Graham
About
- Username
- Graham
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,722
- Last Active
- Roles
- Administrator
Comments
-
Ok, I'm back. Referencing sample solution 1: off-balanced relativity = (off-balance factor) x (adjusted relativity) = 0.7236 x 1.3 = 0.9407
-
The 2018 Spring exams (original and makeup) were not published in pdf format by the CAS, so the way you have to get to them is a little different. You can get to the questions and answers for those exams in the BattleActs PowerPack here: https://www…
-
Hi @pactuary I've had a medical emergency today (Thursday) but I will make every effort to answer you question over this Fri/Sat/Sun. Sorry for the delay. @Graham
-
Yeah, you're right. Sample answer 3 is the only answer that's correct, strictly speaking. For sample answers 1 & 2, you would still have to adjust the base rate the make the change revenue-neutral but that didn't seem to be what they question wa…
-
You're right that you should get the same expected claims ratio all 3 AYs because that was explicitly stated in the question. They just weren't careful enough when they created the problem. You should get full credit regardless of which AY you chose…
-
Hi @bmrosemo I'm traveling today so I will answer your question tomorrow (Thursday) morning.
-
You should be able to go to the Pearson Vue site and get access to a sample environment so you can familiarize yourself with how it works. I have not taken an exam in CBT format myself so I can't provide any specific information other than that it's…
-
The examiner's report solutions sometimes take shortcuts or apply the methods slightly differently from the method given in the source text. You can still solve this problem using the steps in the wiki (see below) and that's how I would recommend do…
-
This was a hard problem. The information you need on earning patterns is indirectly given in the table. And the information below the table is also important. For example, that all policies are annual and are written on the first day of each quarter…
-
In that particular practice problem, I just used the "square root rule" that I discussed in chapter 7. I took the selected LDF one column to the left, which was 1.033, and took the square root which gives 1.016. The square root rule is not…
-
I see what you mean because the question doesn't tell you where the CDFs came from. Are they from the unadjusted triangle? Or did they already make the necessary adjustments to the reported loss triangle then calculate the CDFs based on the adjusted…
-
The standard premium in part (b) is given so you don't need an experience modification factor to do part (b). Other questions: The text doesn't describe the standard premium calculation in any detail. It says the standard premium is before any disco…
-
I believe what they did is correct. Here's the formula for trended present rates: https://www.battleactsmain.ca/battleacts5.ca/forum5/uploads/413/JF6STIKHOVN4.png For the values in the formula, we have: present rate = 1.0000 (this is a relative rate…
-
The short answer is that the examiner's report is correct, based on the Werner text, and my calculation in the web problem is wrong. I've corrected it and given you a shout-out in the solution section for that problem. We also send a BattleActs mug …
-
Yup, that's correct. I added a footnote to the BattleTable here: https://www.battleacts5.ca/wiki5/Werner10.Multivariate#BattleTable
-
Here's a link showing the start & end periods for the period 1 and period 2 trend: https://www.battleacts5.ca/wiki5/Werner05.Premium#2-Step_Trending For premiums, we use AWDs (Average Written Dates) to calculate trend periods because that's more…
-
If the volume is growing, you generally get more accurate estimates using shorter time periods, but my example isn't trying to incorporate growth. (Unless you think of "growth" as going from zero earned premium prior to January to somethin…
-
I think the AAD of the mid-point of quarter 3 was related to the policy term being 6 months and the insurer starting at the beginning of that year, not that fact that the book of business was growing. In any case, I think it was a bit of an unfair q…
-
That's one of the little tricks with in-force premiums that often catches people on the exam so it's good you discovered this while you're studying. The terms of the policies are irrelevant and here's the reason: Suppose you have 2 annual policies i…
-
Sample answer 1 is more methodical. They do the calculations in 2 separate steps. Here's sample answer 1 for reference, with my explanation below: https://www.battleactsmain.ca/battleacts5.ca/forum5/uploads/154/UDQO84JNVJK8.png Step 1: Calculate an …
-
Am I looking at the right problem? Spring 2015 Q1 doesn't seem to have a part (b). This exam problem is outdated so you don't have to know how to do it. It was from a reading that is no longer on the syllabus. You can find outdated exam questions us…
-
It's a subtle point. Comprehensive covers things like your car being vandalized or stolen (things other than an accident.) Those things can happen even if you don't drive at all - your car could be vandalized or stolen from your driveway, or parking…
-
1 written car-year always means the same thing. It's the equivalent of 1 policy for 1 year, but it can come about in different ways: 1 annual policy 2 six-month policies 12 one-month policies In this problem there are 107.5 written car-years in the …
-
There are no strict rules for this but it's generally better to diagnose and select a trend based on cumulative paid severity rather than the incremental paid severity. The incremental paid severity is more volatile because it uses data in the tail …
-
Question 1: This question was different from the normal B-S reported method. Normally the last diagonal doesn't change when you make the adjustments, but in this problem they asked you to use 2016 as the basis for adjusting so it was the next-to-las…
-
Are you referring to a particular exam question here? (Checking consistency and stability of the trend?)
-
Strictly speaking, this problem cannot be solved with the information given. Part of the reason is as follows: Suppose we have a claim reserved at 90,000 but the excess-of-loss treaty caps individual claims at 100,000. (Note that we are not given th…
-
It sounds like you're talking about restating (detrending) the paid loss triangle directly based on a trend derived from the average case outstanding, without the intermediate step of restating the paid counts. I'm not sure whether or not that would…
-
What happened here is the dates for the rate change and law change were reversed in the statement of the problem so I fixed that. It was also supposed to be annual policies, not 6-month policies. The given solution I believe was correct for the inte…
-
Thx for following up.