• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

ASET Sept 2017, Q6iv

S

studentactuary15

Member
Hi,

I understand that having the mortality higher by 5 years in method 2 raises the cost of the option. I'm confused why the other assumption is not mentioned as the fact that method 1 assumes IF policies all will take the option and method 2 says half will. I thought this would raise the cost by a lot too? In the solutions it mentions that the remaining 50% in method 2 is assumed to have standard ultimate mortality (rather than select type) - but this is very different to the other point I wrote in bold.

I would appreciate some help and thank you in advance.
 
Hi Rafi

The question is asking why method 2 is more expensive than method 1. The reason you have given (the option take up rate) would be a reason for method 1 being more expensive. The numbers given in the question tell us that the impact of the option take up rate must be quite small compared to the extra 5 years on the mortality rate as method 2 is much more expensive.

Best wishes

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top