Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > SoA/CAS Preliminary Exams > Exam 4/C - Construction and Evaluation of Actuarial Models
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson Global Actuarial & Analytcs Recruitment
Download our 2017 Actuarial Salary Survey
now with state-by-state salary information!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-18-2009, 08:52 PM
silvergrey silvergrey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 83
Default SOA 289 #250

can anybody show to me how come the mode is theata/2? I can not get it! Many thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-18-2009, 09:24 PM
daaaave daaaave is online now
David Revelle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,972
Default

The mode of an inverse exponential is one of the properties listed in the distribution tables that you get on the exam (on p. 6 of the version currently on the SOA website).
__________________

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-18-2009, 10:17 PM
Actuarialsuck Actuarialsuck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,114
Default

Even if you didn't have that table, this is a simple exercise in calculus 1 right?



Therefore using whichever differentiation rules you want, product, quotient, whatever, you get:



Simple factoring gives us



As calculus rules go, you set it = 0, convince yourself why the first term = 0 is not what you want (do you see why?), therefore the 2nd term must be i.e.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buru Buru View Post
i'm not. i do not troll.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-18-2015, 05:08 PM
ScottKelly's Avatar
ScottKelly ScottKelly is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 305
Default The difference between SOA sample #152 and #250

On Sample #152 when we calculated the likelihood function, for the densities we used, we used the conditional density of being greater than the deductible of 500. We are not given information about losses that aren't at least meeting the deductible.

On Sample #250 when we calculated the likelihood function, for the densities we used for losses above the deductible, we used the unconditional densities. In this question, we were given information about losses that did not meet the deductible.

Is the reason that in #250 we did not have to condition losses above the deductible as being above the deductible, because we were given information about the losses that did not meet the deductible? If we were not given information about the losses that did not meet the deductible, would it have been okay to use conditional densities then for losses that were above the deductible?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-18-2015, 05:33 PM
Gandalf's Avatar
Gandalf Gandalf is offline
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
SOA
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 30,885
Default

Not just OK to use the conditional, necessary to use the conditional
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-13-2018, 06:39 PM
laxtuary laxtuary is offline
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
College: PSU '14
Posts: 1
Default Losses Below Deductible

I'm still a bit confused on what clues us in to why we don't need to condition on being above the deductible in this problem? It seems like we have just as much information given about losses below the deductible as we would on any other problem like this.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-13-2018, 07:10 PM
Academic Actuary Academic Actuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,935
Default

There are 11 losses. You know seven are below the deductible, you just don't know the specific values. If you were just given the losses above the deductible you would use the conditional.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:09 PM
Jim Daniel's Avatar
Jim Daniel Jim Daniel is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Davis, CA
College: Wabash College B.A. 1962, Stanford Ph.D. 1965
Posts: 2,644
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottKelly View Post
On Sample #152 when we calculated the likelihood function, for the densities we used, we used the conditional density of being greater than the deductible of 500. We are not given information about losses that aren't at least meeting the deductible.

On Sample #250 when we calculated the likelihood function, for the densities we used for losses above the deductible, we used the unconditional densities. In this question, we were given information about losses that did not meet the deductible.

Is the reason that in #250 we did not have to condition losses above the deductible as being above the deductible, because we were given information about the losses that did not meet the deductible? If we were not given information about the losses that did not meet the deductible, would it have been okay to use conditional densities then for losses that were above the deductible?
Where does #250 say anything about a deductible?
__________________
Jim Daniel
Jim Daniel's Actuarial Seminars
www.actuarialseminars.com
jimdaniel@actuarialseminars.com
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 01:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 0.31882 seconds with 11 queries