Friedland15.Evaluation

Reading: Friedland, J.F., Estimating Unpaid Claims Using Basic Techniques, Casualty Actuarial Society, Third Version, July 2010. The Appendices are excluded.

Chapter 15: Evaluation of Methods

Pop Quiz

Ian-the_Intern has a collision deductible of $100 and yesterday he backed into a fire hydrant causing $600 worth of damage to his car. His auto insurer has a 60% quota-share reinsurance treaty. What is his insurer's loss net of all deductibles and reinsurance? Click for Answer 

Study Tips

This is a really great chapter because it ties together concepts from all previous chapters. The only thing that's totally new is a formula for calculating expected emergence. There are 2 versions and they are both pretty easy:

• expected emergence of reported losses
• expected emergence of paid losses

Most of the exam questions from this chapter ask you to do one or more of the following:

• evaluate the accuracy of an estimate from a given reserving method
• identify a scenario that explains changes in estimates for a given reserving method between successive evaluation dates
• identify a scenario that explains differences in estimates between 2 different reserving methods
• suggest an adjustment or alternate method to improve accuracy of estimates

The best way to get the hang of answering these types of questions is to go through all old exam problems. There are a lot but don't let that scare you – many of them don't take long to do. It's a heavily tested chapter and is an excellent way to review concepts related the reserving methods from previous chapters.

Estimated study time: several days (not including subsequent review time)

BattleTable

Based on past exams, the main things you need to know (in rough order of importance) are:

• emergence

- calculate expected emergence for paid or reported claims or claim counts, with interpolation if necessary

- compare expected emergence to actual emergence and decide whether to revise estimate of ultimate

• impact of operational and external changes on reserving methods and estimates of ultimates
• assess validity of reserve estimates or methods in various situations
• identify scenario that is consistent with given information or explains differences between methods

reference	part (a)	part (b)	part (c)	part (d)
E (2019.Fall #25)	emergence: - of losses	emergence: - actuary's decision
E (2018.Spring #24)
E (2018.Spring #26)
E (2017.Fall #27)	assess method: - paid & rptd devlpt	assess method: - Freq-Sev, rptd BF	assess method: - paid devlpt, paid BF
E (2017.Fall #28)	assess CDFs: - devlpt, BF, Freq-Sev	assess ECR: - BF method
E (2017.Spring #21)	identify scenario: - consistent with results	identify scenario: - to explain difference	alternate method: - for part (a)	alternate method: - for part (b)
E (2017.Spring #26)	assess ECR: - BF method	method comparison: - to Benktander	investigating results: - questions for mgmt 1
E (2016.Fall #16)	Friedland05.Triangles	Friedland05.Triangles	Friedland06.Diagnostics	select method: - settlement rate change
E (2016.Fall #18)	BF ECR: - calculate	select method: - calculate unpaid	assess method: - ECR, paid BF, paid devlpt
E (2016.Fall #27)	emergence: - counts	emergence: - limitations
E (2016.Spring #24)	emergence: - losses	emergence: - actuary's decision
E (2016.Spring #25)	identify scenario: - to explain difference	identify scenario: - to explain difference
E (2015.Fall #19)	assumptions: - recommend changes	revise: - estimates	assess: - revised estimates
E (2015.Fall #22)	impact / solution: - long development pattern	impact / solution: - tort reform	impact / solution: - higher deductibles	impact / solution: - faster claims processing
E (2015.Fall #25)	emergence: - losses based on devlpt	emergence: - losses based on selected	emergence: - actuary's decision
E (2014.Fall #19)	impact / solution: - increasing case strength	impact / solution: - premium growth	impact / solution: - higher limits
E (2014.Fall #22)	emergence: - of losses	emergence: - linear interpolation issues
E (2014.Fall #24)	select method: - that will be accurate	select method: - that will over-estimate	select method: - that will under-estimate
E (2014.Spring #17)	impact (case strength): - on rptd development	impact (case strength): - on ECR method	impact (case strength): - on rptd BF method	impact (case strength): - on Cape Cod method
E (2014.Spring #22)	emergence: - of losses	emergence: - of losses	identify scenario: - re: actuary's decision	identify scenario: - re: actuary's decision
E (2013.Fall #18)
E (2013.Fall #24)
E (2013.Spring #21)
E (2013.Spring #22)
E (2013.Spring #26)

¹ See Friedland04.Meetings for potential questions.

In Plain English!

Selecting a Final Estimate

Suppose you get to the end of your reserve analysis and have estimates of ultimate from several different methods:

• insert example

E (2016.Spring #25)

use example to discuss concepts from chapter

Retroactive Testing

mentioned on p345, 348

High White: p352

Emergence Patterns

• formula...
• limitations of using emergence... see 2016.Fall #27

• non-linear emergence (linear interpolation of annual pattern to quarterly may not be accurate but quarterly to monthly may be ok solution use shorter time frames)
• if ultimate is not based on a development method then the CDFs from a development may not appropriate (use paid or reported divided ultimate to get pattern instead of CDFs)
• doesn't account for operational changes (Exs: change in mix of business, settlement rate, case strength) since projected emergence is based on historical patterns solution investigate operation changes then either select data that isn't affected or make adjustments to affected data to correct for distortions caused by operational changes

observation: paid and reported losses are generally skewed towards beginning of year because %paid and %reported curves are generally concave downward functions

POP QUIZ ANSWERS

• The insurer's loss net of Ian's deductible is $500.
• After the 60% quota-share reinsurance treaty is applied, the insurer's loss net of deductibles and reinsurance = 500 x 60% = $300

Go back