Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test • Hacker News Board

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#91

Post by gruez » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 11:33 PM UTC

peregren wrote: post #83

extr wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you were just cheap, didn't want to purchase comprehensive coverage, then that came back to bite you. This sucks, but is hardly a scam. Even worse, it sounds like you even understood what comprehensive coverage does (cover 1st party physical damage regardless of situation), and consciously chose not to buy it, assuming that anything that would possibly happen to the vehicle would be someone else's faul…

If the other party is 100% at fault, why should they not pay for the damage they caused? And its not “cheap” to not get comprehensive insurance. Its a calculated risk.

> If the other party is 100% at fault, why should they not pay for the damage they caused?

Because the "other party is 100% at fault" is actually determined by courts, rather than the cops, hence the need for lawsuit.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#92

Post by datan3rd » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 11:36 PM UTC

Was an actuary for 8 years, got my Associateship (roughly halfway through the progression to Fellow). Failed a few of the exams a couple of times, passed a few on the first try. At the time, each exam had a roughly 40-60% pass rate, so by the time you get to the 4th or 5th exam, you are dealing with a pretty smart, invested group...AND it is still difficult to pass.

My job mainly consisted of statistics and data applied specifically to insurance, which I found very boring. I was in life insurance, which is quite simple (people only die once!). Health insurance would have been more interesting, but I am in favor of single payor, so this would have been difficult for me. Property & Casualty (vehicles, property, events, umbrella, custom, etc) would have been the most interesting.

Once I decided to leave, I got an MBA (core courses were trivial due to actuarial knowledge of stats, finance, econ, accounting, etc), and ended up in Analytics/DataScience at tech companies, where my skills transferred quite well.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#93

Post by gruez » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 11:37 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #59

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While corruption may have been the source of this particular business, the fact that insurance is required by law is a good thing. The counterfactual involves a bunch of uninsured judgement proof drivers clogging the road and ruining everyone else's day/life. The problem is already bad enough now when it is illegal to do.

Hot take: if it's something that's universally a good thing that should be required of every driver, it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees. Otherwise, it's just an income-generating scheme for private parties. Oh, and fun fact: the liability insurance isn't required to pay up anything unless the covered driver loses in court . They don't have to follow that the police r…

>Hot take: if it's something that's universally a good thing that should be required of every driver, it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees.

>Otherwise, it's just an income-generating scheme for private parties.

Food and shelter are essentially "required" for everyone. Should those be provided by the state, to avoid it being "an income-generating scheme for private parties"?

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#94

Post by toomuchtodo » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 11:37 PM UTC

fn-mote wrote: post #81

romwell wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot take: if it's something that's universally a good thing that should be required of every driver, it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees. Otherwise, it's just an income-generating scheme for private parties. Oh, and fun fact: the liability insurance isn't required to pay up anything unless the covered driver loses in court . They don't have to follow that the police r…

> it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees The free market is required to accurately price the risk for each driver. A 45 year old female driver with no infractions is much less risk than an 18 year old male with a DUI, so the former should pay less in premiums. The current system is doing that. I do not see how a state-provided solution would come up with "accurate" prici…

A government entity could perform this, no free market required. See residential flood insurance for a government based risk rating example.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#95

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 11:38 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #59

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While corruption may have been the source of this particular business, the fact that insurance is required by law is a good thing. The counterfactual involves a bunch of uninsured judgement proof drivers clogging the road and ruining everyone else's day/life. The problem is already bad enough now when it is illegal to do.

Hot take: if it's something that's universally a good thing that should be required of every driver, it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees. Otherwise, it's just an income-generating scheme for private parties. Oh, and fun fact: the liability insurance isn't required to pay up anything unless the covered driver loses in court . They don't have to follow that the police r…

The problem with that idea is moral hazard. It's better for people to be incented financially to drive safely.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#96

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 11:39 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #57

d136o wrote: post #39

In this [1] interview by Barry Ritholtz, Markel CEO essentially told the origin story of an insurance giant. Basically a family member was a lawmaker, passed a law that drivers of the newly invented cars (maybe horse buggies?) must be insured. They simultaneously started a company that sold insurance. Over time they learned to make money from investing their customers capital. It blew my mind at how candid he was abo…

Side story about how satisfied people can be with the mandated insurance. I was on coast-to-coast road trip when I got into an accident in TX. Someone was trying to pass me on the left in a turning lane, veered into the incoming lane, and then hit my vehicle's front wheels from the back. The police ticketed the other driver, and told me that insurance will surely take care of that on my side. "Wow, it's worse than we…

> ...I got zero ($0.00, zlich, nada) from the other driver's liability insurance.

