Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:04:52.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Optimal design of a bonus-malus system: linear relativities revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2015

Chong It Tan*
Affiliation:
Research School of Finance, Actuarial Studies & Statistics, Australian National University, Australia
*
*Correspondence to: Chong It Tan, Research School of Finance, Actuarial Studies & Statistics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. Tel: +612 6125 5458; Fax: +612 6125 0087; E-mail: chongit.tan@anu.edu.au

Abstract

In this paper, we revisit the determination of optimal relativities under the linear form of relativities that is more viable in designing a commercial bonus-malus system. We derive the analytical formulae for the optimal linear relativities subject to a financial balanced inequality constraint. We also numerically investigate the impact of different a priori risk classification towards the effectiveness of transition rules. Our results show that the a priori risk segmentation is not a sensitive factor for the effectiveness of transition rules. Furthermore, relative to the general relativities, we find that the restriction of linear relativities only produces a small amount of deterioration towards the numerical value of the optimised objective function.

Type
Papers
Copyright
© Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2015 

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

Baione, F., Levantesi, S. & Menzieti, M. (2002). The development of an optimal bonus-malus system in a competitive market. ASTIN Bulletin, 32(1), 159170.Google Scholar
Coene, G. & Doray, L.G. (1996). A financially balanced bonus-malus system. ASTIN Bulletin, 26(1), 107116.Google Scholar
De Jong, P. & Heller, G.Z. (2008). Generalized Linear Models for Insurance Data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denuit, M., Maréchal, X., Pitrebois, S. & Walhin, J.-F. (2007). Actuarial Modelling of Claim Counts: Risk Classification, Credibility and Bonus-Malus Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
Dionne, G. & Vanasse, C. (1989). A generalization of actuarial automobile insurance rating models: the negative binomial distribution with a regression component. ASTIN Bulletin, 19(2), 199212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilde, V. & Sundt, B. (1989). On bonus systems with credibility scales. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 1989(1), 1322.Google Scholar
Lemaire, J. (1995). Bonus-Malus Systems in Automobile Insurance. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Lemaire, J., Park, S. & Wang, K. (2015). The impact of covariates on a bonus-malus system: an application of Taylor’s model. European Actuarial Journal, 5(1), 110.Google Scholar
McCullagh, P. & Nelder, J.A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norberg, R. (1976). A credibility theory for automobile bonus system. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 1976(2), 92107.Google Scholar
Pitrebois, S., Denuit, M. & Walhin, J.-F. (2003). Setting a bonus-malus scale in the presence of other rating factors: Taylor’s work revisited. ASTIN Bulletin, 33(2), 419436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitrebois, S., Denuit, M. & Walhin, J.-F. (2004). Bonus-malus scales in segmented tariffs: Gilde & Sundt’s work revisited. Australian Actuarial Journal, 10(1), 107125.Google Scholar
Tan, C.I., Li, J., Li, J.S.-H. & Balasooriya, U. (2015). Optimal relativities and transition rules of a bonus-malus system. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 61, 255263.Google Scholar
Taylor, G. (1997). Setting a bonus-malus scale in the presence of other rating factors. ASTIN Bulletin, 27(2), 319327.Google Scholar
Yip, K.C.H. & Yau, K.K.W. (2005). On modeling claim frequency data in general insurance with extra zeros. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 36(2), 153163.Google Scholar