I guess not, if it works it works
Its good to know LINEST in addition to memorizing the formulas. They can, and have (S18Q4), constructed problems that force you to use the formulas instead of built in Excel or Multiview functions.
If anyone has any excel tips to make our lives easier on the exam please share
I would also add that using excel’s =CORREL() is much quicker and easier than memorizing and carrying out the formulas for correlation. This is relevant for Venter’s correlation test.
Does anyone know if CF/RF have been updated for the new Friedland paper yet?
Not yet, they’re saying it should be updated by the end of January though.
In the Clark paper, when should I be using truncated growth? Is it only when directed to by the question?
(and how would that apply in practice?)
Yes, I would say only when directed to do so by the question, otherwise you are adding unnecessary complexity, which will result in wasted time and a possible error.
In practice I think it comes down to judgement but would be quite apparent that truncation is needed. From the Clark paper, “From this data, the Loglogistic curve estimates that only 77.24% of ultimate loss has emerged as of ten years.” Depending on the line of business, 77.24% reported (ATU 1.295) at 10 years may be obviously unreasonable, so you would need to address this somehow. Truncation or an alternative curve (Weibull) are both options to make the extrapolated tail smaller.
Edit: Maybe they could construct a question where the point is to give you a tail that is obviously too large, and then you’d either have to describe or carry out an alternative method. But if they don’t prescribe a truncation point, then there will be many different correct answers.
I would also say only to do it if the question asks for it. If they don’t specifically say that there is truncated growth, I would state my assumption that there is none so that the graders are clear on what you’re doing.