![]() |
|
|
|||||||
| FlashChat | Actuarial Discussion | Preliminary Exams | CAS/SOA Exams | Cyberchat | Around the World | Suggestions |
Berlin - Madrid - Rome
- Paris - Hamburg - Warsaw |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
...cheat and bring a TI 83 to the exam... haha j/k, but seriously, if an exam question came up, they would probably give you a ux=uy situation where you just add up the alphas to get to a nice Pxy.
__________________
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
With joint DML statuses, an insurance APV is simpler–––one integration by parts rather than two–––to evaluate as an integral than is an annuity APV. Both are easy should the interest rate i = 0.
Jim Daniel
__________________
Jim Daniel Jim Daniel's Actuarial Seminars www.actuarialseminars.com jimdaniel@actuarialseminars.com |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Do you know this formula under DML?
If we add a contingency on (x) dying before (y) then: This make sense right? Because if the death benefit is contingent on (x) dying before (y) then make my annuity contingent on y being alive. The proof of the formula is not hard (you can do it by setting up the integral and then simplifying). Now we can write the joint status in terms of two contingent insurances: Does that help? |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Oh and then once you have the insurance factor you can easily find the annuity factor:
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|