Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:30:43.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Panjer vs Kornya vs De Pril: A Comparison from a Practical Point of View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2014

S. Kuon ,
A. Reich  and
L. Reimers
S. Kuon*
Affiliation:
The Cologne Re, Cologne
A. Reich*
Affiliation:
The Cologne Re, Cologne
L. Reimers*
Affiliation:
The Cologne Re, Cologne
*
The Cologne Re, Department for Research and Development, Theodor-Heuss-Ring 11, D-5000 Köln 1, Federal Republic of, Germany.
The Cologne Re, Department for Research and Development, Theodor-Heuss-Ring 11, D-5000 Köln 1, Federal Republic of, Germany.
The Cologne Re, Department for Research and Development, Theodor-Heuss-Ring 11, D-5000 Köln 1, Federal Republic of, Germany.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We compare three modern methods for calculating the aggregate claims distribution with respect to their computation amount and accuracy: Panjer's algorithm, the approximation method of Kornya and the most recent, exact procedure of De Pril. They are compared numerically in the case of actual Life portfolios. The computation amount of De Pril's method is much greater than that of the two others, which do not differ substantially in this respect. The accuracy of Kornya's and Panjer's methods is remarkably high in the examples considered. However, as the accuracy of Kornya's approximation method can be determined easily in advance, this procedure turns out to be the most useful one for the problems arising from practical work.

Keywords

Aggregate claims distributioncomputation amountindividual modelcollective model
Type
Workshop
Information
ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , November 1987 , pp. 183 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © International Actuarial Association 1987

References

Bertram, J. (1981) Numerische Berechnung von Gesamtschadenverteilungen. Blätter der DGVM 15, 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühlmann, H. (1984) Numerical evaluation of the compound Poisson distribution: recursion or Fast Fourier Transform? Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pril, N. (1986) On the exact computation of the aggregate claims distribution in the individual life model. ASTIN Bulletin 16, 109–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, H. U. (1979) An Introduction to Mathematical Risk Theory. Huebner Foundation Monograph, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Gerber, H. U. (1984) Error bounds for the compound Poisson approximation. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 3, 191–194.Google Scholar
Hipp, C. (1985) Approximation of aggregate claims distribution by compound Poisson distributions. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 4, 227–232.Google Scholar
Hipp, C. (1986) Improved approximations for the aggregate claims distribution in the individual model. ASTIN Bulletin 16, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornya, P. S. (1983) Distribution of aggregate claims in the individual risk theory model. Society of Actuaries: Transactions 35, 823–858.Google Scholar
Lundberg, F. (1909) Zur Theorie der Rückversicherung. Transactions of the International Congress of Actuaries.Google Scholar
Panjer, H. (1981) Recursive evaluation of a family of compound distributions. ASTIN Bulletin 12, 22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panjer, H. and Willmot, G. (1986) Computational aspects of recursive evaluation of compound distributions. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 5, 113–116.Google Scholar