Mack 2000 - Benktander Flashcards
State the relationship between Reserve & Ultimate Loss Estimates
Uhat = Ck + Rhat
Uhat is Ultimate Loss Estimate
Ck is the Actual Claims amont paid after k years of development
That is the Reserve Estimate
Calculate reserve using Bornhuetter-Ferguson (BF) method
R_BF = qk*U0
qk = 1 - 1/CDF is the proportion of ult claims unpaid after k years
U0 is the a priori expectation of Ultimate Losses = prep * ELR
It assumes Ck is NOT predictive of future claims.
Calculate Ult Losses using BF method
U_BF = Ck + R_BF
Calculate Ult Losses using Chain-Ladder method
U_CL = Ck/pk = Loss * CDF
pk = 1-qk is the proportion of ult claims expected to be paid after k years of development.
Assumes Ck is FULLY predictive of future claims.
Calculate reserve using Chain-Ladder method
R_CL = qk*U_CL
Briefly explain the main advantage of CL method over BF
Different actuaries should obtain similar results when running the chain-ladder method which is not the case with the BF method due to differences in selection of U0.
Explain how BF method is a mixture of a priori estimate and chain-ladder
U_c = cU_CL + (1-c)U0
c is the credibility weight
As Ck develop, credibility should increase.
Setting c = pk:
U_pk = pkU_CL + (1-pk)U0 = Ck + qk*U0 = Ck + R_BF = U_BF
Explain the Benktander method
R_GB = qkU_BF = (1-qk)R_CL + qk*R_BF
U_GB = Ck + R_GB = pkU_CL + qkU_BF = (1-qk)U_CL + qkU_BF
Benktander is a credibility-wkeighted average of CL and BF methods.
Thus, it also a credibility-weighted average of the CL and a priori expectation:
U_GB = (1-qk^2)U_CL + qk^2U0
Complete the sentence:
If we infinitely iterate between reserves and ultimate losses, we will eventually obtain the (…) method.
Chain-Ladder method
U(m) = (1-qk^m)U_CL + qk^mU0
As m increases, qk^m tends to 0 and U(m) tends to U_CL
State 4 reasons why the Benktander method is superior to BF and CL methods.
- MSE is almost always smaller than BF or CL methods
Except if pk is small and C* is large at the same time, which occurs if payout is neither extremely volatile nor extremely stable. - Better approx of the exact Bayesian procedure
- Superior to CL method since it gives more weight to the a priori expectation of ultimate losses.
- Superior to BF method since it gives more weight to actual loss experience.