P
phos2
Member
Could someone explain how they got the the earned rate change for the 2003 AY to be +38%?
My reasoning is that the 2003 AY EP is from policies written in 2002 and from policies written in 2003, so we make the assumption that half earns for each underwriting year you get (25% + 10%) /2 = 17.5% earned rate change.
However it seems they have used the 2001 UWY rate change of +50% and averaged that with the +25% 2002 UWY rate change to get the 38%. With the usual assumptions of annual policies, even earning patterns etc, why is the 2001 UWY impacting the earned rate change for 2003 AY?
My reasoning is that the 2003 AY EP is from policies written in 2002 and from policies written in 2003, so we make the assumption that half earns for each underwriting year you get (25% + 10%) /2 = 17.5% earned rate change.
However it seems they have used the 2001 UWY rate change of +50% and averaged that with the +25% 2002 UWY rate change to get the 38%. With the usual assumptions of annual policies, even earning patterns etc, why is the 2001 UWY impacting the earned rate change for 2003 AY?