Intermediate Track II: September 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota
Intermediate Track II: September 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota
Intermediate Track II: September 2000 Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 2000
Minneapolis, Minnesota
2000 CLRS 1
This Session Will Discuss
1. Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method
2000 CLRS 2
BORNHUETTER-
FERGUSON
METHOD
2000 CLRS 3
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method
Summary:
Project IBNR based on expected losses and the
percentage of ultimate losses which are currently
unreported.
2000 CLRS 5
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method
Assumptions
Earned Premium = $1,250
Incurred Losses = $600
Expected Loss Ratio = 65%
CDF = 1.35
(derived from incurred loss development
triangle)
2000 CLRS 6
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method
CDF = 1.350
IBNR Factor = [1 - 1/1.350] = 26%
2000 CLRS 8
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method
2000 CLRS 9
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method
2000 CLRS 10
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method
Advantages
Easy to use
Compromises between loss development and expected
loss ratio methods
Avoid overreaction - doesnt apply development factors
to an unusual claim occurrence
Suitable for new or volatile lines of business
Can be used with no internal loss history
Can also be used with paid data
2000 CLRS 11
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method
Disadvantages
2000 CLRS 12
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method
Comparison of Methods
Given:
Earned Premium = $2,000
Expected Loss Ratio = 70 %
Incurred Losses to Date = $750
Development Factor = 2.00
2000 CLRS 13
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method
2000 CLRS 14
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method
Comparison of Methods:
Illustration of Tempering Effect
Given:
One additional large claim of $150
Incurred Losses to Date = $900
2000 CLRS 15
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method
2000 CLRS 16
AVERAGE
HINDSIGHT
METHOD
2000 CLRS 17
Average Hindsight Method
Summary:
2000 CLRS 18
Average Hindsight Method
Data Needed
2000 CLRS 19
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 20
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 21
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 22
Average Hindsight Method
XYZ Auto Insurance Company
Development of Paid Losses
Months of Development
Acc Year 12-24 24-36 36-48 48-60 60-72 72-84 84-Ult
1993 1.600 1.228 1.098 1.050 1.035 1.021 1.000
1994 1.611 1.222 1.103 1.045 1.032
1995 1.591 1.224 1.105 1.053
1996 1.601 1.225 1.093
1997 1.601 1.230
1998 1.593
2000 CLRS 23
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 24
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 25
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 26
Average Hindsight Method
XYZ Auto Insurance Company
Development of Closed Claims
Months of Development
Acc Year 12-24 24-36 36-48 48-60 60-72 72-84 84-Ult
1993 1.500 1.173 1.068 1.032 1.021 1.010 1.000
1994 1.509 1.169 1.072 1.029 1.019
1995 1.492 1.170 1.073 1.034
1996 1.500 1.171 1.065
1997 1.500 1.175
1998 1.495
2000 CLRS 27
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 28
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 29
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 30
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 31
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 32
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 33
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 34
Average Hindsight Method
XYZ Auto Insurance Company
Calculation of Future Payment per Claim - 24 Months to Ultimate
(2) 1994-1996 ultimates from Slide 24, 1997 ultimate from Slide 32
2000 CLRS 35
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 36
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 37
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 38
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 39
Average Hindsight Method
(2) 1995-1996 ultimates from Slide 24, 1997 from Slide 32, 1998 from Slide
37
2000 CLRS 40
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 41
Average Hindsight Method
2000 CLRS 42
Average Hindsight Method
Advantages
Relatively unaffected by changes in case reserving
practices
Can easily adjust trend assumptions
Allows separate analysis of frequency and severity
Disadvantages
Sensitive to payment pattern shifts
Averages highly variable when only a few claims
May be insufficient if business has significantly changed
(i.e. retentions dramatically increase)
Too formula-driven
2000 CLRS 43
AVERAGE
INCREMENTAL
PAID
METHOD
2000 CLRS 44
Average Incremental Paid Method
Summary:
Estimate the expected ultimate losses for recent
accident years based on average incremental paid
values per claim.
2000 CLRS 45
Average Incremental Paid Method
Data Needed:
2000 CLRS 46
Average Incremental Paid Method
12-24 column = Slide 24, column 3 (24 mos) - column 2 (12 mos)
2000 CLRS 48
Average Incremental Paid Method
2000 CLRS 49
Average Incremental Paid Method
Step 1
2000 CLRS 50
Average Incremental Paid Method
2000 CLRS 51
Average Incremental Paid Method
Step 2
2000 CLRS 52
Average Incremental Paid Method
2000 CLRS 53
Average Incremental Paid Method
Step 3
2000 CLRS 54
Average Incremental Paid Method
2000 CLRS 55
Average Incremental Paid Method
Step 4
2000 CLRS 56
Average Incremental Paid Method
XYZ Auto Insurance Company
Incremental Paid Losses per Ultimate Claim (Projected)
2000 CLRS 57
Average Incremental Paid Method
Step 5
2000 CLRS 58
Average Incremental Paid Method
Projected
Paid Loss Projected Projected Projected Ultimate
Accident Per Ult. Claim Future Average Ultimate Losses
Year as of 12/99 Severity Severity Claims (000's)
(1) (2)=see below (3)=Slide 57 (4)=(2)+(3) (5)=Slide 47 (6)=(4)x(5)
1993 $1,197 $0 $1,197 100 $119.7
1994 1,281 27 1,308 110 144.0
1995 1,361 75 1,436 126 180.5
1996 1,414 152 1,567 139 218.2
1997 1,411 306 1,717 160 275.5
1998 1,259 613 1,873 185 347.1
1999 862 1,179 2,041 210 428.6
(2) = Slide 51, summed across
row
2000 CLRS 59
Average Incremental Paid Method
Advantages
Allows separate analysis of frequency and severity trends
Can be modified to account for changes affecting accident
year severity (e.g. deductibles, benefit changes)
Model can accommodate different trends by accident year,
calendar year or development age.
Disadvantages
Very dependent upon estimate of future inflation rates
Less accurate for low frequency lines of business
Could be distorted if payout patterns change
2000 CLRS 60