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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Bonus-Malus Scales 185<br />

4.5.2 Bayesian Relativities<br />

Predictive accuracy is a useful measure <strong>of</strong> the efficiency <strong>of</strong> a bonus-malus scale. The idea<br />

behind this notion is as follows: A bonus-malus scale is good at discriminating among the<br />

good and the bad drivers if the premium they pay is close to their ‘true’ premium. According<br />

to Norberg (1976), once the number <strong>of</strong> classes and the transition rules have been fixed,<br />

the optimal relativity r l associated with level l is determined by maximizing the asymptotic<br />

predictive accuracy.<br />

Let us pick at random a policyholder from the portfolio. Both the a priori expected<br />

claim frequency and relative risk parameter are random in this case. Let us denote as the<br />

(random) a priori expected claim frequency <strong>of</strong> this randomly selected policyholder, and as<br />

the residual effect <strong>of</strong> the risk factors not included in the ratemaking. The actual (unknown)<br />

annual expected claim frequency <strong>of</strong> this policyholder is then . Since the random effect<br />

represents residual effects <strong>of</strong> hidden covariates, the random variables and may<br />

reasonably be assumed to be mutually independent. Let w k be the weight <strong>of</strong> the kth risk<br />

class whose annual expected claim frequency is k . Clearly, Pr = k = w k .<br />

Let L be the level occupied by this randomly selected policyholder once the steady state<br />

has been reached. The distribution <strong>of</strong> L can be written as<br />

PrL = l = ∑ k<br />

∫ +<br />

w k l k dF (4.12)<br />

0<br />

Here, PrL = l represents the proportion <strong>of</strong> the policyholders in level l.<br />

Our aim is to minimize the expected squared difference between the ‘true’ relative premium<br />

and the relative premium r L applicable to this policyholder (after the steady state has been<br />

reached), i.e. the goal is to minimize<br />

The solution is given by<br />

]<br />

E<br />

[ − r L 2 =<br />

=<br />

s∑<br />

∣ ]<br />

E<br />

[ − r l 2 ∣∣L = l PrL = l<br />

l=0<br />

∫ +<br />

s∑<br />

l=0<br />

= ∑ k<br />

0<br />

w k<br />

∫ +<br />

0<br />

− r l 2 PrL = l = dF <br />

s∑<br />

− r l 2 l k dF <br />

l=0<br />

r l = EL = l<br />

[<br />

]<br />

∣<br />

= E EL = l ∣L = l<br />

= ∑ k<br />

= ∑ k<br />

EL = l = k Pr = k L = l<br />

∫ +<br />

0<br />

PrL = l = = kw k<br />

dF<br />

PrL = l = k Pr = kL= l<br />

PrL = l

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!