• 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.

April 2012 Q13 EPV of Expenses

  • Thread starter Balvinder Singh
  • Start date
B

Balvinder Singh

Member
Can someone please explain why in the EPV of Expenses there is 65 and not 70?

Please see the question and solution attached.


Solution (Relevant part):

upload_2017-9-4_17-31-26.png



Many thanks!!!!!!!

Balvinder Singh
eda9b430-8b7c-4775-a4d3-8d8474fcd1f3
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-9-4_17-29-43.png
    upload_2017-9-4_17-29-43.png
    88.1 KB · Views: 6
We require an expense of 75 to be paid at the start of the second year (ie at time 1).

65 comes from the level annuity.

10 comes from the increasing annuity. Note that the second term in the increasing annuity Ia is 2 (not 1).
 
Thanks Mark for your reply.

Would you please check the attached as well.

Thanks again
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3327.jpg
    IMG_3327.jpg
    179.6 KB · Views: 7
No, that does not work. You can check this by trying the numbers in it to see if it gives the same as the published solution.

Your adjustment to the increasing annuity will only change the very first payment (ie the one made at time 0) - changing it from 1 to -1. So the increasing annuity term you have values a payment of -5 at time 0 (which does not occur).

The solution given by the examiners here is a good approach.
 
I am afraid then why do we have a 10 from increasing annuiity? I am still confused as to why can't we use the approach attached. Would you mind having a look at this too?

Thanks heaps!

Balvin
 

Attachments

  • EPV.jpg
    EPV.jpg
    177.5 KB · Views: 4
You could do this, but you would need to use annuities in arrears. You would also need a term of 39 years (not 40) to ensure that there was no expense term on the final day of the policy.

It's much easier to do what the examiners have done.
 
Back
Top