Actuarial Outpost > SoA Module 3 section 4 Investment Science
 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

#1
04-03-2008, 11:41 AM
 frisbbzepp Member SOA AAA Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NJ Posts: 774
Module 3 section 4 Investment Science

I'm having trouble with the questions from chapter 3 of the book. Anyone want to compare solutions?

I also got a little confused on slide 17, the one where you calculate duration for a bond. The yield is given as 6%, and in the solution that rate is used. However, in the text, it seems that the yields given are always assumed to be compounded semiannually, so when I did the problem, I used 3%. Anyone else finding this a little weird?
#2
04-03-2008, 12:50 PM
 weinerda Member SOA AAA Join Date: May 2006 Studying for ever. Posts: 460

I don't have my book with me, but I believe if you assume a compounding frequency that is the same as the coupon payment frequency you should match the solutions. Also, whatever they give you on the spreadsheet for timing is, I believe, what you should use (i.e. if they give you space for semiannual cashflows, then the compounding frequency is semiannual) Hope this helps.
#3
04-03-2008, 01:16 PM
 frisbbzepp Member SOA AAA Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NJ Posts: 774

I think they do give space for semiannual cashflows (i.e. times 0.5, 1, etc.) but then they still use the yield as given. That's why I was confused.
#4
04-03-2008, 01:45 PM
 weinerda Member SOA AAA Join Date: May 2006 Studying for ever. Posts: 460

Oh. I don't remember that happening... oh well... At least you figured it out.
#5
04-03-2008, 02:08 PM
 frisbbzepp Member SOA AAA Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NJ Posts: 774

I thought the life expectancy question was going to be easy, but I couldn't get the book. I just tried to calculate the sum of $_kp_x$, but no dice.
#6
04-03-2008, 03:02 PM
 weinerda Member SOA AAA Join Date: May 2006 Studying for ever. Posts: 460

Quote:
 Originally Posted by frisbbzepp I thought the life expectancy question was going to be easy, but I couldn't get the book. I just tried to calculate the sum of $_kp_x$, but no dice.
Haha... I did the same thing... except the problem was geared towards non-actuaries... the probabilities given are really 1|Qx . You'll see they sum to 100%. (The life expectancy is just the sumproduct of the probabilities times the ages.)
#7
04-03-2008, 04:14 PM
 frisbbzepp Member SOA AAA Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NJ Posts: 774

What's the theory behind that? How do they end up being equivalent? But thanks for the explanation, I'm glad I just wasn't going crazy. How can you use that information to get part (c). I was trying to do $10,000[vp_x+v^2_2p_x+...]$ and it wasn't working out.
#8
04-03-2008, 09:53 PM
 weinerda Member SOA AAA Join Date: May 2006 Studying for ever. Posts: 460

You have to think simpler... Only an actuary (and one who has taken MLC) would do what you (and I) did. Just find the value of the annuity if Mr. Jones dies at each age, and sumproduct with the probabilities as before.

By the way, I found some of the theoretical chapter questions (they come later) to be rather difficult... I think what's important here is the concepts, which you clearly understand even better than the average reader.

Oh, and as to how they are equivalent, if you use the fact that the probabilities are 1|qx and convert them to tpx and sum then you can reconcile exactly. It can get a little messy, but you have to use the relation that t|qx = tpx * qx+t to back out the p's.

Last edited by weinerda; 04-03-2008 at 10:09 PM..
#9
04-07-2008, 09:19 AM
 frisbbzepp Member SOA AAA Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NJ Posts: 774

Did you understand the convexity spreadsheet? I got the first way they did it, but I thought the one with the formula that was something like second difference in price (which was never defined in the text) over the product of change in yield squared and central price was weird. Never would have used that if they hadn't spelled it out.
#10
04-07-2008, 01:10 PM
 weinerda Member SOA AAA Join Date: May 2006 Studying for ever. Posts: 460

Quote:
 Originally Posted by frisbbzepp Did you understand the convexity spreadsheet? I got the first way they did it, but I thought the one with the formula that was something like second difference in price (which was never defined in the text) over the product of change in yield squared and central price was weird. Never would have used that if they hadn't spelled it out.
Short answer: "No." I didn't really dig into how they came up with that... I sort of just guessed that it had to do with the definition of derivative as:

Lim as h->0 of: [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h

which is a difference of sorts... Convexity is a second derivative... sooo... second difference. In practice I would probably use the former method, so like I said, I didn't spend too much time trying to derive it.

 Tags mod3

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 01:36 PM.

 -- Default Style - Fluid Width ---- Default Style - Fixed Width ---- Old Default Style ---- Easy on the eyes ---- Smooth Darkness ---- Chestnut ---- Apple-ish Style ---- If Apples were blue ---- If Apples were green ---- If Apples were purple ---- Halloween 2007 ---- B&W ---- Halloween ---- AO Christmas Theme ---- Turkey Day Theme ---- AO 2007 beta ---- 4th Of July Contact Us - Actuarial Outpost - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top