We previously introduced a method of deriving large loss claims inflation from a large loss claims bordereaux, and we then spent some time understanding how robust the method is depending on how much data we have, and how volatile the data is. In this post we're finally going to play around with making the method more accurate, rather than just poking holes in it. To do this, we are once again going to simulate data with a baked-in inflation rate (set to 5% here), and then we are going to vary the metric we are using to extract an estimate of the inflation from the data. In particular, we are going to look at using the Nth largest loss by year, where we will vary N from 1 - 20.

Photo by Julian Dik. I was recently in Losbon, so here is a cool photo of the city. Not really related to the blog post, but to be honest it's hard thinking of photos with some link to inflation, so I'm just picking nice photos as this point!

We've been playing around in the last few posts with the 'Nth largest' method of analysing claims inflation. I promised previously that I would look at the effect of increasing the volatility of our severity distribution when using the method, so that's what we are going to look at today. Interestingly it does have an effect, but it's actually quite a subdued one as we'll see.

I'm running out of  ideas for photos relating to inflation, so here's a cool random photo of New York instead. Photo by Ronny Rondon

In the last few posts I’ve been writing about deriving claims inflation using an ‘N-th largest loss’ method. The thought popped into my head after posting, that I’d made use of a normal approximation when thinking about a 95% confidence interval, when actually I already had the full Monte Carlo output, so could have just looked at the percentiles of the estimated inflation values directly. 

Below I amend the code slightly to just output this range directly.

Continuing my inflation theme, here is another cool balloon shot from João Marta Sanfins

In my last couple of post on estimating claims inflation, I’ve been writing about a method of deriving large loss inflation by looking at the median of the top X losses over time. You can read the previous posts here:

Part 1:  www.lewiswalsh.net/blog/backtesting-inflation-modelling-median-of-top-x-losses
Part 2: www.lewiswalsh.net/blog/inflation-modelling-median-of-top-10-losses-under-exposure-growth
​
One issue I alluded to is that the sampling error of the basic version of the method can often be so high as to basically make the method unusable. In this post I explore how this error varies with the number of years in our sample, and try to determine the point at which the method starts to become practical.

Photo by Jøn

I previously wrote a post in which I backtested a method of deriving large loss inflation directly from a large loss bordereux. This post is an extension of that work, so if you haven't already, it's probably worth going back and reading my original post. Relevant link:
www.lewiswalsh.net/blog/backtesting-inflation-modelling-median-of-top-x-losses
​
In the original post I slipped in the caveat that that the method is only unbiased if the underlying exposure doesn’t changed over the time period being analysed. Unfortunately for the basic method, that is quite a common situation, but never fear, there is an extension to deal with the case of changing exposure.

Below I’ve written up my notes on the extended method, which doesn't suffer from this issue. Just to note, the only other reference I’m aware of is from the following, but if I've missed anyone out, apologies! [1]

St Paul's, London. Photo by Anthony DELANOIX

I was reviewing a pricing model recently when an interesting question came up relating to when to apply the policy features when modelling the contract. 

I wrote a quick script to backtest one particular method of deriving claims inflation from loss data. I first came across the method in 'Pricing in General Insurance' by Pietro Parodi [1], but I'm not sure if the method pre-dates the book or not.

In order to run the method all we require is a large loss bordereaux, which is useful from a data perspective. Unlike many methods which focus on fitting a curve through attritional loss ratios, or looking at ultimate attritional losses per unit of exposure over time, this method can easily produce a *large loss* inflation pick. Which is important as the two can often be materially different.

Source: Willis Building and Lloyd's building, @Colin, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Colin

Quota Share contracts generally deal with acquisition costs in one of two ways - premium is either ceded to the reinsurer on a ‘gross of acquisition cost’ basis and the reinsurer then pays a large ceding commission to cover acquisition costs and expenses, or premium is ceded on a ‘net of acquisition’ costs basis, in which case the reinsurer pays a smaller commission to the insurer, referred to as an overriding commission or ‘overrider’, which is intended to just cover internal expenses.

