

FlashChat  Actuarial Discussion  Preliminary Exams  CAS/SOA Exams  Cyberchat  Around the World  Suggestions 
DW Simpson Global Actuarial & Analytics Recruitment 

Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
#193




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.

#195




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. 
#197




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; 12022019 at 02:45 PM.. 
#199




Quote:

#200




Quote:
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; 12032019 at 02:12 PM.. 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  

