Hurlimann Flashcards
2 Differences between Hurlimann and Benktander methods
- Hurlimann’s method is based on a full development triangle, whereas the Benktander method is based on a single origin period
- Hurlimann’s method requires a measure of exposure for each origin period (i.e. premiums)
Main Result of Hurlimann method
Provides an optimal credibility weight for combining the chain-ladder (individual) loss ratio reserve with the B-F (collective) loss ratio reserve
Sik
paid claims from origin period i as of k years of development
Total Ultimate Claims from origin period i
k=1nΣSik
Cumulative Paid Claims (Cik)
Cik= j=1kΣSij
Ri (i-th period Reserve)
Ri = k=n-i+2nΣSik
where i = 2, … , n
R (Total Claims Reserve)
R = i=1nΣRi
Expected Loss Ratio (mk)
The incremental amount of expected paid claims per unit of premium in each development period (i.e. an incremental loss ratio)
mk = E [i=1n-k+1ΣSik] / i=1n-k+1ΣVi
where k= 1, … , n
Expected value of the burning cost of the total ultimate claims
This quantity is simlar to the prior estimate Uo from Mack
E[UiBC] = Vi · k=1nΣmk
By summing up the incremental loss ratios, we obtain an overall expected loss ratio. When we multiply the overall expected LR by the premium, we obtain an expected loss for each origin period
Loss Ratio Payout Factor (pi)
represents the percent of losses emerged to date for each origin period
pi = k=1n-i+1Σmk / k=1nΣmk
Individual Total Ultimate Claims (Uiind)
Similar to Chain- Ladder estimate
Uiind = Ci,n-i+1 / pi
Individual Loss Ratio Claims Reserve (Riind)
Riind = Uiind - Ci,n-1+1
=qi * Uiind
=(qi/pi) * Ci,n-1+1
Collective Loss Ratio Claims Reserve (Ricoll)
Ricoll = qi * UiBC
Collective Total Ultimate Claims (Uicoll)
Similar to BF estimate from Mack
Uicoll = Ricoll + Ci,n-i+1
Advantage of Collective Loss Ratio Claims reserve over BF reserve
difference actuaries always come to the same results provided they use the same premiums