Difference between revisions of "Friedland15.Evaluation"

From CAS Exam 5
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Study Tips)
(Study Tips)
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 
It's a heavily tested chapter and is an excellent way to review concepts related the reserving methods from previous chapters.
 
It's a heavily tested chapter and is an excellent way to review concepts related the reserving methods from previous chapters.
 +
 +
'''Estimated study time''': several days ''(not including subsequent review time)''
  
 
==BattleTable==
 
==BattleTable==

Revision as of 20:57, 9 August 2020

Reading: Friedland, J.F., Estimating Unpaid Claims Using Basic Techniques, Casualty Actuarial Society, Third Version, July 2010. The Appendices are excluded.

Chapter 15: Evaluation of Methods

Pop Quiz

Study Tips

This is a really great chapter because it ties together concepts from all previous chapters. The only thing that's totally new is a formula for calculating expected emergence. There are 2 versions and they are both pretty easy:

  • expected emergence of reported losses
  • expected emergence of paid losses

Most of the exam questions from this chapter ask you to do one or more of the following:

  • evaluate the accuracy of an estimate from a given reserving method
  • identify a scenario that could changes in estimates for a given reserving method between successive evaluation dates
  • identify a scenario that causes differences in estimates between 2 different reserving methods
  • suggest an adjustment or alternate method to improve accuracy of estimates

It's a heavily tested chapter and is an excellent way to review concepts related the reserving methods from previous chapters.

Estimated study time: several days (not including subsequent review time)

BattleTable

Based on past exams, the main things you need to know (in rough order of importance) are:

  • fact A...
  • fact B...
reference part (a) part (b) part (c) part (d)
E (2019.Fall #25) emergence:
- of losses
unpaid estimate:
- recommendation
E (2018.Spring #24)
E (2018.Spring #26)
E (2017.Fall #27) assess method:
- paid & rptd devlpt
assess method:
- Freq-Sev, rptd BF
assess method:
- paid devlpt, paid BF
E (2017.Fall #28) assess CDFs:
- devlpt, BF, Freq-Sev
assess ECR:
- BF method
E (2017.Spring #21) identify scenario:
- consistent with results
identify scenario:
- explains difference
alternate method:
- for part (a)
alternate method:
- for part (b)
E (2017.Spring #26) assess ECR:
- BF method
method comparison:
to Benktander
investigating results:
- questions for mgmt 1
E (2016.Fall #16) Friedland05.Triangles Friedland05.Triangles Friedland06.Diagnostics select method:
- settlement rate change
E (2016.Fall #18) BF ECR:
- calculate
unpaid:
- 2 methods & justify
assess methods:
- ECR, paid BF, paid devlpt
E (2016.Fall #27) actual vs expected:
- claim count emergence
actual vs expected:
- identify limitation
E (2016.Spring #24) actual vs expected:
- rptd claim emergence
actual vs expected:
- actuary's reactions
E (2016.Spring #25) identify scenario:
- explains difference
identify scenario:
- explains difference
E (2015.Fall #19) impact/solution:
- long development pattern
impact/solution:
- tort reform
impact/solution:
- higher deductibles
impact/solution:
- faster claims processing
E (2015.Fall #22)
E (2015.Fall #25)
E (2014.Fall #19)
E (2014.Fall #22)
E (2014.Fall #24)
E (2014.Spring #17)
E (2014.Spring #22)
E (2013.Fall #18)
E (2013.Fall #24)
E (2013.Spring #21)
E (2013.Spring #22)
E (2013.Spring #26)


1 See Friedland04.Meetings for potential questions.

In Plain English!

POP QUIZ ANSWERS