Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:15:43.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Natural Catastrophe Probable Maximum Loss

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

G. Woo
Affiliation:
Risk Management Solutions Ltd., 10 Eastcheap, London EC3M 1AJ, U.K., Tel: +44 (0)20-7256-3078, Fax: +44 (0)20-7256-3838, Email: [email protected]

Abstract

The procedure for estimating probable maximum loss (PML) for natural catastrophes has evolved over the past few decades from a rather simplistic deterministic basis to a more sophisticated methodology based on loss exceedance probability curves, generated using catastrophe modelling software. This development process is reviewed, with an emphasis on the earthquake peril, which, because of its widespread threat to critical industrial installations, has been at the forefront of most PML advances. The coherent risk definition of PML is advocated as an improvement over standard quantile methods, which can give rise to anomalous aggregation results failing to satisfy the fundamental axiom of subadditivity, and so discouraging the pooling of risks.

Type
Sessional meetings: papers and abstracts of discussions
Copyright
Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2002

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

Acerbi, C. & Tasche, D. (2002). Expected shortfall: a natural coherent alternative to value at risk. Economic Notes by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, 31, 379388.Google Scholar
Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.-M. & Heath, D. (1999). Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance, 9, 203228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artzner, P. (2000). Application of coherent risk measures to capital requirements in insurance. North American Actuarial Journal, 2, 1125.Google Scholar
Bennett, C. (1992). Dictionary of insurance. Pitman, London.Google Scholar
California Department of Insurance (19951996). California earthquake zoning and probable maximum loss evaluation program. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Cornell, C.A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismic Society of America, 58, 15831606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denault, M. (2001). Coherent allocation of risk capital. Journal of Risk, 4, 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embrechts, P., Kluppelberg, C. & Mikosch, T. (1997). Modelling extremal events. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. (2001). Pitfalls in the probability of ruin type risk management. Casualty Actuarial Society Forum, 501510.Google Scholar
International Conference of Building Officials (1994). Uniform building code. Whittier, California.Google Scholar
Meehan, R.L. (1984). The atom and the fault. M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Natural Disaster Coalition (1995). Catastrophe risk: a national analysis of earthquake, fire following earthquake, and hurricane losses to the insurance industry. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Singh, M.K. (2002). Risk-based capital allocation using a coherent measure of risk. Journal of Risk Finance, 3, 3445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Structural Engineers Association of California (1995). Probable maximum loss, a rational approach. SEASC Convention, Indian Wells, California.Google Scholar
Stubbs, N. (1999). A probable maximum loss study of critical infrastructure in three Caribbean island states. Report for USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance.Google Scholar
Tasche, D. (2002). Expected shortfall and beyond. Journal of Banking and Finance, 26, 15231537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woo, G. (1999). The mathematics of natural catastrophes. Imperial College Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, M.M. (2000). Understanding risk management. In Financial management of earthquake risk. EERI, Oakland.Google Scholar