Hi,
I have a few questions regarding the 2017 September Paper 2:
1. For the 'Eat Healthily' campaign I don't follow the IFoA's calculation for calculation the adjusted mortaility rate in column D & E in the 'Eat Healthily' tab. They take the product of all previous 1-Mort Improvement (in column C), and then multiply it by the base mortality rate for the age in question. Why is it done like this? I did not see an instruction in the exam paper to complete the calculation like this. I just multiplied the base mortaility by 1-mort Improvement in column C (did not take the product all all previous 1-mort imrpovement).
2. In the summary doc (page 7 of summary doc) could someone please provide a bit more insight into the sentence highlighted red:
The impact of the mortality improvements is slightly greater for the Get Active campaign for 65 year olds but the Eat Healthily campaign is slightly greater for 75 year olds. This is because the 65 years olds are more impacted by the long term mortality improvement rate as they are younger and the Get Active campaign has the better long term rate
Is this just saying that the 'Get Active' improvement factor of 2% hits more of the higher mortaility rates then the 'Eat Healthily' improvement factor eg from age 85 onwards the mortaility rates grow rapidly (expontially) and the 2% improvement hits these, whereas in the 'Eat Healthily' 1% is only hitting these rates?
And then the reverse situation for 75 year olds - the improvement factor for 'Eat Healthily' now hits higher mortaility rates (due to the 10 year offset in age), so is more effective then the 'Get Active' improvement rate even though it reduces from 4-1%?
3. In the summary doc (page 7 of summary doc) could someone please provide a bit more insight into the sentence highlighted red:
We can see that the annuity-due factors increase under both health campaign scenarios because if citizens live longer the present value of an annuity for the rest of their lives is higher. But comparing to the increase in the expectations of lives above the relative impact is smaller because of the effect of discounting of the future payments
Many thanks,
Darragh
Last edited: Mar 28, 2023