should be 2 under Gamma error?
(I assume you are referring to the last paragraph of page 12):

The assumption is that we are in the ODP model, which has z=1. So the mean is and the variance is . At this point, we are only considering parameter variance.

To inject process variance, consider a gamma distribution with mean and variance . By sampling from this (simulating values for the incremental loss), we are considering a variety of possibilities while preserving the mean and standard deviation across simulations. This adds the process variance portion we need.

Essentially, the Gamma distribution is a new assumption that is not inherent from the original ODP model.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 01-03-2020, 02:40 PM
trueblade's Avatar
trueblade trueblade is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Castlevania
Studying for Freedom
Posts: 1,206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealistic Ace View Post
Essentially, the Gamma distribution is a new assumption that is not inherent from the original ODP model.
Thanks, I got it. It's like moment matching, using Gamma to model the ODP random variable, and consequently setting gamma variance to be the same as the ODP variance
__________________


ACAS 7 8 9
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 05:48 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 0.17832 seconds with 12 queries