Well, yeah, you didn't legally establish any liability, or even, apparently, make even the suggestion of the intent to do so.

Insurance companies, being for-profit entities, aren't in the business of giving out gifts.

> Now, if I had comprehensive coverage, they'd be facing my insurance company

Yes, dealing with other driver's insurance companies (along with uninsured drivers) is among the more significant reasons to carry more than liability coverage.

> The whole thing is a scam.

I don't see a scam anywhere.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#97

Post by lostlogin » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 11:41 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #57

d136o wrote: post #39

In this [1] interview by Barry Ritholtz, Markel CEO essentially told the origin story of an insurance giant. Basically a family member was a lawmaker, passed a law that drivers of the newly invented cars (maybe horse buggies?) must be insured. They simultaneously started a company that sold insurance. Over time they learned to make money from investing their customers capital. It blew my mind at how candid he was abo…

Side story about how satisfied people can be with the mandated insurance. I was on coast-to-coast road trip when I got into an accident in TX. Someone was trying to pass me on the left in a turning lane, veered into the incoming lane, and then hit my vehicle's front wheels from the back. The police ticketed the other driver, and told me that insurance will surely take care of that on my side. "Wow, it's worse than we…

Is there a ‘small claims’ court process in the US?

Here in New Zealand there is a court process that is cheap and fairly efficient for low value claims. This sort of thing would probably sneak into that category.

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#98

Post by gruez » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 11:42 PM UTC

d136o wrote: post #90

gnopgnip wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want someone who is "self insuring" to crash into you?

No, but it’s an interesting scenario to think through because I don’t think the insurance status of the other party seems to figure into my planning. Our cars are fully paid for, and I’m operating under the assumption that it’s possible and for them to lose their whole value and I’d have to get a new car. Covering remaining damage to myself seems to turn into a health insurance event (I.e. how to cover medical costs)…

>Covering remaining damage to myself seems to turn into a health insurance event (I.e. how to cover medical costs) akin to suffering from cancer or another high cost illness.

>For both of those it’s expected that I’ll have to tap the piggy bank…

But is that just? Why should you have to pay the costs (both medical costs and costs from suffering/loss of income) because of a wrong that someone else inflicted? Even if you bought good insurance and are relatively well protected against such events, what about people who aren't well insured?

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#99

Post by bobsmooth » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 11:43 PM UTC

fn-mote wrote: post #81

romwell wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot take: if it's something that's universally a good thing that should be required of every driver, it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees. Otherwise, it's just an income-generating scheme for private parties. Oh, and fun fact: the liability insurance isn't required to pay up anything unless the covered driver loses in court . They don't have to follow that the police r…

> it should be provided by the state and paid for with taxes / annual registration fees The free market is required to accurately price the risk for each driver. A 45 year old female driver with no infractions is much less risk than an 18 year old male with a DUI, so the former should pay less in premiums. The current system is doing that. I do not see how a state-provided solution would come up with "accurate" prici…

>The free market is required to accurately price the risk for each driver.

That same market means some will decide that not having insurance is a better deal. Tying insurance to something like drivers licences increases the cost of not having insurance.

>I do not see how a state-provided solution would come up with "accurate" pricing for individuals.

Can the state not hire actuaries?

Re: Want to be an actuary? Odds are, you’ll fail the test

#100

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 11:43 PM UTC

AQuantized wrote: post #79

gizmo686 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats the scam? The insurance company was hired to provide insurance for the other driver. By all accounts they did so. If the other driver had no insurance, your options would have been the same: hope they pay out of good will, or sue them. The public policy motivation for liability insurance is to protect the lawsuit route. If you sue an uninsured driver and win, you might not be able to collect (getting blood from…

The 'scam' seems to be insofar as wealthy and powerful entities can exploit the functional inability of those less wealthy and powerful to meet them on even terms in the legal system. I think we could all agree that in an ideal world if someone is at fault, their insurance should pay out to those they damaged. The reality is that may only happen if you have an entity of similar magnitude to go to bat for you. That do…

> The 'scam' seems to be insofar as wealthy and powerful entities can exploit the functional inability of those less wealthy and powerful to meet them on even terms in the legal system.

Even without insurance or greater wealth, a party from whom you believe a liability should exist who has no interest in paying could have done the same thing here. If you aren't willing to sue over a disputed liability, it might as well not exist.

> but police reports should probably carry some weight without requiring a suit.

Any proposal to do that in effect makes the police investigation a court of first instance, which either means creating additional procedural rights that apply before it can be completed (driving up costs) or a very real denial of due process.