Peer Reviewing the Work of An Actuary Assignment
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
Peer Reviewing the Work of An Actuary Assignment
You are peer reviewing the work of an actuary who has just built a GLM for an upcoming private passenger rate change. The actuary has included deductible in his GLM. The indicated deductible relativity for a deductible of $1,000 is higher than for a $500 deductible. You suggest that this result is counterintuitive and that the actuary should instead determine deductible relativities using the Loss Elimination
Ratio approach. The modelling actuary argues that the relativities from the GLM should be implemented because the volume of data is credible enough and that the company’s historical experience does show that insureds with $1,000 deductibles have had higher losses on average than insureds with $500 and that we should expect this trend to continue in the future. Fully explain why it would be inappropriate to implement the modelling actuary’s deductible relativities, even if they do accurately depict past loss experience.
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Peer Reviewing the Work of An Actuary Assignment
Peer Reviewing the Work of An Actuary Assignment