1 / 34

CIA 2004 Seminar for the Appointed Actuary PD-7 Reinsurance – Catastrophe Modeling

CIA 2004 Seminar for the Appointed Actuary PD-7 Reinsurance – Catastrophe Modeling. Tim Tetlow, FIA, SVP Global Reinsurance Axis Specialty tim.tetlow@axis.bm. Various threats, each having associated frequency-severity relationship: EQ Terrorism - Conventional, NBCR Airplane crash

declan
Download Presentation

CIA 2004 Seminar for the Appointed Actuary PD-7 Reinsurance – Catastrophe Modeling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CIA 2004Seminar for the Appointed ActuaryPD-7 Reinsurance – Catastrophe Modeling Tim Tetlow, FIA, SVP Global Reinsurance Axis Specialty tim.tetlow@axis.bm

  2. Various threats, each having associated frequency-severity relationship: EQ Terrorism - Conventional, NBCR Airplane crash Industrial Accident or Fire Tornado Natural biological epidemic - Flu War Asteroid Tsunami Heat wave Exposure: Life Number of lives in a given area Value of lives in the given area Property By Location TIV Policy terms Building construction characteristics etc Defining catastrophic risk in a WC/Life/Property Insurance portfolio

  3. Tracking aggregations of Risk Data quality: • Property • Geo-coded location • Policy specific terms • Building construction details • WC • payroll/number of employees bystreet address • Life/PA • Volumes and number of certificates by state/province Coverage differences • EQ • Wind • Fire following • Terrorism

  4. Tracking aggregations of Risk Considerations pertinent to pricing and risk accumulation that life exposures present: • Individual cf. group – what does volume by province really mean as people move? • Individual policies commute from into cities in daytime • How to include accumulations from one contract into the portfolio accumulation given data resolution issues? • Move exposure at a low resolution toward maximum accumulation at high resolution • Macro scale of data cf. micro scale of terror acts • Non-homogeneous distribution of face values • Toronto face values in one portfolio 3 x nationwide average

  5. Tracking aggregations of Risk Portfolio needs to be accumulated across: • Insurance and reinsurance company subsidiaries consistently to calculate group-wide accumulations. • All product types consistently considering coverage differences • Property • WC • PA • Life • Intelligently handle data resolution issues. • Accumulate daily by profit center. • Revisit allocations of contribution to accumulation for profit centers on a quarterly basis for administration simplicity.

  6. Tracking aggregations of Risk - EQ Need to look at loss potential at various return periods for portfolio: • 1 in 50 year loss potential • 1 in 100 year loss potential • 1 in 250 year loss potential ….. • 1 in 10,000 year loss potential

  7. Tracking aggregations of Risk - Terrorism - US WC Industry study • E(LA|>100yr RP)/ E(LB|>100yr RP) ~ 450%

  8. Tracking aggregations of Risk - Terrorism What is the Probable Maximum Loss? • Given lack of certainty in frequency of terrorism events concept needs revision. Accumulate using: • 400m/1,600m radius loss potential (2T truck bomb) • 550m/1,900m radius loss potential (10T truck bomb) • 5,500m/27,300m radius loss potential (5 kT nuclear bomb) • …. • Total province and contiguous province limits (Nuclear - Total Maximum Loss potential?) NB** Measurements are the threshold distance of 10% damage to buildings and total footprint

  9. Modeling Risks • People are in buildings, additional sources of uncertainty over that for modeling property risks: • People move • Data deficiencies • Geographical resolution available of face value of policies • Volume collapse • construction behavior • Injury distribution uncertainty • Cost uncertainty • LTD under nuclear? • Time of day • WC only daytime exposure

  10. Modeling Terrorism • Severity estimation methods for given type of attack reasonable • Frequency estimation a complete guess • A benchmark frequency pick provides a relative pricing tool • Data resolution vs event resolution • Due to difference in size of loss curve model needs to look explicitly at loss potential for each type of attack mode: • Nuclear (500,000 - 5kT nuclear bomb) • Biological (173,000 – 75kg anthrax attack) • Conventional (12,500 – 10T bomb) • Chemical (6,800 – 1,000kg Sarin attack) • Radiological (4 – 150kCu 60Co) • EQ (20,000)

  11. Modeling Natural Perils The construction of a life and PA cat model from a WC cat model • Why build a Life/PA cat model? • There are currently no licensable life/PA cat models available, only WC cat models (and only for the US). • Consistent pricing independent of “type” of aggregate. • Property vs. WC vs. Life/PA • Consistent and complete: • Accumulation reporting across all products. • Incremental pricing.

  12. How is the model constructed? • The “seeds” are: • the number of WC deaths. • the working population. • the life population. • the life benefit structure.