Another way of saying this is that premium is either ceded based on gross gross written premium, or gross net written premium.

I’ve been asked a few times over the years how to convert from a gross commission basis to the equivalent net commission basis, and vice versa. I've written up an explanation with the accompanying formulas  below.

There's some interesting literature from the world of forecasting and natural sciences on the best way to aggregate predictions from multiple models/sources.

For a well-written, moderately technical introduction, see the following by Jaime Sevilla:
forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/sMjcjnnpoAQCcedL2/when-pooling-forecasts-use-the-geometric-mean-of-odds

Jaime’s article suggests a geometric mean of odds as the preferred method of aggregating predictions. I would argue however that when it comes to actuarial pricing, I'm more of a fan of the arithmetic mean, I'll explain why below.

The Cefor curves provide quite a lot of ancillary info, interestingly (and hopefully you agree since you're reading this blog), had we not been provided with the 'proportion of all losses which come from total losses', we could have derived it by analysing the difference between the two curves (the partial loss and the all claims curve)

Below I demonstrate how to go from the 'partial loss' curve and the share of total claims % to the 'all claims' curve, but you could solve for any one of the three pieces of info given two of them using the formulas below.
​

I hadn't see this before, but Cefor (the Nordic association of Marine Insurers), publishes Exposure Curves for Ocean Hull risks. Pretty useful if you are looking to price Marine RI. I've included a quick comparison to some London Market curves below and the source links below.

This post is a follow up to two previous posts, which I would recommend reading first:
https://www.lewiswalsh.net/blog/german-flooding-tail-position
https://www.lewiswalsh.net/blog/german-flooding-tail-position-update
 
Since our last post, the loss creep for the July 2021 German flooding has continued, sources are now talking about a EUR 8bn (\$9.3bn) insured loss. [1] This figure is just in respect of Germany, not including Belgium, France, etc., and up from \$8.3bn previously. 

But interestingly (and bear with me, I promise these is something interesting about this) when we compare this \$9.3bn loss to the OEP table in our previous modelling, it puts the flooding at just past a 1-in-200 level. 

Here are two events that you might think were linked:

Every year around the month of May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) releases their predictions on the severity of the forthcoming Atlantic Hurricane season.

Around the same time, US insurers will be busy negotiating their upcoming 1st June or 1st July annual reinsurance renewals with their reinsurance panel. At the renewal (for a price to be negotiated) they will purchase reinsurance which will in effect offload a portion of their North American windstorm risk.

You might reasonably think – ‘if there is an expectation that windstorms will be particularly severe this year, then more risk is being transferred and so the price should be higher’. And if the NOAA predicts an above average season, shouldn’t we expect more windstorms? In which case, wouldn't it make sense if the pricing zig-zags up and down in line with the NOAA predictions for the year?

Well in practice, no, it just doesn’t really happen like that. 

This post is a follow up to a previous post, which I would recommend reading first if you haven't already:
https://www.lewiswalsh.net/blog/german-flooding-tail-position

In our previous modelling, in order to assess how extreme the 2021 German floods were, we compared the consensus estimate at the time for the floods (\$6bn insured loss) against a distribution parameterised using historic flood losses in Germany from 1994-2020. Since I posted that modelling however, as often happens in these cases, the consensus estimate has changed. The insurance press is now reporting a value of around \$8.3 bn [1]. So what does that do for our modelling and our conclusions from last time?
​

As I’m sure you are aware July 2021 saw some of the worst flooding in Germany in living memory. Die Welt currently has the death toll for Germany at 166 [1].

Obviously this is a very sad time for Germany, but one aspect of the reporting that caught my attention was how much emphasis was placed on climate change when reporting on the floods. For example, the BBC [2], the Guardian [3], and even the Telegraph [4] all bring up the role that climate change played in the contributing to the severity of the flooding.

The question that came to my mind, is can we really infer the presence of climate change just from this one event? The flooding has been described as a ‘1-in-100 year event’ [5], but does this bear out when we analyse the data, and how strong evidence is this of the presence of climate change? 
​