Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > SoA > Modules 6-8
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-11-2018, 12:30 PM
ao fan's Avatar
ao fan ao fan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: hating the ao
Studying for EA-2L
Posts: 110,417
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I explained what I was going to test, then I made a chart for each assumption I tested and then talked about them. I didn't have an appendix for any task other than task 5.
__________________
Be prepared to be overwhelmed by cuteness!!!!
Spoiler:
awesome, crazy, badass maltese (compliments of booger):
Spoiler:
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-11-2018, 01:12 PM
rocketprius92 rocketprius92 is offline
SOA
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
College: Southern New Hampshire University
Posts: 20
Default

I think that's what I'm going to do. I have about 24 hours remaining on my clock.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-11-2018, 01:15 PM
mel.fel mel.fel is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 342
Default

yep same. still playing with wording and how to justify that it's a "critical assumption" but ghats generally what im gonna do
__________________
ASA
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-12-2018, 08:05 AM
sungx88 sungx88 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Favorite beer: magic hat #9
Posts: 55
Default

i pretty much did what ao fan did as well. no point in testing starting fund balance and the starting tuition amount, since they are set in the beginning and do not change over time.

i didn't 'sensitivity test' the asset mix. to me, that was what should have been done in task 2.

i provided (in tables) the impact on the metrics i selected based on my asset mix (task 2) for each assumption. i briefly explained why i did not choose certain assumptions. after looking at the impact, then i commented on the results.

doing it this way, obviously the most critical assumptions are the ones that had the highest impact.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-12-2018, 09:10 AM
davesned29 davesned29 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Studying for FAP
College: Quinnipiac University
Posts: 161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilith View Post
I tested everything and DNMMRed with Task 4 being one of my tasks needing improvement.

How did you guys present your sensitivity tests, in a table? I did a bulleted list in order from most to least critical. Also did you only sort them by the quantitative effect? I kind of reordered them based on how likely they were to occur (kinda like key risks likelihood + severity) and I think that's probably where I went wrong.
mine looked almost exactly like the sample solution from EOM1. Sounded to me like a good idea to copy that.
__________________
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only by success.
P.S. Taxation is theft.
FSA Modules: Reg & Tax ERM Fin. Econ.
Exam ILI-LPM
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-12-2018, 09:14 AM
mel.fel mel.fel is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 342
Default

Did you guys use a flat % incr. and dec. or adjust it for each assumption based on what makes the most sense?
__________________
ASA
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-12-2018, 09:14 AM
mel.fel mel.fel is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sungx88 View Post
i pretty much did what ao fan did as well. no point in testing starting fund balance and the starting tuition amount, since they are set in the beginning and do not change over time.

i didn't 'sensitivity test' the asset mix. to me, that was what should have been done in task 2.

i provided (in tables) the impact on the metrics i selected based on my asset mix (task 2) for each assumption. i briefly explained why i did not choose certain assumptions. after looking at the impact, then i commented on the results.

doing it this way, obviously the most critical assumptions are the ones that had the highest impact.
I also did not test the asset mix!
__________________
ASA
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-12-2018, 10:18 AM
actuary1122 actuary1122 is offline
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mel.fel View Post
Did you guys use a flat % incr. and dec. or adjust it for each assumption based on what makes the most sense?
Personally, I think the shock for each assumption should be justified. For example, if you mention inflation risk as a key risk in Task 1, you probably want to have a higher shock for the inflation rate sensitivity test in Task 4. Maybe this results in all the assumptions being shocked by the same amount, but this reasoning should be justified. Just choosing a flat amount to shock each assumption without further explanation is too lazy an approach.

Also, if you are only mentioning the sensitivity test results for critical assumptions, you should also define what "critical" means.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-12-2018, 10:25 AM
ao fan's Avatar
ao fan ao fan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: hating the ao
Studying for EA-2L
Posts: 110,417
Blog Entries: 1
Default

yeah, flat amount for each and every assumption didn't make much sense once i started looking at the results. i thought of something that would make sense and would result in sensitivity testing most of what could actually happen. it's not going to be the same for every assumption. it was sort of arbitrary as to what i picked though.
__________________
Be prepared to be overwhelmed by cuteness!!!!
Spoiler:
awesome, crazy, badass maltese (compliments of booger):
Spoiler:
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-12-2018, 10:26 AM
mel.fel mel.fel is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by actuary1122 View Post
Personally, I think the shock for each assumption should be justified. For example, if you mention inflation risk as a key risk in Task 1, you probably want to have a higher shock for the inflation rate sensitivity test in Task 4. Maybe this results in all the assumptions being shocked by the same amount, but this reasoning should be justified. Just choosing a flat amount to shock each assumption without further explanation is too lazy an approach.

Also, if you are only mentioning the sensitivity test results for critical assumptions, you should also define what "critical" means.
Im using other reasoning for the critical assumptions and supporting it with the sensitivity tests but thanks, I'm rethinking some forms of my sensitivity %'s. This makes sense to me
__________________
ASA
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.21377 seconds with 11 queries