Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > SoA > Modules 1-5
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Upload your resume securely at https://www.dwsimpson.com
to be contacted when new jobs meet your skills and objectives.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-27-2014, 09:54 PM
kn005 kn005 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Favorite beer: I don't drink beer!! Johnny Walker Black Label it is
Posts: 346
Default EOM 3 task 3

I'm working on EOM 3 task 3 and currently struggling with what task 3 is asking us to do. We are given an expected fund rate of return of 6.5% and are told to estimate an effect if it increases or decreases by 2%. Not sure if i should just change the rate in the model to 8.5% or 4.5%. I've been looking at this for a good 1hr. Any explanations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-31-2014, 09:01 PM
bigb bigb is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kn005 View Post
I'm working on EOM 3 task 3 and currently struggling with what task 3 is asking us to do. We are given an expected fund rate of return of 6.5% and are told to estimate an effect if it increases or decreases by 2%. Not sure if i should just change the rate in the model to 8.5% or 4.5%. I've been looking at this for a good 1hr. Any explanations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
You pretty much answer your own question don't you?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-31-2014, 11:18 PM
GameOfLoans GameOfLoans is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigb View Post
You pretty much answer your own question don't you?
I think his question was should it be that or should it be 7.8% and 6.37% (or 6.37254901960784313725%, 6.5%/1.02). I agree that the language is imprecise. Whenever I have to talk about things like this I say percentage points when I mean 6.5%+/- 2%.

My guess is that they make it vague on purpose to mimic the kinds of miscommunications in real life. I also guess that the "correct" answer with these things is to just pick something reasonable, justify your answer with some logic and evidence, and qualify it (or document your methods and assumptions).
__________________
Putting faith in its place.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-01-2015, 12:03 AM
bigb bigb is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GameOfLoans View Post
I think his question was should it be that or should it be 7.8% and 6.37% (or 6.37254901960784313725%, 6.5%/1.02). I agree that the language is imprecise. Whenever I have to talk about things like this I say percentage points when I mean 6.5%+/- 2%.

My guess is that they make it vague on purpose to mimic the kinds of miscommunications in real life. I also guess that the "correct" answer with these things is to just pick something reasonable, justify your answer with some logic and evidence, and qualify it (or document your methods and assumptions).
The instructions say:

"Estimate the impact of a 2% per annum increase in the return and a 2% per annum decrease in the return."

To me it was implied to test using returns of 8.5% and 4.5%. I've never seen "per annum" used in a manner other than this. Plus I'm not sure it really makes sense in the context of the problem to assume the 2% per annum increase / decrease means 0.065(1.02) and 0.065(0.98). I think this is what you were implying above...

One way to confirm this however would be to test using both methods. I'm guessing you wouldn't get much model feedback by increasing or decreasing under this alternative approach - which may lead you to rethink your assumption...

I do agree that there is ambiguity and that it is likely done on purpose in many instances. Pick an approach, document your work, and stick with your line of reasoning.

Last edited by bigb; 01-01-2015 at 01:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-04-2015, 08:59 AM
actuariallydelicious's Avatar
actuariallydelicious actuariallydelicious is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Studying for FA
College: UC Berkeley
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigb View Post
The instructions say:

"Estimate the impact of a 2% per annum increase in the return and a 2% per annum decrease in the return."

To me it was implied to test using returns of 8.5% and 4.5%. I've never seen "per annum" used in a manner other than this. Plus I'm not sure it really makes sense in the context of the problem to assume the 2% per annum increase / decrease means 0.065(1.02) and 0.065(0.98). I think this is what you were implying above...

One way to confirm this however would be to test using both methods. I'm guessing you wouldn't get much model feedback by increasing or decreasing under this alternative approach - which may lead you to rethink your assumption...

I do agree that there is ambiguity and that it is likely done on purpose in many instances. Pick an approach, document your work, and stick with your line of reasoning.

Has anybody check how changing the fund rate from 6.5% to either 4.5% & 8.5% is changing the annuity factor? In the "Annuity Factor" worksheet, while there're annuity factor data listed for 4.5%, 6.5%, and 8.5% fund rate, there's only annuity data listed for 3% inflation rate and lower. How do you explain away the fact the the annuity factor table is done with 3% inflation assumption while Task #3 is assuming a 3.5% inflation assumption?

The annuity factor worksheet issue is becoming a problem for me for task4. Because in task 4, you're assuming 2.5% inflation and 4.5% inflation. But the annuity factor sheet only has 3% inflation data available. Even if I adjust the Calc sheet column V input to look up the inflation in Annuiuty factor worksheet, I can't find 4.5% inflation data there....

Any thought on this?
__________________
ASA
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-15-2016, 06:16 PM
Clem Koi Clem Koi is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 767
Default

Am I supposed to be looking at the changes in the total contribution?

I don't understand how I am supposed to use the annuity sheet.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:57 PM
ActuariallyDecentAtBest ActuariallyDecentAtBest is online now
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 300
Default

So we just see how changing the investment returns impacts the replacement ratios/pension benefits? That's it?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
eom3

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 12:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 0.30772 seconds with 9 queries