Actuarial Outpost > Life Longevity watch
 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

#11
07-10-2009, 02:08 PM
 JMO Carol Marler Non-Actuary Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Back home again in Indiana Studying for Nothing actuarial. Posts: 37,440

Quote:
 Originally Posted by campbell I remember reading about the longevity swaps in the UK sometime recently, and thought I may have posted that somewhere, but I'm not seeing it.

Let's see if I have a link. . .
Well, this one:
http://www.soa.org/files/pdf/researc...fe-annuity.pdf
There's a lot of material unrelated to this topic there, but the part on mortality assumptions talks about both bonds and swaps.

And this one, from SOA Today
http://www.longevity-risk.org/index.html
Conference in NY, Sept. 25-26
Cass Business School, Pensions Institute, with NAAJ, SOA (and many others) as co-sponsors
__________________
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.
#12
07-10-2009, 02:45 PM
 campbell Mary Pat Campbell SOA AAA Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: NY Studying for duolingo and coursera Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout Posts: 84,196 Blog Entries: 6

Plenty of stuff through the SOA and other actuarial societies - just trying to pull from other sources, esp. in the news.

http://www.soa.org/research/life/res...isk-quant.aspx

http://www.soa.org/news-and-publicat...onographs.aspx

http://www.soa.org/library/newslette...2-stryker.aspx

[might as well]
__________________
It's STUMP

#13
07-16-2009, 09:01 AM
 BarryToo Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 7

Quote:
 Originally Posted by biglion8 Instead of taking another drug, we could try this: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/325/5937/201
Ever try that yourself? I have and I'm waiting for the drugs!
#14
07-20-2009, 08:23 PM
 campbell Mary Pat Campbell SOA AAA Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: NY Studying for duolingo and coursera Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout Posts: 84,196 Blog Entries: 6

Here's an alternate hypothesis:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090718/...bit_oldest_man

Quote:
 Allingham, who was the world's oldest man when he died Saturday at 113, attributed his remarkable longevity to "cigarettes, whisky and wild, wild women."
__________________
It's STUMP

#15
07-21-2009, 09:33 AM
 Loner Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The Third Half Posts: 45,268

Quote:
 Originally Posted by biglion8 Instead of taking another drug, we could try this: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/325/5937/201
Yeah, and these articles rarely mention the side effects - irritability and aggression. Do we really want to live an extra 20 years hungry and angry all the time? No thanks.
__________________
2012 AO Rap Battle Champion
Co-Legend of the Water Cooler(TM)
#16
07-21-2009, 10:03 AM
 JMO Carol Marler Non-Actuary Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Back home again in Indiana Studying for Nothing actuarial. Posts: 37,440

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Loner Yeah, and these articles rarely mention the side effects - irritability and aggression. Do we really want to live an extra 20 years hungry and angry all the time? No thanks.
If we give up everything enjoyable, we may not actually live longer, but it will sure FEEL like a long time.
__________________
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.
#17
08-09-2009, 02:20 PM
 campbell Mary Pat Campbell SOA AAA Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: NY Studying for duolingo and coursera Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout Posts: 84,196 Blog Entries: 6

A tie to current U.S. health care debate:
http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2009...-the-new-gold/

Quote:
 The Longevity Dividend is a theory that says we hope to intervene scientifically to slow the aging process, which will also delay the onset of age-related diseases. Delaying aging just seven years would slash rates of conditions like cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease in half. That’s the longevity part. The dividend comes from the social, economic, and health bonuses that would then be available to spend on schools, energy, jobs, infrastructure—trillions of dollars that today we spend on healthcare services. In fact, at the rate we’re going, by the year 2020 one out of every \$5 spent in this country will be spent on healthcare. Obviously, something has to change. Enter the Longevity Dividend. The Longevity Dividend doesn’t suggest that we live longer; instead, it calls for living better. The idea is that if we use science to increase healthspan, not lifespan. In other words, tomorrow’s 50-year-old would have the health profile of a 43-year-old.
__________________
It's STUMP

#18
08-09-2009, 03:17 PM
 campbell Mary Pat Campbell SOA AAA Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: NY Studying for duolingo and coursera Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout Posts: 84,196 Blog Entries: 6

http://gravityandlevity.wordpress.co...rtality-rates/

Quote:
 Like I said before, no one knows why our lifespans follow the Gompertz law. But it isn’t impossible to come up with a theoretical world that follows the same law. The following argument comes from this short paper, produced by the Theoretical Physics Institute at the University of Minnesota. Imagine that within your body is an ongoing battle between cops and criminals. And, in general, the cops are winning. They patrol randomly through your body, and when they happen to come across a criminal he is promptly removed. The cops can always defeat a criminal they come across, unless the criminal has been allowed to sit in the same spot for a long time. A criminal that remains in one place for long enough (say, one day) can build a “fortress” which is too strong to be assailed by the police. If this happens, you die. Lucky for you, the cops are plentiful, and on average they pass by every spot 14 times a day. The likelihood of them missing a particular spot for an entire day is given (as you’ve learned by now) by the Poisson distribution: it is a mere $e^{-14} \approx 8 \times 10^{-7}$. But what happens if your internal police force starts to dwindle? Suppose that as you age the police force suffers a slight reduction, so that they can only cover every spot 12 times a day. Then the probability of them missing a criminal for an entire day decreases to $e^{-12} \approx 6 \times 10^{-6}$. The difference between 14 and 12 doesn’t seem like a big deal, but the result was that your chance of dying during a given day jumped by more than 10 times. And if the strength of your police force drops linearly in time, your mortality rate will rise exponentially. This is the Gompertz law, in cartoon form: your body is deteriorating over time at a particular rate. When its “internal policemen” are good enough to patrol every spot that might contain a criminal 14 times a day, then you have the body of a 25-year-old and a 0.03% chance of dying this year. But by the time your police force can only patrol every spot 7 times per day, you have the body of a 95-year-old with only a 2-in-3 chance of making it through the year.
__________________
It's STUMP

#19
08-10-2009, 09:01 AM
 JMO Carol Marler Non-Actuary Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Back home again in Indiana Studying for Nothing actuarial. Posts: 37,440

Intereting analogy.
__________________
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.
#20
08-13-2009, 07:27 AM
 campbell Mary Pat Campbell SOA AAA Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: NY Studying for duolingo and coursera Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout Posts: 84,196 Blog Entries: 6

Life settlements conference:
http://www.lifesettlementsummit.com/

Commentary on one of the sessions to come:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2...nteresting.php

Quote:
 Insofar as anyone gets to be appointed spokesperson, de Grey and Olshansky might be considered spokespeople for the two opposing viewpoints on research strategy in the pro-longevity gerontology community today. On the one hand we have the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence that focus on repair of damage and circumventing incomplete understanding of our biochemistry, with the goal of reversing aging and rejuvenating the old as soon as possible. On the other hand, we have the Longevity Dividend and metabolic engineering, efforts with a focus on establishing complete understanding of our biochemistry and using that understanding to slow down the ongoing progression of aging. Note that there are ever fewer voices from the scientific community arguing that we should not or cannot singificantly intervene in the aging process. The consensus is that we can, and the important debates are all now over methodology and timelines.
__________________
It's STUMP

 Tags aging, longevity, mortality, research