1 / 38

1999 CASUALTY LOSS RESERVE SEMINAR Intermediate Track III- Techniques

This seminar discusses the impact of changes in mix, claim closing patterns, case reserve adequacy, and tail factor selection on loss reserve data.

virgies
Télécharger la présentation

1999 CASUALTY LOSS RESERVE SEMINAR Intermediate Track III- Techniques

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 1999 CASUALTY LOSS RESERVE SEMINARIntermediate Track III- Techniques SEPTEMBER 1999

  2. INTRODUCTIONThe Ideal Situation Loss reserve data should contain a long stable history of homogeneous claim experience, where no significant operational changes materially affect either the mix of business or the handling of claims, and there should be sufficient number of claims to produce credible loss patterns. Slide 1

  3. INTRODUCTIONThe Reality • Virtually All Elements of “The Ideal” are Periodically Violated: • 1. The Mix Changes • 2. Claim Handling Changes: • Payments Accelerate / Decelerate • Case Reserves are Strengthened / Weakened 3. The Environment Changes: • New Causative Agents Impact Loss Costs • Society’s Attitudes Change • Court Decisions Change “The Rules” • Changes in the Economy Affect Claim Inflation Slide 2

  4. INTRODUCTIONThis Session Will Discuss 1. The potential impact of mix changes. (Slides 4-10) 2. Changes in claim closing patterns. (Slides 11-21) 3. Changes in case reserve adequacy. (Slides 22-31) 4. Tail factor selection. (Slides 32-37) Slide 3

  5. CHANGE IN MIXCumulative Paid Losses (Combined) Accident Months of Development Year 12 24 36+ . 1995 $2,000 $4,000 $5,000 1996 2,000 4,000 5,000 1997 2,000 4,000 1998 2,000 Slide 4

  6. CHANGE IN MIXCumulative Paid Losses (by Type of Claim) Each of % of Months of Development 1995-1997Total122436+ Category A (75%) $1,500 $1,800 $2,000 Category B (25%) $500$2,200$3,000 $2,000 $4,000 $5,000 1998 Category A (25%) $500 Category B (75%) $1,500 $2,000 Slide 5

  7. CHANGE IN MIXCumulative Paid Losses (by Type of Claim) Each of Months of Development 1995-1997122436+ Category A $1,500 $1,800 $2,000 Category B $500$2,200$3,000 $2,000 $4,000 $5,000 1998If Forecasting By Claim Category Category A $500 $600 $700 Category B $1,500$6,600$9,000 $2,000 $7,200 $9,700 1998If Ignoring Claim Category Combined $2,000 $4,000 $5,000 Slide 6

  8. CHANGE IN MIXKey PrincipleAlways Search for Subdivisions of Data Related to Possible Causes of Variable Loss Development Slide 7

  9. CHANGE IN MIXSuggested Subdivisions of Data IncludePrimary: 1. Geographic: Laws Vary, Regional Office May Use Different . Claims Personnel, Degree of Litigiousness Varies 2. New Products Versus Old 3. Subline or Coverage 4. Deductibles or Policy Limits 5. Type of Loss Payment (e.g., Medical vs. Indemnity)Reinsurance: 1. Attachment Point 2. Production Source 3. Line or SublineSlide 8

  10. CHANGE IN MIXHow Do You Decide?Ask:1. Underwriters2. Claims Department3. Agents4. Actuaries • The Key: • Learn as Much as Possible About the Book of Business You are Evaluating. • What it has been historically • What it is becoming Slide 9

  11. CHANGE IN MIXWhat Should be Done if Mix Change Includes New Business for Which You Have Insufficient Data? 1. Seek Alternative Sources of Data. For example, perhaps a general .. liability book formerly was comprised solely of “OL&T” exposures, . . but in recent years began adding “M&C” risks. Possible Solution: Relate ISO development patterns for M&C to OL&T . and modify development factors for your evaluation.2. Discuss Potential Impacts With Claims, Underwriting, and Other .Actuaries. Discuss how the change might affect: • Length of the tail • Frequency • Severity • Loss Ratios Slide 10

  12. CLAIM CLOSING PATTERNSHow Can Changes In Payment Patterns Be Recognized? • Look at Settlement Rates for the Most Recent Accident Years • Ask the Claims Department About Changes in: - Opening and Closing Practices - The Claims Handling Environment - Levels of Staffing, Reorganizations - Definition of a Claim (e.g., Multiple Claimants) Slide 11

  13. CLAIM CLOSING PATTERNSData Needed • Reported Claims Development Triangle • Closed Claims Development Triangle • Projected Ultimate Claims • Paid Loss Development Triangle Slide 12

  14. CLAIM CLOSING PATTERNSUnadjusted Paid Loss Development Method Accident Months of Development Year122436Ultimate 1996 $1,000 $4,000 $6,000 $6,000 1997 1,000 3,500 5,250 1998 750 4,223 12-2424-3636-Ult Age - Age 3.75 1.50 1.00 Age - Ultimate 5.63 1.50 1.00 Slide 13

