• 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.

Chapter 7: relation between Tail VaR and XT-VaR

M

mario

Member
Is there a mistake in the Core Reading? I think that XT-Var_y% (X) = T-VaR_y% (X) - mu, because E[mu | X \geq m]=E[mu]=mu, since the mean is the mean of the whole distribution (and so is essentially a constant)?

(Just realised the maths looks barely readable. What I mean is, why does the Core reading multiply the last equation on page 15 of the Acted Chapter 7 by y%? I don't think that y% should be there.)

I was looking online and page 4 of this from Guy Carpenter seems to agree with me...
 
Here we go again!

The correction was issued in response to the following thread, which I posted:

http://www.acted.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=6855

I also posted another thread to point out a couple of other problems:

http://www.acted.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=6856

To be honest there are several others as well (unless they've corrected them in the latest edition.) I'm afraid I think this is one of the most shameful chapters I've come across in the Core Reading. It bears the hallmark of someone lifting content out of papers without engaging brain.

The worst thing about it though is that this kind of detail is not typical of what is required in the exam so by including a chapter like this in the notes they are leading students up the garden path!
 
Pede said:
http://www.acted.co.uk/Docs/2013/Corrections/SA3%20Corrections%202013.pdf
Click to expand...

td290 said:
The correction was issued in response to the following thread, which I posted:

http://www.acted.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=6855

I also posted another thread to point out a couple of other problems:

http://www.acted.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=6856

To be honest there are several others as well (unless they've corrected them in the latest edition.) I'm afraid I think this is one of the most shameful chapters I've come across in the Core Reading. It bears the hallmark of someone lifting content out of papers without engaging brain.

The worst thing about it though is that this kind of detail is not typical of what is required in the exam so by including a chapter like this in the notes they are leading students up the garden path!
Click to expand...

Ooops! I didn't even realise that existed. Thanks both.

Agreed that Chapter 7 isn't exactly clear, but ST8 was also guilty of lifting random things from CAS papers, and not even bothering to change obvious references to US specific legislation (Credibility theory chapter, I'm looking at you :) )
 
Totally agree with you on the credibility theory chapter. Moreover, some of the edits they do make in the lifted content actually make it less easy to understand.

There are instances in ST7 too. For example, the chapter on stochastic reserving ends with a series of bizarre questions plagiarised from here:

www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/documents/pdf/lyons.pdf

I must say I think it rather unprofessional that these papers aren't properly referenced. It invites comparison with Alastair Campbell and his "Dodgy Dossier"!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top