Philadelphia CARe Meeting European Pricing Approaches Experience Rating May 7-8, 2007 Steve White Seattle.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction to Experience Rating
Advertisements

Culture Clash: US v Them Doug Lacoss CARe - London Casualty Pricing Approaches 16 th July 2007.
1 CHANGES TO SSAP #62 PROPERTY & CASULTY REINSURANCE NAIC Property and Casualty Reinsurance Study Group Chicago, IL May 10, 2005 Michael Moriarty Director,
W Loss Rating Models: Challenges and Opportunities Brian Ingle, FCAS, MAAA WC-3 Perspectives on Pricing Large Accounts 2007 CAS Ratemaking Seminar.
Umbrella Liability CARe May 7 – 8, 2007 Stephen Kantor.
Ab European vs US Pricing Approaches Several Comparisons European vs US Pricing Approaches Several Comparisons CARe I. Mashitz.
1 Math 479 / 568 Casualty Actuarial Mathematics Fall 2014 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Professor Rick Gorvett Session 13: Reinsurance II.
1 Math 479/568 Casualty Actuarial Mathematics Fall 2014 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Professor Rick Gorvett Session 12: Reinsurance I October.
2000 CAS Ratemaking Seminar Session REI-19 9 March 2000 Simon Sheaf Tillinghast-Towers Perrin London International Reinsurance Pricing and Challenges Liability.
Introduction to Reinsurance Reserving Peter A. Royek Toa Reinsurance Company of America Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar Scottsdale, Arizona September 13,
Agenda Introduction to Credibility Difference between Policy Year, Accident Year, and Calendar Year Relationship Between Accident Year and Calendar Year.
2007 General Meeting Assemblée générale 2007 Montréal, Québec 2007 General Meeting Assemblée générale 2007 Montréal, Québec Canadian Institute of Actuaries.
Reserve Variability Modeling: Correlation 2007 Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar San Diego, California September 10-11, 2007 Mark R. Shapland, FCAS, ASA, MAAA.
Reinsurance Structures and Pricing Pro-Rata Treaties CARe Pricing Boot Camp August 10, 2009 Daniel Kamen, FCAS, MAAA Vice President Allied World Reinsurance.
Introduction to Property Exposure Rating
Introduction to Reinsurance Reserving Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar Washington, D.C. September 23, 2002 Bruce D. Fell, FCAS, MAAA Am-Re Consultants, Inc.
Severity Exposed - October Severity Exposed - Putting the jacket back on October 2010.
2008 Seminar on Reinsurance Reinsuring Commercial Umbrella Brian E. Johnson, ACAS, MAAA.
CARe 2006: Marine Reinsurance
Workers Compensation Reinsurance Pricing Considerations Robert Blanco, FCAS, MAAA, CPCU, ARe SCOR Reinsurance Corp.
March 11-12, 2004 Elliot Burn Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel
De-Mystifying Reinsurance Pricing STRIMA Conference Baton Rouge, LA September 26, 2006 Presented by Michael Petrocik, FCAS, MAAA Chief Actuarial Officer.
Reinsurance Structures and On Level Loss Ratios Reinsurance Boot Camp July 2005.
Introduction to Experience Rating Jim Sandor American Re-Insurance 2003 CAS Ratemaking Seminar 1234.
Integrating Reserve Risk Models into Economic Capital Models Stuart White, Corporate Actuary Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar, Washington D.C September.
Introduction to Experience Rating Kyle Vrieze, FCAS Senior Vice President, Willis Re CAS Ratemaking Seminar Cambridge, Massachusetts March 17, 2008.
Ab Page 1 Advanced Experience Ratemaking Experience Rating and Exposure Shift Presented by Robert Giambo Swiss Reinsurance America Seminar on Reinsurance.
1 Specialty Lines Pricing Gerson Smith CARe Seminar Washington, D.C. July 11, 2001.
© 2005 Towers Perrin September 12, 2005 Michael Angelina, ACAS, MAAA – Endurance Specialty Holdings Kevin Downs, FCAS, MAAA – Towers Perrin Bruce D. Fell,
Slide 1 Trend Sources and Techniques, A Comparison of US and European Methods Trending of Premium and Claims A Reinsurer’s Perspective FIT FOR PURPOSE.
Ab Rate Monitoring Steven Petlick Seminar on Reinsurance May 20, 2008.
Seminar on Reinsurance – June 2-3, 2003 Pricing Techniques: Practical Track 2-3 Michael Coca Chief Actuary, PartnerRe.