  15. CLAIM CLOSING PATTERNS Accident Reported Claims Year122436Ultimate 1996 500 900 1,000 1,000 1997 480 880 980 1998 450 900 Accident Closed Claims Year122436 1996 250 810 1,000 1997 240 704 1998 180 Slide 14

  16. CLAIM CLOSING PATTERNS Accident Closed / Reported Year122436 1996 50.0% 90.0% 100.0% 1997 50.0% 80.0% 1998 40.0% Accident Closed / Ultimate Year122436 1996 25.0% 81.0% 100.0% 1997 24.5% 71.8% 1998 20.0% Slide 15

  17. CLAIM CLOSING PATTERNS Accident Adjusted Closing Percent Year122436 1996 20.0% 71.8% 100.0% 1997 20.0% 71.8% 1998 20.0% Accident Adjusted Closed Claims Year122436 1996 200 718* 1,000 1997 196 704 1998 180 * 718 = 71.8% x 1,000 Slide 16

  18. CLAIM CLOSING PATTERNS - AY 1996 Actual Adjusted Actual Adjusted Closed Closed Paid Paid AgeClaimsClaimsLossesLosses 0 0 0 $0 $0 12 250 200 1,000 ? 24 810 718 4,000 ? 36 1,000 1,000 6,000 ? Slide 17

  19. CLAIM CLOSING PATTERNSLinear Interpolation of Adjusted Paid Losses AY = 1996 200 - 0 x (1,000 - 0) + 0 = 800 @ 12 Months 250 - 0 AY = 1996 718 - 250 x (4,000 - 1,000) + 1,000 = 3,507 @ 24 Months 810 - 250 AY = 1997 196 - 0 x (1,000 - 0) + 0 = 817 @ 12 Months 240 - 0 Slide 18

  20. CLAIM CLOSING PATTERNSAdjusted Paid Loss Development Method Accident Months of Development Year122436Ultimate 1996 $800 $3,507 $6,000 $6,000 1997 817 3,500 5,985 1998 750 5,550 12-2424-3636-Ult Age - Age 4.33 1.71 1.00 Age - Ultimate 7.40 1.71 1.00 Slide 19

  21. CLAIM CLOSING PATTERNSImpact of Adjustment Accident Revised Original YearForecastForecastDifference 1996 $6,000 $6,000 $0 1997 5,985 5,250 735 1998 5,5504,2231,327 Total $17,535 $15,473 $2,062 Slide 20

  22. CLAIM CLOSING PATTERNS Step 1: Review Closing Rates to Determine Whether There Has Been a Change Step 2: Seek Independent Confirmation That a Change Occurred Step 3: Restate Historical Closed Claims Using Current Closing Rates Step 4: Restate Historical Paid Losses Using Restated Closed Claims Step 5: Apply Standard Loss Development Method To Restated Paid Losses Slide 21

  23. CASE RESERVE ADEQUACYClaim Data Accident Reported Claims Year122436Ultimate 1996 5,000 8,000 10,000 10,000 1997 5,000 8,000 10,000 1998 5,000 10,000 Accident Closed Claims Year122436Ultimate 1996 1,000 6,000 10,000 10,000 1997 1,000 6,000 10,000 1998 1,000 10,000 Slide 22

  24. CASE RESERVE ADEQUACYLoss Data Accident Incurred Losses ($000) Projected Year122436Ultimate 1996 $10,000 $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 1997 10,000 45,000 56,250 1998 10,417 55,340 Accident Paid Losses ($000) Projected Year122436Ultimate 1996 $2,000 $24,000 $50,000 $50,000 1997 2,500 30,000 62,500 1998 3,125 78,125 The Issue: What Is Driving The Divergence? Slide 23

  25. CASE RESERVE ADEQUACY STEP 1: Review Paid-To-Incurred Triangles: Accident Months of Development Year 12 24 36 . 1996 20% 60% 100% 1997 25% 67% 1998 30% Does the Change in These Ratios Portray a Speed-Up in Payments, a Decrease in Case Reserve Adequacy, or Both? Slide 24

  26. CASE RESERVE ADEQUACY STEP 2: Review Settlement Rates (No. Closed/No. Reported) Accident Settlement Rate Year 12 24 36 . 1996 20% 75% 100% 1997 20% 75% 1998 20% Observation: The settlement rates appear to be consistent. Slide 25

  27. CASE RESERVE ADEQUACY STEP 3: Review Trends in Average Paid Claims Versus Trends in Average Case Reserves Accident Average PaidAverage Case Reserves Year 12 24 12 24 . 1996 $2,000 $4,000 $2,000 $8,000 1997 2,500 5,000 1,875 7,500 1998 3,125 1,823 Trend 25% 25% -4.5% -6.3% Observations: Case reserve trend is much lower than paid trend. Slide 26

