1 / 19

Non-Traditional Reserving Methods: Back to Basics

This presentation discusses the disconnect between traditional actuarial modeling and non-traditional reserving methods. It explores the benefits and costs of traditional models and proposes a back-to-basics approach. The speaker also covers topics such as true IBNR estimation, frequency and severity modeling, report lag, and loss forecasting. The presentation concludes with a simulation model that is flexible, robust, and provides valuable results to stakeholders.

rushm
Download Presentation

Non-Traditional Reserving Methods: Back to Basics

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. Non-Traditional Reserving Methods: Back to Basics Rajesh Sahasrabuddhe Aon Risk Consultants Midwestern Actuarial Forum Friday March 17, 2006 MAF 2006-03-17

  2. Agenda • Motivation • Just One Example • Questions and Answers MAF 2006-03-17

  3. Motivation • Non-Traditional = Back to Basics: How can this be? • Exams 1-4: Actuarial Modeling: ∫, ∑, ∏, f(x), F(x), Simulation • Exams 5-9: Arithmetic Models: +, / , *, -, deterministic • Why do we have this disconnect • How do we define “traditional”? MAF 2006-03-17

  4. Motivation • The value proposition of traditional models: benefit v.s. cost • Zehnwirth / Barnett: • “The standard link ratio models carry assumptions not usually satisfied by the data” • That same paper was later published in the Proceedings with softer language: “Most loss arrays don’t satisfy the assumptions of standard link ratio techniques.” • Why: • What does the nature of claims-made and occurrence development patterns tell us? What is a model? • Consideration of Trend, Limits and Deductibles. • Information aggregated is information lost. • Maturity and predictive ability. MAF 2006-03-17

  5. Motivation • The value proposition of traditional models: benefit v.s. cost • The output of traditional (deterministic) models – is it good enough? • How do (will) stakeholders view the cost of actuarial models? • Management is becoming increasing quantitative. MAF 2006-03-17

  6. Timeline for Case Study Mar 31, 2001 Oct 1, 2001 Sep 30, 2002 Excess Insurance – All events reported Reserve Analysis – All events occurring SIR Loss Forecast – All events occurring MAF 2006-03-17

  7. True IBNR • True IBNR is estimated using a frequency x severity approach • Why? - This model is the most consistent with the real world! MAF 2006-03-17

  8. True IBNR Frequency • IBNR Frequency is a direct function of exposure, initial expected ultimate frequency and report lag - i.e. IBNR frequency should be estimated using a B-F approach • Critical Assumption – How long between accident occurrence and claim reporting – Use approach contained in Weissner – “Estimation of the Distribution of Report Lags by the Method of Maximum Likelihood” - Proceedings of the Casualty Actuarial Society (1978) • Frequency is simulated as a Poisson distribution (or Negative Binomial) MAF 2006-03-17

  9. Report Lag • The lag experience is truncated from above • Similar to a deductible problem in reverse (Hogg & Klugman; Klugman, Panjer,& Wilmot) MAF 2006-03-17

  10. Report Lag • Use Maximum Likelihood Techniques (“Loss Models” – KPW) • Use a B-F model MAF 2006-03-17

  11. Report Lag • Use pattern to allocate to claims-made periods • May also apply model to estimate lag between report and closing MAF 2006-03-17

  12. True IBNR Severity and Settlement Model • Severity Model Closed w/ Indemnity? Indemnity Model Yes No Exp. Only Model MAF 2006-03-17

  13. Severity and Settlements Models • Fit severity models using individual claim data • Myriad of references for estimating claim severity distributions. My personal suggestions are: • Klugman, Panjer, & Wilmot - Loss Models • Keatinge – Modeling Losses with the Mixed Exponential Distribution • Severity and Settlement models can be (should be?) conditional on report and / or closing lag • Model is typically multi-modal MAF 2006-03-17

  14. IBNER • IBNER may be estimated using: • Severity Models and Bayesian theory • Transition Matrices (Mahon paper) • Last Resort: Case reserve adequacy statistics for the insurance industry – claims made coverage triangles from A.M. Best. (not a good option) MAF 2006-03-17

  15. Loss Forecast and Excess Insurance Analysis • Through our True IBNR reserve analysis, we have already developed the parameters necessary for: the loss forecast and the excess insurance analysis! • So we simply extend to the prospective year; but separately capture the results MAF 2006-03-17

  16. Simulation (Part 1) • Model the entire claims process MAF 2006-03-17

  17. Simulation (Part 2) • Model the entire claims process MAF 2006-03-17

  18. Result • A model that is both flexible and robust • A model that makes sense – ties with the real world • A model that provides results of interest to stakeholders MAF 2006-03-17

  19. Questions and Answers MAF 2006-03-17

More Related