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

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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #191  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:52 AM
kadsura kadsura is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Studying for the heck of it
Posts: 1,017
Default

Nice
__________________
1 2 3 4 S 5 6 7 8 9 V V O O C
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:56 AM
#Hawaii2019 #Hawaii2019 is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Studying for Hawaii
Posts: 1,167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kadsura View Post
Nice
ty
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 11-30-2019, 11:35 AM
amp019372's Avatar
amp019372 amp019372 is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Columbus, OH
Studying for 7
College: B.S. University of TN, M.S. Ohio State
Favorite beer: Spotted Cow
Posts: 812
Default

Now that Thanksgiving's over I'm ready to start diving into this next week. Gonna buy TIA and get started casually watching the videos on Monday.
__________________
ACAS | 7 | 8 | 9



Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 11-30-2019, 06:27 PM
kadsura kadsura is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Studying for the heck of it
Posts: 1,017
Default

Reading amps posts gives me motivation to keep up with him
__________________
1 2 3 4 S 5 6 7 8 9 V V O O C
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 11-30-2019, 08:10 PM
Maximally Qualified's Avatar
Maximally Qualified Maximally Qualified is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Studying for years
Posts: 532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jumpyshrimp View Post
here is what I heard: 6 >> 9 > 7 > 8 > 5
This was a commonly held view around 2013 or so (but more like 9 > 6 > 7 > 8). I don't believe it holds today.

I haven't sat for 9 yet, but I would say syllabus difficulty: 7 > 8 >> 6 >> 5 (as I jinx myself for my pending score on 8) but exam difficulty varies by year. In 2014 and imo 2019, 8 > 7. In 2015, 7 > 8. In 2018, they were about even.
__________________
Taylor originally called his product "Taylor's Prepared Ham", but was forced to change the name after it failed to meet the new legal definition of "ham" established by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 11-30-2019, 09:03 PM
trueblade's Avatar
trueblade trueblade is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Castlevania
Studying for Freedom
Posts: 1,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximally Qualified View Post
I haven't sat for 9 yet, but I would say syllabus difficulty: 7 > 8 >> 6 >> 5
Agreed in general, my rank is 7 > 8 > 9 >> 6 >> 5 in terms of syllabus difficulty. I'm having a hard time getting into exam 7 source material. That being said, 8 is the hardest to pass for me.
__________________


ACAS 7 8 9
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:21 AM
Unrealistic Ace's Avatar
Unrealistic Ace Unrealistic Ace is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 234
Default

In Verrall, formula 5.4, why is the fraction in the numerator a division by the sum of lambdas and not the product of lambdas?

Edit: My reason for asking is that, what is presented in TIA and CF seems to indicate that the gammas follow a different formula than what is presented here. The product of the lambdas is used in the fraction of the numerator for TIA and CF. Also, the sum in the denominator appears to be different as well, than the sum of all incremental losses.

Edit 2: Have confirmed via the calculations in the paper that the formula in 5.4 is incorrectly stated. The numerator should indeed have a product of lambdas instead of a sum. The denominator should sum all known and predicted incurred losses. Basically, the formulas in TIA and CF are correct.

Last edited by Unrealistic Ace; 12-02-2019 at 02:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:03 PM
Candidate X's Avatar
Candidate X Candidate X is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 310
Default

Did you find an error for that formula other than what's on the syllabus? (errata page referencing that formula is on the syllabus) If you found the error on your own, you are WAY ahead of me and I sat for the exam last year!
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:19 PM
examsarehard examsarehard is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealistic Ace View Post
In Verrall, formula 5.4, why is the fraction in the numerator a division by the sum of lambdas and not the product of lambdas?

Edit: My reason for asking is that, what is presented in TIA and CF seems to indicate that the gammas follow a different formula than what is presented here. The product of the lambdas is used in the fraction of the numerator for TIA and CF. Also, the sum in the denominator appears to be different as well, than the sum of all incremental losses.

Edit 2: Have confirmed via the calculations in the paper that the formula in 5.4 is incorrectly stated. The numerator should indeed have a product of lambdas instead of a sum. The denominator should sum all known and predicted incurred losses. Basically, the formulas in TIA and CF are correct.
Did you check the errata?
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:53 PM
Unrealistic Ace's Avatar
Unrealistic Ace Unrealistic Ace is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Candidate X View Post
Did you find an error for that formula other than what's on the syllabus? (errata page referencing that formula is on the syllabus) If you found the error on your own, you are WAY ahead of me and I sat for the exam last year!
Quote:
Originally Posted by examsarehard View Post
Did you check the errata?
Wow...I didn't realize there was errata...

In my defense though, the formula in the errata also appears to be wrong since the second summation in the denominator has a product of gammas instead of gammas minus 1 which would be necessary to generate the predicted incremental losses.

Edit: The formula is likely actually correct and I just can't program it correctly. I think that the -1 is not included with the gammas because the actual incremental values need to be added back into the denominator.

Edit 2: The errata formula is definitely correct. I had a missing parentheses.

Last edited by Unrealistic Ace; 12-03-2019 at 02:12 PM..
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 08:25 PM.


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 0.21302 seconds with 10 queries