Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:55:58.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Triangle-free reserving

A non-traditional framework for estimating reserves and reserve uncertainty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2013

Pietro Parodi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that all reserving methods based on claims triangulations (the “triangle trick”), no matter how sophisticated the subsequent processing of the information contained in the triangle is, are inherently inadequate to accurately model the distribution of reserves, although they may be good enough to produce a point estimate of such reserves. The reason is that the triangle representation involves the compression (and ultimately the loss) of crucial information about the individual losses, which comes back to haunt us when we try to extract detailed information on the distribution of incurred but not reported (IBNR) and reported but not settled (RBNS) losses.

This paper then argues that in order to avoid such loss of information it is necessary to adopt an approach which is similar to that used in pricing, where a separate frequency and severity model are developed and then combined by Monte Carlo simulation or other numerical techniques to produce the aggregate loss distribution.

A specific implementation of this approach is described, whose core feature is a method to produce a frequency model for the incurred but not reported claim count based on the empirical distribution of delays (delay = the time between loss date and reporting date), after adjustments to make up for the bias towards smaller delays. The method also produces a kernel severity model for the individual losses, from which the severity distribution of each year of occurrence can be derived. By combining the frequency and severity model in the usual way (e.g. through Monte Carlo simulation), an aggregate model for IBNR and UPR losses can be produced.

As for RBNS losses, we suggest using one of the many methods to analyse the distribution of IBNER (incurred but not enough reserved) factors to produce a possible distribution of outcomes.

A case study based on real-world liability claims is used to illustrate how the method works in practice.

Also, in a first step towards validating the method for calculating IBNR and comparing it with existing methods, a series of experiments with artificial data sets was undertaken, which show a drastic reduction in the prediction error of both the IBNR claim count and the IBNR total amount with respect to the standard chain ladder method. And what is perhaps most promising, the experiments show that the distribution of IBNR reserves is much closer (in terms of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance) to the “true” one than that based on Mack's method in the way it is normally applied. The method promises therefore a more accurate assessment of the uncertainty around reserves.

Keywords

Report delayindividual claimsfrequency/severity modellingIBNRIBNERRBNSUPRkernel severity distributionchain ladderreserving uncertaintyreserve distributiongranular reserving
Type
Sessional meetings: papers and abstracts of discussions
Information
British Actuarial Journal , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 168 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antonio, K., Plat, R. (2012). Micro-Level Stochastic Loss Reserving. KU Leuven, AFI-1270. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2111134 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2111134Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books.Google Scholar
England, P.D., Verrall, R.J. (2002). Stochastic claims reserving in general insurance. British Actuarial Journal, 8/3, 443–518, 2002.Google Scholar
Graham, M. (2011). The great 99.5 thpercentile swindle, GIRO 2011.Google Scholar
Guiahi, F. (1986). A Probabilistic Model for IBNR Claims, CAS Proceedings, Volume LXXIII, Number 139, 1986.Google Scholar
Kaminsky, K.S. (1987). Prediction of IBNR claim counts by modelling the distribution of report lags. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 6, 151–159.Google Scholar
Klugman, S.A., Panjer, H.H., Willmot, G.E. (2008). Loss Models: From Data to Decisions, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.Google Scholar
Kozubowski, T.J., Podgorski, K. (2009). Distributional properties of the negative binomial Levy process. Probability and Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 29, Fasc. 1, pp. 43–71.Google Scholar
Mack, T. (1993). Distribution-free calculation of the standard error of chain ladder reserves estimates. ASTIN Bulletin, 23/2, 213–225.Google Scholar
Norberg, R. (1993). Prediction of outstanding liabilities in non-life insurance. ASTIN Bulletin, 23(1), 95–115.Google Scholar
Norberg, R. (1999). Prediction of outstanding claims. II Model variations and extensions. ASTIN Bulletin, 29(1), 5–25, 1999.Google Scholar
Parodi, P., Bonche, S. (2010). Uncertainty-based credibility and its applications. Variance, 4(1), 18–29.Google Scholar
Parodi, P. (2012a). Computational intelligence with applications to general insurance: a review. Annals of Actuarial Science, 6/2, 307–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parodi, P. (2012b). Triangle-free reserving: A non-traditional protocol for estimating reserves and reserve uncertainty. Proceedings of GIRO 2012. http://www.actuaries.org.uk/research-and-resources/documents/brian-hey-prize-paper-submission-triangle-free-reservingGoogle Scholar
Ross, S.M. (2003). Introduction to probability models, 8th Edition. Academic Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Taylor, G., McGuire, G., Sullivan, J. (2008). Individual claim loss reserving conditioned by case estimates. Annals of Actuarial Science, 3, 215–256.Google Scholar
Weissner, E.W. (1978). Estimation of the Distribution of Report Lags by the Method of Maximum Likelihood, PCAS LXV, 1978. p. I.Google Scholar