1 / 22

A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method Presented by John Buchanan - Platinum Reinsurance Seminar on Reinsurance – Advanc

A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method Presented by John Buchanan - Platinum Reinsurance Seminar on Reinsurance – Advanced Experience Rating June 7 & 8, 2004. Agenda. Overriding Assumptions Traditional Methods Experience Rating Exposure Rating Credibility Weighting

kaleigh
Download Presentation

A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method Presented by John Buchanan - Platinum Reinsurance Seminar on Reinsurance – Advanc

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. A Hybrid Experience / Exposure MethodPresented byJohn Buchanan - Platinum ReinsuranceSeminar on Reinsurance – Advanced Experience RatingJune 7 & 8, 2004 CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  2. Agenda • Overriding Assumptions • Traditional Methods • Experience Rating • Exposure Rating • Credibility Weighting • Hybrid: Experience / Exposure Method • Highlight differences between traditional methods • Testing Default Parameters CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  3. Overriding Assumptionsof Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method • With perfect modeling and data the results under the experience and exposure methods will be identical. • In practice, • if the model and parameter selections for both experience and exposure methods are proper and relevant, • then the results from these methods will be similar, • except for credibility and random variations. • Lower layer experience helps predict higher less credible layers. • Frequency is a more stable indicator than total burn estimates. CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  4. Traditional Methods • Experience • Relevant parameter defaults/overrides for: • LDFs (excess layers) • Trends (severity, frequency, exposure) • Rate changes • LOB/HzdGrp indicators • Adjust for historical changes in: • Policy limits • Exposure differences • Careful “as-if” • Exposure • Relevant parameters defaults/overrides for: • ILFs (or ELFs, PropSOLD) • Direct loss ratios (on-level) • ALAE loads • Policy profile (LOB, HzdGrp) • Limit/subLOB allocations • Adjust for expected changes in: • Rating year policy limits • Rating year exposures expected to be written CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  5. Classical Credibility Weighting • Estimate separate Experience and Exposure burns • Select credibility weights using combination of: • Judgment • Formulaic Approach • Expected # of Claims / Variability • Exposure ROL (or burn on line) • Questionnaire Approach • Apriori Neutral vs. Experience vs. Exposure • Need to be careful of unintended weighted burn patterns CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  6. Classical Credibility Weighting Credibility weights judgmentally selected CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  7. Basic Steps of The Hybrid Method Step 1: Estimate Experience burns & counts • Select base attachment points above data threshold • Estimate total burns using projection factors • Estimate counts using frequency trends, claim count LDFs • Calculate implied severities Step 2: Estimate Exposure burns & counts • Use same attachment points/layers as Experience • Bifurcate burns between counts, average severity Step 3: Calculate experience/exposure frequency ratio by attachment point CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  8. Basic Steps of The Hybrid Method (cont.) Step 4: Estimate base layer weights • Possibly use number of claims/variability by attachment Step 5: Review frequency ratio patterns • Adjust underlying experience or exposure models if needed and re-estimate burns (!!) • Select indicated exper/expos frequency ratio Step 6: Similarly review excess severities Step 7: Combine frequency/severity results • Using experience adjusted exposure frequencies and severities CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  9. Estimation of Experience CountsExample - Step 1 A: Select base attachment points above data threshold • Example: threshold=150k; reins layers=500x500k, 1x1mm • Select 200k, 250k, 350k, 500k, 750k, 1mm attachment points B: Review year by year patterns • At lower attachment points, should be variable about some mean • For example, if upward trend, then perhaps: • Overdeveloping or trending later years C: Review attachment point patterns • Should be relatively stable until credibility runs out CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  10. Step 1B: Estimation of Experience CountsYear Variability:>350,000 Attachment Apparently random pattern around selection of #=12.05 CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  11. Step 1B: Estimation of Experience CountsYear Variability: >1,000,000 Attachment Credibility runs out; indication is #=.36 CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  12. Step 1-Recap: Estimation of Experience Burns, Counts and Implied Severities To be compared to exposure counts CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  13. Step 2-Recap: Estimation of Exposure Burns Bifurcated Between Counts and Severities 12.05 exper / 15.34 expos = 78.6% CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  14. Step 3: Review Exper/Expos FrequenciesAttachment Point Variability: 200k…1mm Expos and Exper counts relatively consistent - IF experience very credible through 350k, then perhaps pressure to reduce exposure L/R; check out spikes CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  15. Steps 3-5: Calculate Exper/Expos Frequency Ratio, Base Layer Weights, & Selected Exper/Expos Ratio 6.00 expos x 80.0% Important Selection CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  16. Step 6: Selected Severity Unrealistic experience severity CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  17. Step 7: Selected Overall Burn Hybrid: Experience adjusted Exposure count & severity… 100% credibility to burn?? CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  18. Benefits of Hybrid Method • One of main benefits is questioning Experience and Exposure Selections • To the extent credible results don’t line up, this provides pressure to the various default parameters • For example, there would be downward pressure on default exposure ILF curves or loss ratios if • Exposure consistently higher than experience, and • Credible experience and experience rating factors • Well constructed frequency / severity method can sometimes be given 100% weight if credible • Can review account by account, and aggregate across accounts to evaluate pressure on industry defaults CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  19. Test of Default Parameters • Aggregate across “similar” accounts to evaluate pressure on industry defaults • May want to re-rate accounts using e.g. default rate changes, ILFs, premium allocations, LDFs, trends, etc. • Each individual observation represents a cedant/attachment point exper/expos ratio • Review dispersion of results and overall trend • E.g. if weighted and/or fitted exper/expos ratios are well below 100% (or e.g. 90% if give some underwriter credit) then perhaps default L/Rs overall are too high (or conversely LDFs or trends too light) • If trend is up when going from e.g. 100k to 10mm att pt, then perhaps expos curve is predicting well at lower points but is underestimating upper points CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  20. Test of Default Parameters (cont.) • Before making overall judgments, must consider • UW contract selectivity (contracts seen vs. written), • Sample size (# of cedants/years), • Impact “as-if” data (either current or historical) • “Lucky” CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  21. Test of Default Rating Factors – Example 1 Well below 100%, pressure to reduce expos params or increase exper params…but credible?? CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

  22. Test of Default Rating Factors – Example 2 Exposure curve too light with higher attachment points? CARe 2004 – A Hybrid Experience / Exposure Method

More Related