Difference between revisions of "Friedland10.CapeCod"
(→Example A: Intro to the CC Method) |
(→Example A: Intro to the CC Method) |
||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | Below are a couple of relatively easy practice problems. Note there is 1 extra step in these problems because you have to apply the pure premium trend to the losses before calculating the ECR. '''Be careful''': If you're given a <u>pure premium</u> trend, remember that it applies to losses <u>not</u> | + | Below are a couple of relatively easy practice problems. Note there is 1 extra step in these problems because you have to apply the pure premium trend to the losses before calculating the ECR. '''Be careful''': If you're given a <u>pure premium</u> trend, remember that it applies to losses <u>not</u> premiums. Without digressing too much, from the pricing material, we learned '(or will learn)'' that: |
* frequency = counts / exposures | * frequency = counts / exposures | ||
Revision as of 13:08, 16 July 2020
Reading: Friedland, J.F., Estimating Unpaid Claims Using Basic Techniques, Casualty Actuarial Society, Third Version, July 2010. The Appendices are excluded.
Chapter 10: Cape Cod Method
Contents
Pop Quiz
Study Tips
BattleTable
Based on past exams, the main things you need to know (in rough order of importance) are:
- fact A...
- fact B...
reference part (a) part (b) part (c) part (d) E (2019.Fall #19) ultimate claims:
- reported Cape CodE (2019.Spring #18) ultimate claims:
- reported Cape Codidentify scenario:
- paid CC works betterE (2018.Spring #8) E (2017.Fall #21) ultimate:
- Cape CodE (2017.Spring #23) ultimate:
- paid devlptultimate:
- Cape CodE (2016.Spring #18) Cape Cod vs B-F:
- compareCape Cod vs B-F:
- adjustments to rptd lossCape Cod vs B-F:
- adjustments to EPcourt decision:
- identify best methodE (2015.Spring #17) IBNR:
- Cape Code adjustmentsE (2014.Spring #15) IBNR:
- B-FIBNR:
- Cape CodB-F vs Cape Cod:
- rising claims, thin dataE (2013.Fall #20) IBNR:
- Cape Cod
In Plain English!
Example A: Intro to the CC Method
Great news! You can cover the CC method pretty quickly because it's very similar to the BF method. The formulas for Ultr-BF and Ultr-CC look exactly the same as you can see below:
Ultr-BF = (reported claims) + %unreported x UltECR = (reported claims) + (1 – 1/CDF) x UltECR Ultr-CC = (reported claims) + %unreported x UltECR = (reported claims) + (1 – 1/CDF) x UltECR
The difference is in how UltECR is calculated.
- BF: You calculate UltECR using the ECR method. The ECR method does adjust for trend and tort reform but the final ECR selection is judgmental. For a quick refresher, see: ECR Method Trend Adjustment and ECR Method Tort Reform Adjustment.
- CC: You calculate UltECR using a formula. There is no judgment involved. The formula makes adjustments the losses for trends and tort reform but also makes adjustments to the EP.
Before we look at an easy example of the CC method, you need to understand the concept of used-up premium or UUP for short. Suppose you're given the data set below. Normally if you wanted an overall loss ratio, you'd first multiply the reported claims by the CDF, take the sum, then divide by the sum of the EP. If you check you'll see that works out to 110.4%. But now we're going to do it kinda backwards: Instead of multiplying the reported claims by their CDF, we divide the EP by the CDF as an alternate way of putting the claims and EP on the same level. This is shown in the table.
CY/AY reported
claimsCDF to ult EP UUP = EP / CDF 2023 750 1.5 1,000 667 = 1,000 / 1.5 2024 475 2.5 1,000 400 = 1,000 / 2.5 2025 250 4.0 1,000 250 = 1,000 / 4.0 total 1,475 -- 1,317
The CC method then uses 1,475 / 1,317 = 112.0% as the ECR. No judgment, it's just a formula. Note that that it doesn't match the 110.4% calculated above. It's close, but algebraically they are not equal. Friedland describes the concept of used-up premium as follows:
The used-up premium represents the premium corresponding to the claims that are expected to be reported through the valuation date.
Below are a couple of relatively easy practice problems. Note there is 1 extra step in these problems because you have to apply the pure premium trend to the losses before calculating the ECR. Be careful: If you're given a pure premium trend, remember that it applies to losses not premiums. Without digressing too much, from the pricing material, we learned '(or will learn) that:
- frequency = counts / exposures
- severity = dollars / counts
Then if
- pure premium = dollars / exposures
by simple algebra we have
- pure premium = frequency x severity
(It's a common mistake to apply the pure premium trend to the premiums.)
Example B: A Hard CC Problem
Once you understand the basic version of the CC method, here's a harder problem for you to try. It's harder for 2 reasons:
- they don't give you the rate level adjustment factors directly – you need knowledge of the pricing material to calculate them yourself
- they don't give the CDFs (Cumulative Development Factors) – you have to calculate them yourself from the data triangle but it's very tricky because you first have to adjust the triangle to take into account the tort reform
Give it a try before you watch the video. Part (a) is an application of the paid development method but you have to that before you do the CC method in part (b)
- E (2017.Spring #23)
CC Method Concepts
- similar to BF - difference is in how ECR is chosen
- BF uses results of ECR method (incorporates judgment)
- CC uses a formula (no judgment involved)
- often use in reinsurance (why?)
- assumption: unreported claims will develop based on expected claims
- ads:
- uses reported claims in the calculation of the ECR, therefore it will respond (at least partially) to changes in claims ratios
- (note that if the CR changes over time, increases or decreases, then this trend may not be reflected in the CC formula for ECR)
- disads:
- dependent on the availability and accuracy of the rate level adjustment factor (can use without adjusting for CRL but then lose accuracy)
- thin data increases volatility (should then use BF because we can incorporate judgment)