Annuities Due

So, if I want to calculate the EPV of a 3 year annuity due, with

q0 = .01, q2 = .02, and q3 = .04, and i = .05, I recently discovered that it can be calculated two 'different' ways.



In the one case, you let X be the occurrence that exactly that number of payments were made, and its associated probabilty, and in the other case, you look at the chances of a particular future payment being made.



so, a double dot = 1(.01) + (1 +1/1.05)*.99*.02 + (1+1/1.05+1/1.05^2) *.99*.98 = 2.82268



Or, alternatively, and perhaps more intuitively

a double dot = 1 +1/1.05*.99+1/1.05^2*.99*.98 = 2.82268

(Last way seems easier...)



but, what if I want to calculate the Variance.. I can use the first formula to calculate E(x^2) = 1^2(.01) + (1 +1/1.05)^2*.99*.02 + (1+1/1.05+1/1.05^2)^2 *.99*.98 = 8.01805 .. Leads to the variance of 8.01-2.82^2 = .04957



Is there an existing formula/ trick I could have used to calculate the variance given that I have already calculated the EPV of the annuity? (and thus can calculate the EPV the second way, which is fastest.)

Annuities Due

Increasing Case Strength Causes?

In a scenario of increasing case strength, why do we expect the reported CDFs to be higher as well (under reported development method with no adjustment)? I thought the actual development would be lower from year to year, because the case is more adequate?

Increasing Case Strength Causes?

Frequency / Severity method

Appreciate if you could mention me the mistakes and errors of the FS method



Frequency / Severity method





To find the frequency of claims,

The chain ladder based on cumulative count reported and cumulative count closed is used.

 Calculate the cumulative count reported and cumulative count closed in each development quarter based on the link ratio.

 Calculate the link ratios as the ratios of cumulative count reported over successive development quarters

 Estimate the ultimate cumulative claims incurred by multiplying together

cumulative claims reported in the last payment quarter

product of the selected link ratios over the projected development quarter



To find the severity of claims,

The chain ladder based on reported per claim reported and payment per claim closed is used. These values are subject to the same distortions due to the changes in the claims handling process.

The implied open claims amount as at the latest accident quarter is taken.





If the severity of claims were determined using the chain ladder based on reported per claim reported and payment per claim closed approach, then the ultimate loss per claim is calculated as the product of frequency and severity of claim is the ultimate loss per claim. By dividing the ultimate loss per claim over the net Earned Premium, this will give us the loss ratios that we used in determining the ultimate loss.





If the severity of claims were determined as the implied open claims amount as at the latest accident quarter, then the ultimate loss is calculated as the number of open claims multiplied by the average claims size, plus the paid amount to date.

Frequency / Severity method

Follow the U.S. Dept of Defense: Ditch the Powerpoint

http://ift.tt/1wjCmSC

Quote:

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter might be moving toward making a new demand for top generals — ditch the PowerPoints and simply talk instead. Before meeting on Monday with top officials in Kuwait to discuss Islamic State threats, Carter banned the use of PowerPoint presentations "to challenge his commanders' thinking," the Washington Post reported. "The Secretary wanted today's meeting to be driven by thoughtful analysis and discussion, not fixed briefings," Rear Adm. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said in an email to Military Times. While Kirby said it is not a general ban on PowerPoints throughout the Defense Department, this isn't the first time the slide projection method has come in for criticism. .... A year later, a staff officer at the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command in Kabul was fired for publicly shaming the PowerPoint method. Army Col. Lawrence Sellin wrote that the joint command "consists largely of the endless tinkering with PowerPoint slides to conform with the idiosyncrasies of cognitively challenged generals in order to spoon-feed them information." ..... @Doctrine_Man told Military Times that the top brass should understand PowerPoint for what it is — a tool. "Our problem with the tool is that people make slides before they have a clear idea of what problem they're trying to solve," @Doctrine_Man said. "If you can't communicate your ideas, it doesn't matter what tool you use."

Somewhere, Tufte is spiking it in the endzone.

Follow the U.S. Dept of Defense: Ditch the Powerpoint

Moone Boy

http://ift.tt/1DawInv



Stu & I have been watching this on Hulu. Hilarious.



It also helps that we're Catholic, so we like those bits. ;)

Moone Boy

Working with Multiple Recruiters

I am just starting to work with a recruiter while I look for my next job. I contacted Ezra Penland and DW Simpson and have started communications with Ezra.



Would it be complicated to work with 2 recruiters? Has anyone had a similar experience?

Working with Multiple Recruiters

How do I become a bigger donkey?

This belongs in careers, but I'm too embarrassed with myself to put it there. Basically I missed out on my big promotion not for my work ethic, but for my demeanor. I had a great year on paper, and the score on my perf. review reflected it. However, my manager said that I'm 27 with the maturity level of a 19 year old. He said I keep it too real, and don't present myself as a "business person". He also said I'm kind of a dick who is also cynical and pessimistic. How do I fix this so I don't end up as a career actuarial analyst? I want to be able to sound all professional and heehaw'ish and sheiit, and have my business partners actually respect my opinions/input.



And no this is not a troll thread. This actually did happen to me.

How do I become a bigger donkey?