Difference between revisions of "Friedland15.Evaluation"
(→BattleTable) |
(→BattleTable) |
||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
|| [https://www.battleacts5.ca/pdf/Exam_(2019_2-Fall)/(2019_2-Fall)_(25).pdf <span style='font-size: 12px; background-color: yellow; border: solid; border-width: 1px; border-radius: 5px; padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px; margin: 5px;'>E</span>] <span style="color: red;">'''(2019.Fall #25)'''</span> | || [https://www.battleacts5.ca/pdf/Exam_(2019_2-Fall)/(2019_2-Fall)_(25).pdf <span style='font-size: 12px; background-color: yellow; border: solid; border-width: 1px; border-radius: 5px; padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px; margin: 5px;'>E</span>] <span style="color: red;">'''(2019.Fall #25)'''</span> | ||
|| '''emergence''': <br> - of losses | || '''emergence''': <br> - of losses | ||
− | || ''' | + | || '''emergence''': <br> - actuary's decision |
| style="background-color: lightgrey;" | | | style="background-color: lightgrey;" | | ||
| style="background-color: lightgrey;" | | | style="background-color: lightgrey;" | | ||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
|| [https://www.battleacts5.ca/pdf/Exam_(2016_1-Spring)/(2016_1-Spring)_(24).pdf <span style='font-size: 12px; background-color: yellow; border: solid; border-width: 1px; border-radius: 5px; padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px; margin: 5px;'>E</span>] <span style='color: red;'>'''(2016.Spring #24)'''</span> | || [https://www.battleacts5.ca/pdf/Exam_(2016_1-Spring)/(2016_1-Spring)_(24).pdf <span style='font-size: 12px; background-color: yellow; border: solid; border-width: 1px; border-radius: 5px; padding: 2px 5px 2px 5px; margin: 5px;'>E</span>] <span style='color: red;'>'''(2016.Spring #24)'''</span> | ||
|| '''emergence''': <br> - losses | || '''emergence''': <br> - losses | ||
− | + | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
| style="background-color: lightgrey;" | | | style="background-color: lightgrey;" | | ||
| style="background-color: lightgrey;" | | | style="background-color: lightgrey;" | | ||
Line 138: | Line 141: | ||
|| '''emergence''': <br> - losses based on devlpt | || '''emergence''': <br> - losses based on devlpt | ||
|| '''emergence''': <br> - losses based on selected | || '''emergence''': <br> - losses based on selected | ||
− | || '''emergence''': <br> - actuary's | + | || '''emergence''': <br> - actuary's decision |
| style="background-color: lightgrey;" | | | style="background-color: lightgrey;" | | ||
Revision as of 14:43, 11 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
Contents
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 explains changes in estimates for a given reserving method between successive evaluation dates
- identify a scenario that explains differences in estimates between 2 different reserving methods
- suggest an adjustment or alternate method to improve accuracy of estimates
The best way to get the hang of answering these types of questions is to go through all old exam problems. There are a lot but don't let that scare you – many of them don't take long to do. 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 lossesemergence:
- actuary's decisionE (2018.Spring #24) E (2018.Spring #26) E (2017.Fall #27) assess method:
- paid & rptd devlptassess method:
- Freq-Sev, rptd BFassess method:
- paid devlpt, paid BFE (2017.Fall #28) assess CDFs:
- devlpt, BF, Freq-Sevassess ECR:
- BF methodE (2017.Spring #21) identify scenario:
- consistent with resultsidentify scenario:
- to explain differencealternate method:
- for part (a)alternate method:
- for part (b)E (2017.Spring #26) assess ECR:
- BF methodmethod comparison:
- to Benktanderinvestigating results:
- questions for mgmt 1E (2016.Fall #16) Friedland05.Triangles Friedland05.Triangles Friedland06.Diagnostics select method:
- settlement rate changeE (2016.Fall #18) BF ECR:
- calculateunpaid:
- 2 methods & justifyassess methods:
- ECR, paid BF, paid devlptE (2016.Fall #27) emergence:
- countsemergence:
- limitationsE (2016.Spring #24) emergence:
- losses
E (2016.Spring #25) identify scenario:
- to explain differenceidentify scenario:
- to explain differenceE (2015.Fall #19) assumptions:
- recommend changesrevisions:
- to estimatesassessment:
- of revised ultimatesE (2015.Fall #22) impact/solution:
- long development patternimpact/solution:
- tort reformimpact/solution:
- higher deductiblesimpact/solution:
- faster claims processingE (2015.Fall #25) emergence:
- losses based on devlptemergence:
- losses based on selectedemergence:
- actuary's decisionE (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!
Selecting a Final Estimate
Suppose you get to the end of your reserve analysis and have estimates of ultimate from several different methods:
- insert example
- E (2016.Spring #25)
use example to discuss concepts from chapter
Retroactive Testing
mentioned on p345, 348
High White: p352
Emergence Patterns
- formula...
- limitations of using emergence... see 2016.Fall #27
- non-linear emergence (linear interpolation of annual pattern to quarterly may not be accurate but quarterly to monthly may be ok solution use shorter time frames)
- if ultimate is not based on a development method then the CDFs from a development may not appropriate (use paid or reported divided ultimate to get pattern instead of CDFs)
- doesn't account for operational changes (Exs: change in mix of business, settlement rate, case strength) since projected emergence is based on historical patterns solution investigate operation changes then either select data that isn't affected or make adjustments to affected data to correct for distortions caused by operational changes