  13. Simple example • Daytime, focus on 1 zip code, 1 earthquake scenario, 1 building occupancy class etc. • Industry working population of zip code = 10,000 • Industry deaths from EQ scenario = 100 • Mortality rate = 1% • Cedant has 2,000 people within the zip code • Cedants lives lost = Cedant population * Mortality rate • Cedants lives lost = (2,000 * 1%) = 20 • Average life policy face value = $100,000 • => $2M loss

  14. What next? • An EQ scenario will affect: • More than 1 zip code • More than 1 building occupancy class • Sum up losses to cedant from each zip code-building occupancy class permutation for the EQ scenario • Look at many EQ scenarios

  15. Treatment for nighttime and areas outside the US • WC mortality rate only really defined during the day within the models and territorially for the US only. • Need a proxy

  16. Proxy selected • For all daytime events, calculate by magnitude by region a burn:

  17. What does this look like?

  18. Generation of the number of nighttime deaths • Assumption is that for a given night-time event the number of deaths for the industry =

  19. Does this “life” model reproduce the WC model?

  20. Rest of world? • Use the burn from the US model by day or night against: • Commercial property during the day. • Personal lines at night. • May loose resolution of occupancy class. • Possible “shift” in relationships: • (California EQ burn)Mag=x => (Japan burn)Mag=x • (US all other EQ burn)Mag=x => (Turkey burn)Mag=x-1

  21. Ground up loss distributions

  22. Excess loss distributions

  23. Axis’s Dilemma: How do we combine our views of the various vendor models in a consistent manner for both contract pricing and portfolio accumulation?

  24. Large license fees => use the vendor models Problems: • Some treaty types not easily modeled/incorporated: • Retro • Stop loss • Per risk • Contract types assumed to be losses occurring during, no consideration of risk-attaching treaties really allowed. • Contract periods generally assumed to be annual, how do we tackle partial year covers? • Prospective portfolio modeling is difficult, e.g. January 2005 in-force as at December 2004. • Portfolio optimization routines difficult to run within the models. • Difficult to test alternative frequency distributions for annual aggregate analysis, e.g. negative binomial for European Wind.

  25. Why didn’t we use vendor model approach? • Problems illustrated above. • Implementation outside the vendor models would allow: • Different model selections for different peril/region combinations. • E.g. RMS for England, EQECat for Scotland, AIR for Wales. • Accumulation close to real time - we accumulate portfolio nightly based upon daily changes to contracts: • Loss pick changes • Status • Line size • Terms: premium, reinstatements etc. • Desire to incrementally price.

  26. Some other reasons…. • Blank sheet of paper. • Intellectual challenge to do it “right”. • Consideration of who we wanted our peer group to be and what they do: • Banks • Top Bermudian reinsurers

  27. Where are we trying to go? Essentially trying to make our loss picks by: • vendor model • region/peril • layer reproducible within one model through the use of modification factors by region/peril by layer.

  28. Which models for which region/peril? • Impression of the modelers. • I’m not a meteorologist, seismologist, geophysicist, engineer…… • Spin • Market “suggested” model. • Questionnaire

  29. Questionnaire • Historical events • Assessment of the return period for set of events • Loss estimates by LOB • Damage ratios at certain levels of exposure • Information on the source of claims data for the events • Industry exposure database (not available for all models/regions) • Source(s) of exposure database • Resolution • Extrapolation and methodology • Stochastic event module • Hazard • Exposure mapping • Vulnerability • Financial • Anything else?

  30. Cost of Capital considerations – “Probabilistic” Perils • Different ROE methods utilized: • Incremental ROE • Incremental capital required to support the addition of a new contract to your portfolio – Expected Policyholder Deficit. • Considers extent to which a new contract diversifies or further stresses portfolio capital requirements. • Traditional ROE • Based on coefficient of variation as a measure of loss volatility as well as regional propensity for accumulation. • Provides a view of likely “market” price. • Impact on various return period metrics • Contribution to the 1 in 100 year, 1 in 250 year etc. events

  31. Cost of Capital considerations – “Non-Probabilistic” Perils • ROE but what is E? • Traditional ROE • Based on coefficient of variation as a measure of loss volatility using our benchmark frequency terrorism model. • Again like our terrorism loss pick this metric ONLY provides a benchmark measure of profitability. • Roughly use same amount of capital per unit of loss to that required for natural catastrophes. • Supply demand metric for capital is complicated: • TRIA deductible increases will increase the capital threat to insurance companies • Axis as a group operates with both an insurance and reinsurance company • Monitor aggregations on a total limit basis by state to ensure able to meet commitments. • Particularly important for NBCR terrorism.

  32. Evaluating functionality of Reinsurance • Functionality? • Price vs Value • Structure relative to clients needs • Can others pay in the case of a Nuclear event? What should you ask? • Accumulation methodology • PML vs Limits • Group-wide vs Individual entity • Considers correlations across all lines of business • Considers coverage differences • Considers terror “flavors” • Maximum loss possible • Capital

  33. Evaluating functionality of Reinsurance • Proportional reinsurance limitations • Approximately 10% of volume of life companies is ceded proportionally to a small pool of reinsurers. • Earning per share versus profit center protection • Exposure versus Experience rating • 9/11 – clients show their WTC loss and are regional mid-America • Vita Capital – Swiss Re Capital Markets Adverse mortality cover • Appropriateness of Bootstrap Model over 93 years for this kind of cover? • Market share approach may be inappropriate • All losses in WTC tower 1 went to same group life insurer

  34. Questions? tim.tetlow@axis.bm

More Related