  28. CASE RESERVE ADEQUACYSTEP 4: Review Potential Reasons For Observed Trends • Is the book shifting to a lower severity mix? • Have policy limits and/or reinsurance retentions kept pace with claims inflation? • Has anything material changed in the handling of claims? - Turnover in claim department staff - Changes in philosophy If you conclude there has been case reserve weakening (or . strengthening), the data should be adjusted. Slides 28-30 give . one approach. Slide 27

  29. CASE RESERVE ADEQUACY STEP 5: Adjust Historical Case Reserves to Current Adequacy Levels Accident Adjusted Average Case Reserves Year 12 24 36 . 1996 $1,166 $6,000 $0 1997 1,458 7,500 1998 1,823 Examples: $6,000 = $7,500 / 1.25 $1,116 = $1,823 / (1.25 ^ 2) ASSUME: 25% is the Actual Rate of Claim Inflation Slide 28

  30. CASE RESERVE ADEQUACY Adjust Paid to Number Adjusted Formula Incurred = Date + of x Average Losses Losses Open Case Reserves AY = 1996 @ 12 Months 6,664 = 2,000 + (4,000 x 1.166) AY = 1996 @ 24 Months 36,000 = 24,000 + (2,000 x 6.000) AY = 1997 @ 12 Months 8,332 = 2,500 + (4,000 x 1.458) Note: All dollar amounts are in thousands. Slide 29

  31. CASE RESERVE ADEQUACY STEP 6: Project Ultimate Losses Using Adjusted Incurred Losses and Standard Loss Development Method Accident Adjusted Incurred Losses ($000) Year 12 24 36 Ultimate . 1996 $6,664 $36,000 $50,000 $50,000 1997 8,332 45,000 62,500 1998 10,417 78,125 Slide 30

  32. CASE RESERVE ADJUSTMENTComparison of Estimates Original Original Revised Accident Incurred Paid Incurred YearEstimateEstimateEstimate 1996 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 1997 56,250 62,500 62,500 1998 55,340 78,125 78,125 Slide 31

  33. TAIL FACTORSThe Need For Tail Factors Accident Reported Claims . Year96108120132144 1987 243 247 250 252 253 1988 250 256 261 264 . Accident Open Claims . Year96108120132144 1987 55 45 35 25 15 1988 60 53 44 31 Accident Incurred Losses . Year96108120132144 1987 341,500 413,200 462,800 495,200 515,000 1988 366,200 443,100 496,300 531,000 IT APPEARS LOSS DEVELOPMENT WILL CONTINUE BEYOND THE ENDPOINT OF THE DATA. Slide 32

  34. TAIL FACTOR SELECTION METHODSTechniques To Derive Tail Factors 1. Examine broader data sources: e.g. ISO, NCCI, RAA, Best’s (Caution: Learn the limitations of such data.) 2. Curve Fitting 3. “Generalized Bondy Method” which assumes that the age-to-age factors are . decaying at a constant rate over time. Example: Determine a tail factor based on the following observed age-to-age factors (LDFs). 96-108 108-120 120-132 132-144 LDFLDFLDF LDF 1.210 1.120 1.070 1.040 Slide 33

  35. TAIL FACTOR SELECTIONUsing Generalized Bondy Method To Calculate Tail Factors (1) (2)=Ln(1) (3)=(2)/(2 prior) (4)MonthsActual LDFs Ln(Actual)Decay RatioPredicted LDFs 96-108 1.210 0.191108-120 1.120 0.113 0.595 120-132 1.070 0.068 0.597132-144 1.040 0.039 0.580144-156 1.024=(1.040)0.600156-168 1.014=(1.024)0.600168-180 1.008=(1.014)0.600Selected Decay Ratio 0.600Tail Factor (144 months to Ultimate) 1.061=(1.040)1.500 Notes: 1. This method can be misleading when decay rates are unstable. 2. The tail factor is very sensitive to the last selected age-to-age factor.Slide 34

  36. TAIL FACTORSWhen To Use These Different Approaches To Tail Factors SituationPossible Sources Reinsurance lines RAA Data Standard Workers Compensation line NCCI Unusual line where industry data is Curve fitting or Bondy difficult to obtain, e.g. aviation Company’s own data is unstable or not Industry Data credible, or a start-up line Slide 35

  37. TAIL FACTORSHow Much Tail Can There Be In Development In Reinsured Layers? Line of Selected Cumulative Age to Ultimate Factors*. Business15 Years to Ult.25 Years to Ult. W.C. Treaty 1.582 1.149 G.L. Treaty 1.234 1.030 A.L. Treaty 1.021 1.000 * Based on RAA Data. Slide 36

  38. TAIL FACTORSSome Examples of WhyDevelopment Occurs Beyond 10 Years LINEREASONS Products and Issues complex (Who’s liable? How to prove the Pollution/Environmental injury was caused by the product? Date of loss?) Workers Compensation Occupational Disease. Life pension cases, with . escalation clauses in some states Medical Malpractice Delayed manifestation, with subsequent complex issues Slide 37

More Related