1 / 12

Capital Allocation BAD

Capital Allocation BAD. Donald Mango, FCAS, MAAA American Re-Insurance CAS 2002 Ratemaking Seminar. Topic Du Jour. Gary Venter’s “ Allocating Surplus—Not! ” in the February 2002 Actuarial Review:

powersl
Télécharger la présentation

Capital Allocation BAD

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. Capital Allocation BAD Donald Mango, FCAS, MAAA American Re-Insurance CAS 2002 Ratemaking Seminar

  2. Topic Du Jour • Gary Venter’s “Allocating Surplus—Not!” in the February 2002 Actuarial Review: • “…actually trying to use allocated surplus to make business decisions is a risky undertaking and can easily lead to wrong conclusions.”

  3. Why BAD? • Not so much bad as backward • Philosophically unsound • Based on the wrong analytic framework co-opted from manufacturing industries

  4. Philosophically Unsound • Capital is anAGGREGATE PHENOMENON that only has meaning for the Portfolio in total • Our product is Claims-paying ability in total, as a Going Concern • We CAN allocate it, but I don’t think we SHOULD

  5. Wrong Framework • The old Brealey-Myers “invest capital to build widgets” • Up-front capital, known, invested as a cost of production • Future revenues are uncertain • Risk-adjusted discounting • Release (return) capital and calculate an IRR

  6. Manufacturer: “Capital allocation” = current spending of a known amount Invests Capital into production of goods Knows its costs Doesn’t know it’s revenue Insurer: “Capital allocation” = completely theoretical exercise Cost of production = viable claims-paying ability + U/W staff Knows its revenue Doesn’t know its costs Wrong Framework

  7. Wrong Framework • For current underwriting activities, what we are really allocating (spending) is (possibly) FUTURE CAPITAL • Current Capital is already spoken for by the reserves !! • Given this fundamental difference, should we call it the Claims Paying Reservoir™, and not allocate it?

  8. Portfolio Risk is What Matters • Assess product line profitability against risk when aggregated with your own portfolio • Include as many risk sources as you can model • A Portfolio Risk Model • Call it DFA, ERM, whatever you like

  9. Portfolio Risk Must Include… • Reserves = “the Wake” • “Chomp on Comp” • Ongoing Business = “the Franchise” • Contingence, Path Dependence, Real Options, Market Flexibility • Moving away from “I.I.D. samples” • Assets and Economic scenarios • Hypothesized Dependence relationships

  10. Actual Recommendation • Cost of Capital is a calendar year overhead expense load as a percent of premium on ongoing product lines • Balance to a total that is tied to reality • It’s no more mismatched than any other overhead expense loading • Allocate all costs and revenues to product lines  Economic Value Added

  11. Actual Recommendation • Cost of Capital loading should be proportional to “Risk” reflecting: • Accumulations in your portfolio (financial risk management) • Systemic mis-pricing risk (parameter risk, forecast volatility) • Reserve conflagration (model risk of BornFerg) • Downside, not volatility • Dependence on economic variables • Real options embedded in market decisions

  12. Influence the Underwriting • “Any plan is better than no plan” – Sun Tzu • Any of these approaches can work • Reduce the fancy stuff to linear approximations = F9 • Right-size the effort – resist the temptation • Operate on at most a planning cycle • Success = impact on underwriting decisions • Focus on marketing and politics as well as science

More Related