Intensive Actuarial Training for Bulgaria January 2007 Lecture 11 – Reinsurance By Michael Sze, PhD, FSA, CFA.
February 2004 James D. Hurley, ACAS, MAAA Energy Insurance Mutual Overview of Ultimate Loss Projections.
Casualty Excess Pricing Using Power Curves Ana Mata, PhD, ACAS CARe Seminar London, 15 September 2009 Mat β las Underwriting and Actuarial Consulting,
CLOSING THE BOOKS WITH PARTIAL INFORMATION By Joseph Marker, FCAS, MAAA CLRS, Chicago, IL, September 2003.
Hidden Risks in Casualty (Re)insurance Casualty Actuaries in Reinsurance (CARe) 2007 David R. Clark, Vice President Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.
Catastrophe Pricing: The Finer Points Sean Devlin CARe Meeting June 6-7, 2005.
Page 1 Additional Topics Pricing Umbrella and Excess on Excess The ISO Mixed Exponential Chris Svendsgaard Casualty Exposure Rating CARe Boot Camp 2005.
Thomas L. Ghezzi, FCAS, MAAA 2003 CAS Seminar on Reinsurance Commercial Umbrella This document was designed for discussion purposes only. It is incomplete,
“The Effect of Changing Exposure Levels on Calendar Year Loss Trends” by Chris Styrsky, FCAS, MAAA Ratemaking Seminar March 10, 2005.
©2015 : OneBeacon Insurance Group LLC | 1 SUSAN WITCRAFT Building an Economic Capital Model
1 ERM - Post 9/11 Presented by: Susan Witcraft Guy Carpenter July 8, 2002.
Asbestos Valuation CLRS – Chicago; September 8, 2003 Kevin M. Madigan, PhD, ACAS, MAAA Vice President, Platinum Underwriters Bermuda, Ltd. Claus S. Metzner,
Milliman Asbestos Valuation 2004 Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar Las Vegas, Nevada September 13, 2004 Claus S. Metzner, FSA, FCAS, MAAA, Aktuar – SAV Actuary,
Ab Rate Monitoring Steven Petlick CAS Underwriting Cycle Seminar October 5, 2009.
2004 Hurricane Season Recap and Observations May 2005 CAS Meeting.
Copyright © 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. Insurance Company Operations.
1 - © ISO, Inc., 2008 London CARe Seminar: Trend – U.S. Trend Sources and Techniques, A Comparison to European Methods Beth Fitzgerald, FCAS, MAAA, CPCU.
Steve White, FCAS MAAA, Guy Carpenter Property Ratemaking - an Advanced Approach Exposure Rating June 6-7, 2005.
Property Exposure Rating Types of Exposure Rating Curves
Finance 431: Property-Liability Insurance Lecture 8: Reinsurance.
Accounting Implications of Finite Reinsurance Contracts 2003 Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar Chicago, IL Session 4 – Recent Developments in Finite Reinsurance.
Pitfalls in Common Pricing/Reserving Methodologies David Skurnick St. Paul Re 2001 Seminar on Ratemaking.
1 Introduction to Reinsurance Exposure Rating CAS Ratemaking Seminar Session REI-47 March 12, Las Vegas Ira Kaplan
Medical Professional Liability Ratemaking Hospitals / Self-Insurance March 12, 2004.
JLT RE SOLUTIONS, INC. Introduction to Reinsurance Reserving Las Vegas, Nevada September 13, 2004 Bruce D. Fell, FCAS, MAAA, CFA Casualty Loss Reserve.
©Towers Perrin Introduction to Reinsurance Reserving Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar Atlanta, Georgia September 11, 2006 Christopher K. Bozman, FCAS, MAAA.
Introduction to Reinsurance Reserving Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar Chicago, Illinois September 9, 2003 Christopher K. Bozman, FCAS, MAAA.
1 Price Monitoring - Practical Approaches CAS 2007 Ratemaking Seminar, session COM-5 Brian A. Hughes SVP & Chief Actuary Arch Insurance Group.
Trends ASAP by Actuarial Services and Programs Evaluating Changes in Claim Frequency, Claim Costs, and Loss Costs.
Reinsurance Introduction Types of Reinsurance Types of Reinsurers
Reinsurance Insurers purchase reinsurance largely for the same reasons that people and organizations purchase insurance “Insurance for insurers” Functions.
Reinsurance and Its Role in the National Flood Insurance Program: A Primer for Public Policy Makers
Developing the Coverage Chart and Determining Financial Exposures
Introduction to Reinsurance Reserving
Pitfalls in Common Pricing/Reserving Methodologies
ASU Short Duration Contracts – New GAAP Disclosures
Introduction to Experience Rating
Allocation and aggregation
Presentation transcript:

Philadelphia CARe Meeting European Pricing Approaches Experience Rating May 7-8, 2007 Steve White Seattle

1 Experience Rating The Experience Rating discussed here is largely for the rating of Excess of Loss contracts. Some of the discussion will be appropriate for other contract types. Due to lack of exposure rating benchmarks, Experience rating is more heavily relied on outside of the US. Disclaimer: the following comparisons between US and European methods are broad generalizations which vary greatly by user and company.

Loss Development Aggregate Excess vs Individual Large Loss

3 Loss Development US  Aggregate Excess 1.Trend Losses 2.Apply Excess Layer 3.Aggregate Losses to the Layer 4.Apply Loss Develop to the Aggregate Layer Losses European  Individual Large Loss 1.Trend Losses 2.Apply Loss Development to Individual Losses (preferably stochastic) 3.Apply Excess Layer Terms (including layer indexing) 4.Aggregate Losses to the Layer 5.Include Load for IBNR  One reason for the preference of Individual Large Loss Development is the use of Index Clauses

Policy Limits

5 US  Capping of trended losses due to policy limits  Trending losses when original loss is larger than policy limit  Changes in policy limits (trend) over time European  Often no limit or limit very large  Becoming more common  Lack of Policy Limits is one of the reasons that “unused exposure” is a bigger concern

Subscription Contracts Stacking and Participation

7 Subscription based Contracts (Stacking and Participation) Each risk can be covered by a series of excess contracts (a Stack). The insurer may “participate” on some of the contracts. Their participation or share can vary from one contract to the next. But since the contracts are covering the same risk, for reinsurance purposes the combined loss for the insurer’s shares of all contracts is counted as an occurrence.

8  Participation allows you to correctly model the situation where a contract only covers a proportional share of the underlying loss.  It is most common in a subscription type market like Lloyds, but it is also useful for modeling some facultative business. Example  Assume the following: –Primary writes a 25% participation on a $1M Contract –You reinsure a $200K xs $200K treaty layer  In order to expose the Reinsurance Cover: –There must be a loss to the primary contract greater than $800K ($200K / 25%) –The largest subject loss is $250K (25% of $1M), or $50K to the layer –Actually, you would take 25% of losses ceded to an $800K xs $800K reinsurance layer. But since the primary policy is $1M, the exposed treaty layer is effectively 25% of $200k xs $800k. Stacking and Participation Participation

9 Stacking is where an insurer issues multiple excess contracts covering the same underlying risk  Assume someone writes a series of policies covering the same risk, $100K x $100K (Yellow), $300K x $200K (Blue), $500K x $500K (Red) and $1M x $1M (Green)  If all are written at the same level of participation then effectively it is the same as a single $1.9M xs $100K (Purple) policy with the given participation  In practice, not all contracts are at the same participation and not all contracts are written (can be thought of as participation = 0%, this is sometimes called ventilation) Subscription based Contracts (Stacking and Participation) Stacking Individual Contracts Stacked Contracts

10 Now Assume there is a $500K x $500K reinsurance treaty covering these contracts  If the contracts are assumed to be independent, then the treaty would only cover the $500K x $500K layer on the $1M x $1M policy. No other policy would expose.  If the contracts are assumed to be stacked, then you would cover the $500K x $500K layer on the $1.9M x $100K policy.  There can be significantly greater exposure to the Reinsurance Contract under the stacked assumption Subscription based Contracts (Stacking and Participation) Stacking Reinsurance Layer

11 Stacking is generally thought of as an International Issue, but…  Stacking can be used in the Facultative Markets and Large Commercial Property Risks  Stacking can be used to model Umbrella written over a company’s own underlying policies  Stacking is commonly used in combination with participation in a subscription market like Lloyds Stacking and Participation Stacking

12 25% Share 50% Share 100% Share Stacking and Participation Partial Participation without Stacking

13 Stacking and Participation Partial Participation with Stacking 25% Share (250k) 50% Share (150k) 100% Share (300k) 100% Share (100k) 50% Share (100k)  Assume an insurer writes a series of policies covering the same risk, $100K x $100K (Yellow), $300K x $200K (Blue), $500K x $500K (Red) and $1M x $1M (Green). –Their participation on each is: $100K x $100K (100%), $300K x $200K (100%), $500K x $500K (50%), $1M x $1M (25%) –These policies are stacked –You reinsure a $500K x $500K layer  In order to expose the Reinsurance Cover: –There must be a loss greater than $600K ($100K / 100% + $300K / 100% + $100K / 50%) –The largest subject loss is $900K ($100K * 100% + $300K * 100% + $500K * 50% + $1M * 25%), or $400K to the layer

14  Because of the leverage effect of trending, the trending needs to be done “from ground up” (FGU).  If you believe that loss development varies by size of loss, then the development of the losses will also need to be done on a “from ground up” (FGU) basis.  Then apply the terms of the underlying contracts to determine the exposure to the reinsurance contract.  You CANNOT simply uses the losses to the policy in your experience rating analysis.  Actuaries frequently recognize the need to reflect Stacking and Participation in Exposure Rating but overlook the need to do so in Experience Rating. Stacking and Participation Summary

Loss Trending Calendar Year vs Accident Year

16 Loss Trending US  Accident Year –Insurance Data (Bureau) reported on Accident Year European  Calendar Year –Must rely on Economic Indices for trending data (possibly with adjustments –Index Clauses Index based on published data –Index Clause adjustments made based on calendar yr payment  Data still grouped by Accident Year

17 Index Clauses

18 Index Clauses The excess layer adjusts with inflation (or some pre-agreed upon index) Purpose  Share the effect of inflation between the ceding company and the reinsurer Types  Straight or Simple  Franchise  Severe Triggers  Payment date  Settlement date

19 Unused Exposures US  Tend to rely on adjusted exposure rating if considered at all European  More concerned with unused exposure  Where exposure rating information not available, the unused exposure may be analyzed using curve fitting techniques on the data observed Unused exposure is the part of a layer where there is no (limited) claims experience but there is still potential for exposure