1 / 15

INTRODUCTION TO REINSURANCE RECONCILIATION OF ESTIMATES CAS RATEMAKING SEMINAR MARCH 17, 2008

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:

betty_james
Download Presentation

INTRODUCTION TO REINSURANCE RECONCILIATION OF ESTIMATES CAS RATEMAKING SEMINAR MARCH 17, 2008

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. INTRODUCTION TO REINSURANCERECONCILIATION OF ESTIMATESCAS RATEMAKING SEMINARMARCH 17, 2008 MICHAEL E. ANGELINA ENDURANCE SPECIALTY HOLDINGS, LTD.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Experience Rating - Frequency Based MethodProjected # of Claims for Rating Year

  5. RECAP OF ESTIMATESUltimate Losses

  6. RECAP OF ESTIMATESExpected Counts > $100k

  7. 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?

  8. 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

  9. Reconciliation of Estimates

  10. Reconciliation of Estimates

  11. 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%

  12. 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%

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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.

More Related