Announcement

**KrazyHorse** · May 30, 2005, 19:55

My conclusion is that actuaries don't know ****.

**Kuciwalker** · May 30, 2005, 19:57

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Then explain why one insurance company comes up with a quote 80% higher than another company's quote given the exact same information?

Is the coverage different?

One company may have slicker lawyers

**Kuciwalker** · May 30, 2005, 19:58

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My conclusion is that actuaries don't know ****.

I'd be willing to bet actuarial science is a lot more dependable than some of your theoretical physics.

**KrazyHorse** · May 30, 2005, 20:03

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Is the coverage different?

One company may have slicker lawyers

exactly the same coverage.

**KrazyHorse** · May 30, 2005, 20:04

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I'd be willing to bet actuarial science is a lot more dependable than some of your theoretical physics.

An 80% swing between two supposedly compatible results would be laughed out on its face in anything I do.

**KrazyHorse** · May 30, 2005, 20:05

Most of the stuff I deal with is good to 8 decimal places.

Some of it's good to 15.

**KrazyHorse** · May 30, 2005, 20:09

My theory is that Geico already has me at X dollars a month, so they figure they might be able to cheat me by telling me what a good deal I'm getting by staying with them and dropping my premiums 10%.

Progressive doesn't have me as a customer, so they're giving me the honest rate.

**KrazyHorse** · May 30, 2005, 20:10

Too bad for them I have 0 customer loyalty. I'll switch companies at the drop of a hat.

**Kuciwalker** · May 30, 2005, 20:12

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My theory is that Geico already has me at X dollars a month, so they figure they might be able to cheat me by telling me what a good deal I'm getting by staying with them and dropping my premiums 10%.

Progressive doesn't have me as a customer, so they're giving me the honest rate.

And thus the actuaries are vindicated.

**Muad'Dib** · May 30, 2005, 20:14

Ditto, on the customer loyalty.

**KrazyHorse** · May 30, 2005, 20:15

They're still not even as close to as accurate as I am.

**Odin** · May 30, 2005, 20:17

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I'd be willing to bet actuarial science is a lot more dependable than some of your theoretical physics.

**Kuciwalker** · May 30, 2005, 20:18

some

**KrazyHorse** · May 30, 2005, 20:23

It would be hard not to be more accurate than some theoretical physics.

For instance, the fine-tuning problem, in which the HE theorists are off by 40 orders of magnitude or more.

**Kuciwalker** · May 30, 2005, 21:32

HE physics isn't largely theoretical?

Announcement

What a difference a zip code makes

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment