Revision Notes ST2 Booklet4 Q.12

Discussion in 'SP2' started by Kail, Apr 4, 2007.

  1. Kail

    Kail Member

    Hi there

    For those of you you that don't have the revision notes, it's Q.12 in subject 105 of September 2000(using AM92 instead of the tables specified).

    Now I know it normally isn't the case, but can anyone have a look at the solution in the revision notes and tell me it's wrong. I don't use double decrements in working out these questions but my method has worked on all the other questions I've done on the same topic.

    I'm agreeing with the values of the premiums and EPV(Premiums) being
    P0 = 2,171.40
    P1 = 1,475.30
    P2 = 679.05
    EPV(Premiums) = 2,545.67

    Not with the EPV(Benefits) which the booklet says is 3,107.79?

    Please can someone confirm I'm not going mad?

    Thanks
     
  2. Hi
    I've just checked the old ASET notes and it calculates the benfits as follows:

    577.4v + (690.39 + 2x268.71)v^2 + (637.85 + 2x536.72)v^3 = 3,107.79

    (all multiplied by 100,000 and then divided by 100,000 - which cancel).

    Does this help?
     
  3. Kail

    Kail Member

    Yes

    I actually have those figures as well but think they're wrong. Because I don't work with double decrement tables calculating these questions - I can't actually check whether they're right. Also, haven't got time to try and figure out an entire new approach to calculating these sorts of questions. Nevermind, just thought someone might've come across the same problem.

    Doesn't seem like these questions come up an awful lot in ST2, on the other hand - could be about time then...

    Thanks anyway
     
  4. Genesiss

    Genesiss Member

    Hi Karl
    I wonder whether you'd like to share the alternative method to working out this types of questions. I also find working with double decrements quite laborious and will be quite happy to learn another route.:)
     
  5. Kail

    Kail Member

    Genesiss, only read your message at about 11h30 on the day of the exam so no use then in saying how I do it - luckily you didn't need it though!

    The approach is basically the same but you only apply the take up rates in the equation of value rather than construction separate tables - it comes down to the same thing. Let me know after the results have come out whether you want more details and I'll be happy to share.

    Good luck
     

Share This Page