Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T06:39:02.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EFFICIENT COMPUTATION AND THE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF FINITE-TIME RUIN PROBABILITIES AND THE ESTIMATION OF RISK-BASED REGULATORY CAPITAL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2016

Mark S. Joshi  and
Dan Zhu
Mark S. Joshi*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Melbourne, Level 4/111 Barry Street Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia
Dan Zhu
Affiliation:
Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics, Monash University, Building H, 900 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East, Victoria 3145, Australia E-Mail: danzhu918@gmail.com
*
E-Mail: mark.joshi@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Solvency regulations require financial institutions to hold initial capital so that ruin is a rare event. An important practical problem is to estimate the regulatory capital so the ruin probability is at the regulatory level, typically with less than 0.1% over a finite-time horizon. Estimating probabilities of rare events is challenging, since naive estimations via direct simulations of the surplus process is not feasible. In this paper, we present a stratified sampling algorithm for estimating finite-time ruin probabilities. We further introduce a sequence of measure changes to remove the pathwise discontinuities of the estimator, and compute unbiased first and second-order derivative estimates of the finite-time ruin probabilities with respect to both distributional and structural parameters. We then estimate the regulatory capital and its sensitivities. These estimates provide information to insurance companies for meeting prudential regulations as well as designing risk management strategies. Numerical examples are presented for the classical model, the Sparre Andersen model with interest and the periodic risk model with interest to demonstrate the speed and efficacy of our methodology.

Keywords

Sensitivity analysisruin probabilitiesMonte Carlorisk-based capital
Type
Research Article
Information
ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 431 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © Astin Bulletin 2016 

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

Aldrich, E.M., Fernández-Villaverde, J., Ronald, A.G. and Rubio-Ramírez, J.F. (2011) Tapping the supercomputer under your desk: Solving dynamic equilibrium models with graphics processors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 35 (3), 386–393.Google Scholar
Asmussen, S. and Binswanger, K. (1997) Simulation of ruin probabilities for subexponential claims. Astin Bulletin, 27 (02), 297–318.Google Scholar
Asmussen, S. and Glynn, P.W. (2007) Stochastic Simulation: Algorithms and Analysis, volume 57. Springer Science & Business Media. New York, USA.Google Scholar
Asmussen, S. and Kroese, P.D. (2006) Improved algorithms for rare event simulation with heavy tails. Advances in Applied Probability, 38 (2), 545–558.Google Scholar
Asmussen, S. and Rolski, T. (1994) Risk theory in a periodic environment: The cramer-lundberg approximation and lundberg's inequality. Mathematics of Operations Research, 19 (2), 410–433.Google Scholar
Asmussen, S. and Rubinstein, R.Y. (1999) Sensitivity analysis of insurance risk model via simulation. Management Science, 45 (8), 1125–1141.Google Scholar
Blanchet, J. and Glynn, P. (2008) Efficient rare-event simulation for the maximum of heavy-tailed random walks. The Annals of Applied Probability, 18 (4), 1351–1378.Google Scholar
Blanchet, J. and Lam, H. (2012) State-dependent importance sampling for rare-event simulation: An overview and recent advances. Surveys in Operations Research and Management Science, 17 (1), 38–59.Google Scholar
Chan, J.H. and Joshi, M.S. (2015) Optimal limit methods for computing sensitivities of discontinuous integrals including triggerable derivative securities. IIE Transactions, 47 (9).Google Scholar
Čížek, P., Härdle, W.K. and Weron, R. (2011) Stochatic Tools for Finance and Insurance. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Cocozza, R. and Di Lorenzo, E. (2006) Solvency of life insurance companies: Methodological issues. Journal of Actuarial Practice, 13, 81–101.Google Scholar
De Vylder, F.E. (1999) Numerical finite time ruin probabilities by the picard-lefévre formula. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 1999 (2), 97–105.Google Scholar
Dean, T. and Dupuis, P. (2009) Splitting for rare event simulation: A large deviation approach to design and analysis. Stochastic processes and their applications, 119 (2), 562–587.Google Scholar
Dean, T. and Dupuis, P. (2011) The design and analysis of a generalized restart/dpr algorithm for rare event simulation. Annals of Operations Research, 189 (1), 63–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, D.C.M. (2007) Some finite time ruin problems. Annals of Actuarial Science, 2 (2), 217–232.Google Scholar
Dickson, D.C.M. and Willmot, E. (2005a) The density of the time to ruin in the classical poisson risk model. Astin Bulletin, 35 (1), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, D.C.M. and Willmot, G.E. (2005b) The density of the time to ruin in the classical poisson risk model. Astin Bulletin, 35 (1), 45–60.Google Scholar
Giles, M. and Glasserman, P. (2006) Smoking adjoints: Fast monte carlo greeks. Risk, 19 (1), 92–96.Google Scholar
Glasserman, P. (1991) Structural conditions for perturbation analysis derivative estimation: Finite-time performance indices. Operations Research, 35 (5), 724–738.Google Scholar
Glasserman, P. (2004) Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Glasserman, P., Heidelberger, P. and Shahabuddin, P. (1999a) Asymptotically optimal importance sampling and stratification for pricing path-dependent options. Mathematical Finance, 9 (2), 117–152.Google Scholar
Glasserman, P., Heidelberger, P., Shahabuddin, P. and Zajic, T. (1999b) Multilevel splitting for estimating rare event probabilities. Operations Research, 47 (4), 585–600.Google Scholar
Griewank, A. and Walther, A. (2008) Evaluating derivatives: Principles and Techniques of Algorithmic Differentiation. Siam, Philadelphia USA.Google Scholar
Hardy, M.R. (1993) Stochastic simulation in life office solvency assessment. Journal of the Institute of Actuaries, 120 (1), 131–151.Google Scholar
Joshi, M.S. (2014) Kooderive: Multi-core graphics cards, the libor market model, least-squares monte carlo and the pricing of cancellable swaps. URL Available at SSRN 2388415.Google Scholar
Joshi, M.S. and Kainth, D.S. (2003) Rapid and accurate development of prices and Greeks for nth to default credit swaps in the Li model. Quantitative Finance, 4 (3), 458–469.Google Scholar
Joshi, M.S. and Pitt, D. (2010) Fast sensitivity computations for monte carlo valuation of pension funds. Astin Bulletin, 40 (2), 655–667.Google Scholar
Joshi, M.S. and Yang, C. (2010) Algorithmic hessians and the fast computation of cross-gamma risk. IIE Transactions, 43 (12), 878–892.Google Scholar
Joshi, M.S. and Zhu, D. (2014a) Optimal partial proxy method for computing gammas of financial products with discontinuous and angular payoff. URL Available at SSRN 2431580.Google Scholar
Joshi, M.S. and Zhu, D. (2014b) An exact method for sensitivity analysis of systems simulated by rejection techniques. URL Available at SSRN 2488376.Google Scholar
Khinchin, A.Y. (1967) The mathematical theory of a stationary queue. Technical report, DTIC Document.Google Scholar
Konstantinides, D., Tang, Q. H. and Tsitsiashvili, G. (2002) Estimates for the ruin probability in the classical risk model with constant interest force in the presence of heavy tails. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 31 (3), 447–460.Google Scholar
Loisel, S. and Privault, N. (2009) Sensitivities analysis and density estimation for finite-time ruin probabilities. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 230 (1), 107–120.Google Scholar
Morales, M. (2004) On a surplus process under a periodic environment: A simulation approach. North American Actuarial Journal, 8 (4), 76–89.Google Scholar
Peterson, L.L. and Davie, B.S. (2007) Computer Networks: A Systems Approach. Burlington, USA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Picard, P. and Lefévre, C. (1997) The probability of ruin in finite time with discrete claim size distribtuion. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 1997 (1), 58–69.Google Scholar
Pollaczek, F. (1930) Über eine aufgabe der wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie. I. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 32 (1), 64–100.Google Scholar
Privault, N. and Wei, X. (2004) A malliavin calculus approach to sensitivity analysis in insurance. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 35 (3), 679–690.Google Scholar
Rolski, T., Schmidil, H., Schmidt, V. and Teugels, J. (1999) Stochatic Processes for Insurance and Finance. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ross, S.M. (2006) Simulation. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rubino, G. and Tuffin, B. (2009) Rare Event Simualtion using Monte-Carlo Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Sparre Andersen, E. (1957) On the collective theory of risk in case of contagion between the claims. Transactions of the XV International Congress of Actuaries, 2, 219–229.Google Scholar
Sundt, B. and Teugels, L. (1995) Ruin estimates under interest force. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Stastistics, 16 (1), 7–22.Google Scholar
Vazquez-Abad, F.J. (2000) Rpa pathwise derivative estimation of ruin probabilities. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 26 (2), 269–288.Google Scholar
Villen-Altamirano, M. and Villen-Atamirano, J. (1991) Restart: A method for accelerating rare event simulations. In Queueing, Performance and Control in ATM (eds. Cohen, J. W. and Pack, C. D.), pp. 71–76. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Sci.Google Scholar