Frequent large losses from recent catastrophes have caused great concerns among insurers/reinsurers, who then turn to seek mitigations of such catastrophe risks by issuing catastrophe (CAT) bonds and thereby transferring the risks to the bond market. Whereas, the pricing of CAT bonds remains a challenging task, mainly due to the facts that the CAT bond market is incomplete and that the pricing usually requires knowledge about the tail of the risks. In this paper, we propose a general pricing framework based on a product pricing measure, which combines a distorted probability measure that prices the catastrophe risks underlying the CAT bond with a risk-neutral probability measure that prices interest rate risk. We also demonstrate the use of the peaks over threshold (POT) method to uncover the tail risk. Finally, we conduct case studies using Mexico and California earthquake data to demonstrate the applicability of our pricing framework.

Enhanced by the global financial crisis, the discussion about an accurate estimation of regulatory (risk) capital a financial institution needs to hold in order to safeguard against unexpected losses has become highly relevant again. The presence of heavy tails in combination with small sample sizes turns estimation at such extreme quantile levels into an inherently difficult statistical issue. We discuss some of the problems and pitfalls that may arise. In particular, based on the framework of second-order extended regular variation, we compare different high-quantile estimators and propose methods for the improvement of standard methods by focusing on the concept of penultimate approximations.

We discuss some issues regarding the accuracy of a quantile-based estimation of risk capital. In this context, extreme value theory (EVT) emerges naturally. The paper sheds some further light on the ongoing discussion concerning the use of a semi-parametric approach like EVT and the use of specific parametric models such as the g-and-h. In particular, we discusses problems and pitfalls evolving from such parametric models when using EVT and highlight the importance of the underlying second-order tail behavior.

Operational risk has become an important risk component in the banking and insurance world. The availability of (few) reasonable data sets has given some authors the opportunity to analyze operational risk data and to propose different models for quantification. As proposed in Dutta and Perry [12], the parametric g-and-h distribution has recently emerged as an interesting candidate.

In our paper, we discuss some fundamental properties of the g-and-h distribution and their link to extreme value theory (EVT). We show that for the g-and-h distribution, convergence of the excess distribution to the generalized Pareto distribution (GPD) is extremely slow and therefore quantile estimation using EVT may lead to inaccurate results if data are well modeled by a g-and-h distribution. We further discuss the subadditivity property of Value-at-Risk (VaR) for g-and-h random variables and show that for reasonable g and h parameter values, superadditivity may appear when estimating high quantiles. Finally, we look at the g-and-h distribution in the one-claim-causes-ruin paradigm.

The three annual 2¼% interest coupons of the Winterthur Insurance convertible bond (face value Chf 4 700) will only be paid out if during their corresponding observation periods no major storm or hail storm on one single day damages at least 6 000 motor vehicles insured with Winterthur Insurance. Data for events, where storm or hail damaged more than 1 000 insured vehicles, are available for the last ten years. Using a constant-parameter model, the estimated discounted value of the three Wincat coupons together is Chf 263.29. A conservative evaluation, which accounts for the standard deviation of the estimate, gives a coupon value of Chf 238.25. However, fitting models which admit a trend or a change-point, leads to substantially higher knock-out probabilities of the coupons. The estimated discounted values of the coupons can drop below the above conservative value; a conservative evaluation as above leads to substantially lower values. Hence, already the model uncertainty is higher than the standard deviations of the used estimators. This shows the dominance of the model risk. Consistency, dispersion, robustness and sensitivity of the models are analysed by a simulation study.