Graham
About
- Username
- Graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,722
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Where are you seeing the term "calendar/accident year aggregation". If I know the context, I can provide a better answer. In any case however: Accident year data is data that is organized according to when the accident occurred (but that d…
-
It looks like you submitted a blank post.
-
I don't think either of the sample answers is a good answer. Here is how I thought about it: The assumption of uniform writings meant we could assume that the average written date for each 6-month period is the mid-point of that period. (That was a …
-
There are 2 policies of type B but let's first do the 2024 WE calculation for 1 policy. Then we can just double the answer to get the final result. A 6-month policy written on Sept 15, 2023 would normally expire on Mar 15, 2024. (Recall that a 6-mon…
-
I'm not quite sure I know what you're asking. The solution doesn't list "no future development" as a disadvantage.
-
Judy, I sent you a message. Click the envelope to the right of your profile picture.
-
The question doesn't provide any information on the ULAE ratio (which is the ratio of paid ULAE to paid claims). All they tell you is that the paid ULAE increased by 30% but you don't know anything about the paid claims. (If the paid claims didn't c…
-
Here is an example of what is meant by "retention has been exceeded but the limit has not yet been exhausted" Suppose the retention is $100 and the limit is $500, and an insurer makes a claim to the primary insurer of $150. The primary ins…
-
Sorry, that's a typo. You are correct that the weighted average is 8.2%. It's valid to use judgment to select something other than 8.2%, like 7.5% as above, but that wasn't my intention. It was supposed to be the weighted average but I had the wrong…
-
You cannot adjust the 2013 severity at 36 months because it doesn't exist (and is not used anywhere in the problem.) All sample answer 1 is saying is to adjust your severity estimate for 2013 (and therefore your estimate of ultimate for 2013) and th…
-
(1) Your understanding regarding the accuracy of the ECR method (even with a slowdown of payments) is correct. (2) Regarding the BF method, your comments relate to this section of chapter 9 in the wiki: https://www.battleacts5.ca/wiki5/Friedland09.B…
-
You're welcome! 🙂
-
I'm not sure if you saw this old post about this exam question, but here's the link: https://www.battleactsmain.ca/battleacts5.ca/forum5/index.php?p=/discussion/109/spring-2016-24 Anyway, to address your questions: "Recommended unpaid claims&qu…
-
For sample answer 2: I think they meant to say use the "reported claim count triangle" not the paid (closed) claim count triangle. Part (a) asks about reported emergence not paid emergence. For sample answer 3: If the problem is that there…
-
Yes, faster processing means increased settlement rate. But that comment in the examiners' report is not entirely correct: If the only change is that claims are processed faster then only the paid triangle will be affected. And the statement of the …
-
Unfortunately, there is no consistency between various sources. In the Friedland text, a 70% quota-share arrangement means the primary insurer retains 70% of the gross business but in other sources, it means the primary insurer cedes 70% of the gros…
-
There is some ambiguity because the statement of the question doesn't tell you whether the 4 large claims were paid in 2015 or 2016 and that makes a difference to how the LDFs are affected. But it seems they wanted you to assume they were paid in 20…
-
I think that's a mistake in the solution because if the CDFs are too high then: % reported is low % unreported is high You can always go into a deeper analysis on questions of accuracy but each subpart of this question was only worth 0.25 points so …
-
The answers to your questions are basically: YES. The diagnostics you use depend on the circumstances so there is no step-by-step method that works in all circumstances. You can calculate any diagnostic you want using the data you're given, then you…
-
There is always a certain amount of judgment when estimating ultimates. In other words there is no single correct answer. Sample answer 1 could have used the calculated value of 0.1619. They simply chose not to for the reason outlined below... When …
-
I'm not sure I understand your question. What you described is what they did. The steps are: calculate the triangle of ratios of S/S to paid claims (which they did) develop this triangle of S/S ratios to ultimate to get an ultimate S/S ratio for 201…
-
Yes, unless they specifically tell you there is no trend as in this problem from 2019-Fall: https://www.battleacts5.ca/pdf/Exam_(2019_2-Fall)/(2019_2-Fall)_(20).pdf
-
The reason the ECR is multiplied by the frequency and severity trends here is that the given ECR is valid for AY 2016 and the problem is asking you to estimate the ultimate claims for AY 2017. That means you have trend the ECR forward by 1 year to g…
-
These diagnostic tools are valid in other circumstances, not just testing for changes in case reserve adequacy in this particular question. If the only deviation from stability is a strengthening of case reserves then the ultimate loss (and severity…
-
The reason for excluding the year for which you want to calculate the ultimate (in this case AY 2025) from the calculation of the Estimated Current-to-Ultimate (ECR) ratio is to avoid any potential bias or distortion in the results. ECR is used to e…
-
The file you referenced is corrected: https://www.battleacts5.ca/wiki5/Friedland13.BerqSherm#Practice_Problems_2 Thanks!
-
Yes, you're correct. Sorry for the confusion. I will post here again once I've fixed this.
-
You would subtract the unadjusted reported claims. (The adjusted reported claims is just part of the technique to get a more accurate estimate of ultimate claims, but to calculate a "real" quantity like IBNR, you need to use the actual giv…
-
It looks like sample answer 3 has mistakes in the intermediate steps but the final answer is correct. In particular, the highlighted values have the wrong exponents on the trend of 1.04: https://www.battleactsmain.ca/battleacts5.ca/forum5/uploads/66…