Actuarial pricing, capital modelling and reserving

Pricing Squad

Issue 3 -- May 2016

Welcome back to Pricing Squad!

Pricing Squad is a newsletter for fellow pricing practitioners and actuaries in general insurance. Enjoy, and let me know your comments and ideas for future issues.

Today's issue is about the rationales we use to justify modelled risk curves in pricing segmentation. Our brains like to hear convincing stories. But what happens when two convincing stories support opposing conclusions to each other?

Rationales and rationalising

How can you tell whether the shape of a risk curve coming out of a GLM or a non-linear pricing model is sensible?

You can often rationalise both ways

For example, is there a good rationale for risk decreasing for higher deductibles? Is there a good rationale for risk increasing with higher deductibles?

Yes and yes.

Yes, the risk can decrease when deductibles are high because in this case more of the risk is retained by the policyholder.

But the risk can also increase when deductibles are high because people who choose high deductibles often do this recklessly and for affordability reasons. These policy holders tend to be high-risk.

When creating an internal database of GLM models, typical rating curve shapes and rationales used by companies to justify these shapes, I have come across more examples of opposing rationales used by various clients. Below are a few more examples.

Example -- Vehicle value

It is perfectly possible to argue that high-value vehicles should be less likely to have claims. The justification is that these vehicles are owned by more affluent and responsible policy holders, who make generally better drivers. These policyholders are also less financially stressed, which could help them drive safely. They might also drive more carefully to reduce the risk of damage to a high-value car. Additionally, expensive cars have better safety equipment, reducing the likelihood of a claim.

On the other hand, high-value cars often drive more miles, which will naturally increase risk. They are also more likely to be driven for fun and enjoyment, leading to a higher risk of speeding and reckless driving. Finally, it might be that other rating factors, such as age and address, play a larger role in determining positive behavioural characteristics for owners of more expensive cars. This might leave the vehicle value curve not just flat, but possibly increasing to compensate for discounts resulting from age, address and similar factors.

So which one is it? Or do both effects come into force and manifest themselves in different parts of the vehicle value rating curve?


... want to continue reading?

Please provide your email to log in or to subscribe to Pricing Squad: