No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Measurement and Transfer of Catastrophic Risks. A Simulation Analysis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013
Abstract
When analyzing catastrophic risk, traditional measures for evaluating risk, such as the probable maximum loss (PML), value at risk (VaR), tail-VaR, and others, can become practically impossible to obtain analytically in certain types of insurance, such as earthquake, and certain types of reinsurance arrangements, specially non-proportional with reinstatements. Given the available information, it can be very difficult for an insurer to measure its risk exposure. The transfer of risk in this type of insurance is usually done through reinsurance schemes combining diverse types of contracts that can greatly reduce the extreme tail of the cedant's loss distribution. This effect can be assessed mathematically. The PML is dei ned in terms of a very extreme quantile. Also, under standard operating conditions, insurers use several “layers” of non proportional reinsurance that may or may not be combined with some type of proportional reinsurance. The resulting reinsurance structures will then be very complicated to analyze and to evaluate their mitigation or transfer effects analytically, so it may be necessary to use alternative approaches, such as Monte Carlo simulation methods. This is what we do in this paper in order to measure the effect of a complex reinsurance treaty on the risk profile of an insurance company. We compute the pure risk premium, PML as well as a host of results: impact on the insured portfolio, risk transfer effect of reinsurance programs, proportion of times reinsurance is exhausted, percentage of years it was necessary to use the contractual reinstatements, etc. Since the estimators of quantiles are known to be biased, we explore the alternative of using an Extreme Value approach to complement the analysis.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © International Actuarial Association 2010
References
Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.-M. and Heath, D. (1999) Coherent Measures of Risk, Mathematical Finance
9(3), 203–228.Google Scholar
Booth, P., Chadburn, R., Cooper, D., Haberman, S. and James, D. (1999) Modern Actuarial Theory and Practice, Chapman-Hall.Google Scholar
Clark, K.M. (2002) The Use of Computer Modelling in Estimating and Managing Future Catastrophe Losses, Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 27, 181–195.Google Scholar
de Alba, E. and Zúñiga-San Martín, J. (2006) Cálculo de la Pérdida Máxima Probable (PML) y de la Reserva de Riesgos Catastróficos de Terremoto, GNP.Google Scholar
Dowd, K. and Blake, D. (2006) After VAR: The Theory, Estimation, and Insurance Applications of Quantile-Based Risk Measures, Journal of Risk Insurance, 73(2), 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embrechts, P., Kluppelberg, C. and Mikosch, T. (1997) Modelling Extremal Events for Insurance and Finance, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
ERN Ingenieros Consultores, S.C. (2002) Evaluación de Riesgo Sísmico, Manual de Referencia.Google Scholar
European Parliament (2009) P6_TA-PROV(2009)0251 Insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II). European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 April 2009 on the amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (recast) (COM(2008)0119 – C6-0231/2007 – 2007/0143 (COD)).Google Scholar
Gilleland, E. and Katz, R.W. (2005) Tutorial for The Extremes Toolkit: Weather and Climate Applications of Extreme Value Statistics, (available at http://www.assessment.ucar.edu/toolkit).Google Scholar
Insurer Solvency Assessment Working Party (ISAWP) (2004) A Global Framework for Insurer Solvency Assessment, International Actuarial Association.Google Scholar
Inui, K., Kijima, M. and Kitano, A. (2005) VaR is subject to a significant positive bias, Statistics & Probability Letters
72, 299–311.Google Scholar
Kim, J.H.T. and Hardy, M.R. (2007) Quantifying and Correcting the Bias in Estimated Risk Measures, ASTIN Bulletin
37(2), 365–386.Google Scholar
La Rocca, L. (2008) Bayesian Non-parametric Estimation of Smooth Hazard Rates for Seismic Hazard Assessment, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Published article online: 1-Apr-2008.Google Scholar
Manistre, B.J. and Hancock, G.H. (2005) Variance of the CTE Estimator, North American Actuarial Journal
9(2), 129–156.Google Scholar
McNeil, A.J., Frey, R. and Embrechts, P. (2005) Quantitative Risk Management. Concepts, Techniques and Tools, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Ordaz, M., Miranda, E., Reinoso, E. and Pérez-Rocha, L.E. (2000) Seismic Loss Estimation Model For México City, Engineering Seismology, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (12WCEE), Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Schmitter, H. (2003) Setting Optimal Reinsurance Retentions. Swiss Reinsurance Company, Zurich.Google Scholar
Servicio Sismológico Nacional (1999) Cien Años de Sismos en México, (available at http://tlacaelel.igeofcu.unam.mx/~vladimir/sismos/100años.html).Google Scholar
Silvestrov, D., Teugels, J., Masol, V. and Maryalenko, A. (2006) Innovation Methods, Algorithms, and Software for Analysis of Reinsurance Contracts, Theory of Stochastic Processes
12(28), (3–4), 203–213.Google Scholar
Verlaak, R. and Beirlant, J. (2003) Optimal reinsurance programs: An optimal combination of several reinsurance protections on a heterogeneous insurance portfolio, Insurance: Mathematics and Economics
33(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
Vere-Jones, D. (1995). Forecasting earthquakes and earthquake risk. International Journal of Forecasting
11: 503–538.Google Scholar
Woo, G. (2002). Natural Catastrophe Probable Maximum Loss, British Actuarial Journal
8.V, 943–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar