Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:03:06.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Run-Off Risk as a Part of Claims Fluctuation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2014

T. Pentikäinen*
Affiliation:
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Helsinki
J. Rantala*
Affiliation:
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Helsinki
*
Kasavuorentie 12 C 9, 02700 Kaumainen, Finland
The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Bulevardi 28, 01200 Helsinki 12, Finland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A conventional practice in standard risk theory considerations has been to assume that claims are paid immediately as they have incurred (see BPP, item 3.1c, BPP is used as an abbreviation for the book “Risk Theory”, 1984 edition, by Beard, Pentikäinen, Pesonen). The delay of the claims settlement has been, of course, a central aspect in reserve calculation theory and practices, and numerous valuable works have been published on this topic in recent years. However, its regard in general model building and in risk theory considerations has gained little attention until recent years. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to this research work by discussing how the “run-off” risk, i.e., the variability due to the delay of the claims payment, could be incorporated into the standard risk theory models as a separate entry (see BPP, item 10.2e) and to find some evaluation of the order of magnitude of the “extra” (if any) fluctuation so rendered. We expect that the proposed technique can also be utilized in testing different reserve calculation methods and in comparing their effectiveness. The main ideas follow very much along the lines given by Rantala in his doctoral thesis (1984).

One should appreciate the fact that any risk theory model can never be more than an idealization of real-life processes. An intricate problem for practitioners is to evaluate the uncertainties ensuing from the fact that the model, more or less, ignores or only approximates the factors affecting the real events, and that the practical applications are often based on and their necessary parameters estimated from observed data that are subject to random fluctuations and to many other kinds of uncertainties. The problem complex of the run-off risk, when understood in a broad sense, is so wide that it requires a series of studies, and this paper should be regarded as a first step only. The posing of the problem follows the conventional risk theory approach by using the mixed compound Poisson process further allowing for long-term variations of risk exposure (“cycles”), and now extending the model to cope with the delayed settlement of the claims. At this stage of the on-going researchwork the impact of the parameter estimation is excluded from consideration. Therefore, our results and the numerical examples, as given in what follows, do not describe the total uncertainty of the claims or the reserves.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © International Actuarial Association 1986

References

Beard, R. E., Pentikäinen, T. and Pesonen, E. (1984) Risk Theory. Chapman & Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benktander, G. (1976) An Approach to Credibility in Calculating IBNR for Casualty Excess Reinsurance. The Actuarial Review.Google Scholar
Coutts, S. M., Devitt, E. R. F. and Ross, G. A. F. (1984) A Probabilistic Approach to Assessing the Financial Strength of a General Insurance Company. Transactions of the 22nd International Congress of Actuaries.Google Scholar
Daykin, C. (1984) The Development of Concepts of Adequacy and Solvency in Non-life Insurance in the EEC. Transactions of the 22nd International Congress of Actuaries.Google Scholar
Daykin, C., Devitt, E. R. F., Khan, M. R. and McCaughan, J. P. (1984) The Solvency of General Insurance Companies. Journal of the Institute Actuaries, 111, II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daykin, C. and Bernstein, G. (1985) A Simulation Model to Examine Questions of Solvency in the Light of Asset and Run-off Risks. ASTIN Colloquium.Google Scholar
GISG Working Party (1983) Report on Outstanding Claims Reserve. Discussion paper.Google Scholar
Hovinen, E. (1981) Additive and Continuous IBNR. Presented at ASTIN Colloquium.Google Scholar
Hovinen, E. (1984) Technical Reserves in KANSA Group. Report printed by Kansa Corporation, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Karlsson, J. C. (1974). A Stochastic Model for Time-lag in Reporting Claims. Journal of Applied Probability, 11, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nationale Nederlande (1981) Loss Reserving Methods. Actuarial Studies 1.Google Scholar
Norberg, R. (1985) A Contribution to Modelling of IBNR Claims. Statistical Research Report 4, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Pentikäinen, T. (1986) On the Solvency of Insurers. Presented at the International Conference on Insurance Solvency, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Pentikäinen, T. and Rantala, J. (1982) Solvency of Insurers and Equalization Reserves. Insurance Publishing Company, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Philipson, C. (1965) Evaluation of Outstanding Liabilities. ASTIN Bulletin.Google Scholar
Rantala, J. (1983) Estimation of IBNR Claims. Acta Universitatis Tamperenses, A, 153.Google Scholar
Rantala, J. (1984) An Application of Stochastic Control Theory to Insurance Business. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, A, 164 (Academic dissertation).Google Scholar
Taylor, G. C. (1986) Claims Reserving in Non-Life Insurance. North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Wilkie, A. D. (1984) Using a Stochastic Model to Estimate the Distribution of Real Rates Return on Ordinary Shares. Transactions of the 22nd Congress of Actuaries.Google Scholar