01.06.2015 Views

Actuarial Modelling of Claim Counts Risk Classification, Credibility ...

Actuarial Modelling of Claim Counts Risk Classification, Credibility ...

Actuarial Modelling of Claim Counts Risk Classification, Credibility ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Credibility</strong> Models for <strong>Claim</strong> <strong>Counts</strong> 135<br />

Now, considering the penalty in case one claim is reported, we see that the good driver<br />

who reports one claim during the first year will have to pay 178.4 % <strong>of</strong> the base premium<br />

to be covered by the insurance company during the second year. The average driver in the<br />

same situation pays 171.2 % <strong>of</strong> the base premium, and the bad driver 153.1 % <strong>of</strong> the base<br />

premium. The penalties in the case where an accident is reported to the company are thus<br />

decreasing with the a priori annual expected claim frequencies.<br />

The system appears rather severe. Reporting a claim entails a penalty <strong>of</strong> between 50 and<br />

75 %, which seems difficult to implement in practice. This is a consequence <strong>of</strong> the financial<br />

balance property. The weighted averages <strong>of</strong> all figures (in each infinite row) is equal to<br />

100 %. The modest discounts awarded to the majority <strong>of</strong> claim-free policyholders have<br />

then to be exactly compensated by the penalties supported by the minority <strong>of</strong> policyholders<br />

reporting claims to the company. This causes large penalties. The severity <strong>of</strong> the credibility<br />

corrections also appears in the number <strong>of</strong> claim free years needed to erase the penalty induced<br />

by an accident: 10 years for the good driver, 7 for the average one and 3 for the bad one.<br />

These periods make sense compared to the average claim number per policy.<br />

3.3.7 Discrete Poisson Mixture <strong>Credibility</strong> Model<br />

The good driver / bad driver model presented in Section 3.2.1 assumes that the portfolio is<br />

composed <strong>of</strong> two classes <strong>of</strong> insured drivers. This can easily be extended to several categories<br />

<strong>of</strong> drivers (for instance, bad, below average, average, above average, excellent). Specifically,<br />

let us assume that each risk class <strong>of</strong> the portfolio is made <strong>of</strong> q categories <strong>of</strong> insured drivers.<br />

Let us denote as p 1 p 2 p q the proportion <strong>of</strong> drivers in each <strong>of</strong> these categories. Then,<br />

⎧<br />

1 with probability p 1<br />

⎪⎨ 2 with probability p 2<br />

i =<br />

(3.5)<br />

⎪⎩<br />

q with probability p q<br />

with 0 < 1 < 2 < ···< q . The number N it <strong>of</strong> claims caused by policyholder i during year<br />

t is distributed as<br />

PrN it = k =<br />

q∑<br />

exp− it j it j k<br />

p<br />

k! j k= 0 1<br />

j=1<br />

Note that the special case q = 2 gives the good driver / bad driver model.<br />

The expected number <strong>of</strong> claims reported by policyholder i in year T i + 1 is given by<br />

q∑<br />

q∑<br />

EN iTi +1 = EN iTi +1 = j p j = iTi +1 j p j <br />

j=1<br />

If we know that this policyholder reported k claims during the past T i years, we expect<br />

EN iTi +1N i• = k claims in year T i + 1. The computation <strong>of</strong> EN iTi +1N i• = k requires the<br />

conditional distribution <strong>of</strong> N iTi +1 given N i• = k. We get it from<br />

j=1

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!