introduction to reinsurance reconciliation of estimates cas ratemaking seminar march 17 2008 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
INTRODUCTION TO REINSURANCE RECONCILIATION OF ESTIMATES CAS RATEMAKING SEMINAR MARCH 17, 2008 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
INTRODUCTION TO REINSURANCE RECONCILIATION OF ESTIMATES CAS RATEMAKING SEMINAR MARCH 17, 2008

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 15

INTRODUCTION TO REINSURANCE RECONCILIATION OF ESTIMATES CAS RATEMAKING SEMINAR MARCH 17, 2008 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 289 Views
  • Uploaded on

INTRODUCTION TO REINSURANCE RECONCILIATION OF ESTIMATES CAS RATEMAKING SEMINAR MARCH 17, 2008. MICHAEL E. ANGELINA ENDURANCE SPECIALTY HOLDINGS, LTD. KEY ASSUMPTIONS. You are the underwriter/actuary of the assumed reinsurance division, what should you be thinking about:

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'INTRODUCTION TO REINSURANCE RECONCILIATION OF ESTIMATES CAS RATEMAKING SEMINAR MARCH 17, 2008' - betty_james


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
introduction to reinsurance reconciliation of estimates cas ratemaking seminar march 17 2008

INTRODUCTION TO REINSURANCERECONCILIATION OF ESTIMATESCAS RATEMAKING SEMINARMARCH 17, 2008

MICHAEL E. ANGELINA

ENDURANCE SPECIALTY HOLDINGS, LTD.

key assumptions
KEY ASSUMPTIONS

You are the underwriter/actuary of the assumed reinsurance division, what should you be thinking about:

  • Hazard group selection
  • Loss ratios
  • Expense loadings
  • Claim frequencies
  • Tail factors
  • Layer severities
  • Credibility of experience
  • Results of u/w audit
reconciliation of estimates
Reconciliation of Estimates
  • Goal - determination of a final estimate

Ultimate Excess Expected

Recap of results Loss & ALAESeverityCounts

    • Exposure Estimate 1.60 82.1 19.5
    • Classical Burning Cost 0.70 68.4 10.2
    • Freq/Severity-Industry 0.90 69.5 12.9
    • Experience Estimate 0.86 67.7 12.7
  • Wide range of results between experience and exposure
    • Severity relatively flat
    • Variation in expected counts/losses
reconciliation of estimates7
Reconciliation of Estimates
  • Which method yields best estimate?
    • Experience estimates
      • Test at lower layers
        • Results for frequency/severity and burning cost should be consistent
      • Considerations
        • credibility of data - 20 XS claims?
        • loss development factors - reflecting claim audit?
        • load for ALAE (explicit/implicit?)
        • adjust for claim impact of premium growth - deterioration in U/W?
        • account for change in policy limits?
reconciliation of estimates8
Reconciliation of Estimates
  • Exposure estimates
    • Allocation of premium consistent with company’s
    • Historical comparison of XS premium to losses
      • suggest different loss ratio for layer?
    • Considerations
      • appropriateness of size of loss curve
        • test with claim emergence at different attachment points
        • calculate implied claim counts to company experience
        • compare industry curve to company fitted curve
        • fitting curve is not trivial (development on individual claims)
      • adequacy of loss ratio
        • reflect claim audit findings
        • adjust for implication on growing business
        • account for differences in excess layer vs. primary layer
reconciliation of estimates11
Reconciliation of Estimates

Recap of Results

Ultimate Exp Counts ALAE Implied

Loss & ALAE >100kLoadXS L/R

Exposure 1.60 19.5 21% 50.0%

Burning Cost 0.70 10.2 8.5% 21.9%

Frequency/Severity 0.90 12.9 7.5% 28.1%

(Industry)

Experience 0.86 12.7 8.0% 26.9%

reconciliation of estimates12
Reconciliation of Estimates
  • Experience Indications (burning cost)
    • Selected 740 1.85%
    • Alternate Sel. 925 Years Wtd
    • ALAE Differences 103 20% vs 8%
    • Revised Selection 1,028 2.55 %
  • Experience Indications (frequency / severity)
    • Selected 851 2.4%
    • Alter Selection 1,020 Yrs Wtd
    • ALAE Differences 119 20% vs 7.5%
    • Revised Selection 1,139 2.85%
  • Final Selection 1,100 2.75%
reconciliation of estimates13
Reconciliation of Estimates
  • Goal - Move expected ultimate losses to similar base
  • Exposure Indications
    • Selected 1,568 3.9%
    • Alter Selection 1,086 higher % Table 1
    • ALAE Differences (26) 20% vs 23%
    • Revised Selection 1,060 2.65%
  • Experience Indications (Selected)
    • Revised Selection 1,100 2.75%
      • implied loss ratio for layer 33.1%
  • Are these assumptions appropriate ?
    • Are you fooling yourself ??
  • Does this make sense?
  • Don’t fall into the trap of using experience rating to lower your answer !! – Rating Limbo
reconciliation of estimates scenario testing
Reconciliation of Estimates Scenario Testing
  • Move away from point estimate of methods and look at a range of possible outcomes
    • Exposure
      • size of loss table/loss ratio
      • what assumptions would get result to experience rate
        • 20% loss ratio, lower hazard curve, less ALAE loading, combination of all three
    • Experience
      • LDF’s, claim counts, size of loss curve (industry or company)
      • what assumptions get result to exposure rate
        • 54 claims above 50k, heavier tail factor (1.238 @ 60 months to 2.2)
  • Assign weights to various outcomes and determine a new expected loss estimate
    • Consider credibility of data
reconciliation of estimates15
Reconciliation of Estimates
  • Leads to stochastic applications
    • Need to assign probabilities to various assumptions/scenarios
    • Think about independence of variable
    • Address parameter/process risk
  • Results in better pricing for AAD considerations, swing plans, stop loss treaties, etc.