Reinsurance Reserving Methods - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mercy
reinsurance reserving methods l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Reinsurance Reserving Methods PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Reinsurance Reserving Methods

play fullscreen
1 / 22
Download Presentation
Reinsurance Reserving Methods
1391 Views
Download Presentation

Reinsurance Reserving Methods

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Reinsurance Reserving Methods Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar Minneapolis, Minnesota Michael Angelina Tillinghast - Towers Perrin September 18, 2000

  2. Reserving Methods - Bornhuetter-Ferguson • Essentially a blend of LDF method and Expected Loss method • begins with an a-priori estimate of expected losses • IELR (Initial Expected Loss Ratio) x Earned Premium • splits a-priori estimate into two pieces • expected reported losses = (IEL x % reported) • expected unreported losses(IBNR) = (IEL x % unreported) • replaces expected reported losses with actual reported (case incurred) losses • Restated ultimate loss estimate equals • expected unreported(IBNR) plus actual reported (case incurred)

  3. Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method - an Example

  4. Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method - an Example (Con’t)

  5. Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method - Advantages • Allows for smoothing of results • LDF method understates when case incurred losses are small • overstates if losses are large (ELR may understate in this instance) • Incorporates changes in the environment • attachment point, coverage changes, layer restructuring, price strengthening/deterioration • Balances stability and actual loss emergence • Estimates IBNR when loss activity is sparse • ideal for long tailed lines (umbrella, xs casualty) • redundant for short tailed lines (approximates LDF method) • Reflects potential information found in underwriting files • underlying limits profile; pricing estimate; reporting patterns

  6. Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method - Disadvantages • Reporting pattern • expected percentage reported = 1 / LDF • difficulty in estimating pattern for LDF method also applies here • Initial expected losses • IBNR is directly related to a-priori estimate • double the expected losses ----> double the IBNR • importance of IELR may be lost in the analysis • need to step back and determine % of total IBNR that is loss ratio driven • Ultimate Premium • most recent year may be difficult to estimate • booked premium is probably under-reported due to timing lags • seek underwriting estimate

  7. Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method -Alternative Sources of Initial Expected Losses • Loss Ratio Method (incorporates pricing indices) • Underwriting estimate from pricing study • by definition it is the a-priori estimate • verify that parameters for pricing and reserving are consistent • Increased limits factors and direct premium • may be used if you feel primary company’s higher limits pricing is inadequate • should have been incorporated in pricing study • may also be used for changes in layer and/or attachment point • Stanard-Buhlman estimates • Frequency/Severity estimates

  8. Example of change in layer structuringEffect on IELR

  9. Stanard-Buhlman Estimate • Essentially the Bornhuetter-Ferguson estimate with “on average” perfect information • Uses actual loss ratio indices multiplied by average loss ratio • incorporating loss trend and pricing changes • Balances the expected average loss ratio so that: • expected reported losses = actual reported losses

  10. Stanard-Buhlman - an Example

  11. Stanard-Buhlman - an Example (continued)

  12. Stanard-Buhlman - an Example (continued)

  13. Stanard-Buhlman - Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method (continued)

  14. Frequency Based Method - Basic Steps - Including Policy Limit Impact • Estimate the annual number of claims above the data limit • 37.5 claims greater than$150,000 • Use size of loss curves to project the number of claims above the reinsurance retention • 11.3 (of 37.5claims) greater than $300,000 • Use size-of-loss curves to project average severity of claims in reinsurance layer • $239,751 average severity of claims in $700,000 excess of $300,000 layer • Multiply the frequency and the severity projections to estimate the total ultimate losses • Incorporate frequency/severity estimate into Bornhuetter-Ferguson method

  15. Frequency/Severity - Estimate of claim counts above data limit

  16. Frequency/Severity - Estimate of claim counts above data limit (Con’t)

  17. Frequency/Severity - Estimation of excess losses using pareto distribution

  18. Frequency/Severity - Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method

  19. Recap of Methods - Ultimate Loss and ALAE

  20. Recap of Methods - Ultimate Loss and ALAE Ratios

  21. Final Selection of Ultimates Rules of Thumb • LDF Method for older more mature accident / policy periods • look at LDF / percentage reported and determine maturity • umbrella vs. Auto Physical Damage • Loss Ratio for less mature, newer accident / policy periods • most recent or two most recent • Bornhuetter Ferguson or Stanard Buhlman anywhere in between • requires some judgment • GL, umbrella, excess casualty • Frequency/ Severity similar to loss ratio • better estimate than loss ratio when L/R is unreliable • high layers, single treaties

  22. Other Thoughts • Look for trends, stability, shocks • are they reasonable ? • Communicate with the underwriting and claims departments • good fodder for next underwriting audit or pricing season • Gather knowledge on reserving philosophy (level of ACRs) • make adjustments where necessary to benchmarks • How to handle new lines of business with no history • benchmarks, underwriting files, actuarial pricing analysis • Incomplete underwriting year • ultimate loss & ALAE ratio using ultimate premium • apply to estimated earned premium • Difficult Coverages (Aggregate XS covers, deductibles, reinstatements) • requires modeling of underlying exposures.