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.

Efficiency and Bonus Hunger 241<br />

Computation<br />

The computation <strong>of</strong> Eff Loi requires the determination <strong>of</strong> the derivative <strong>of</strong> r with<br />

respect to the annual expected claim frequency . This derivative is given by<br />

dr<br />

d<br />

= s∑<br />

l=0<br />

d l <br />

d<br />

r l<br />

so that its computation requires the derivative <strong>of</strong> the stationary probabilities l with<br />

respect to the annual expected claim frequency . To get d l /d, it suffices to<br />

differentiate (4.8): we thus have to solve the linear system<br />

⎧<br />

⎪⎨<br />

d T <br />

= dT <br />

d d<br />

P + T dP<br />

d<br />

⎪⎩<br />

∑ s d l <br />

l=0<br />

d = 0<br />

with respect to the d l /ds.<br />

Global Efficiency<br />

So far, we have defined the Loimaranta efficiency for a given value <strong>of</strong> the expected annual<br />

claim frequency. To get a value for the portfolio, we have to account for its composition<br />

with respect to rating factors as well as its residual heterogeneity. Hence, the Loimaranta<br />

efficiency for the portfolio is obtained by averaging over all the possible values for as<br />

[ ( ) ]<br />

Eff Loi = E Eff Loi <br />

Loimaranta Efficiency in Portfolio A<br />

Table 5.9 displays the Loimaranta efficiencies for a good driver, with annual expected claim<br />

frequency 9.28 %, for an average driver with annual expected claim frequency 14.09 %, and<br />

for a bad driver with annual expected claim frequency 28.40 %. For the −1/top bonus-malus<br />

scale, the efficiency is larger for the average driver than for the good and bad ones. On<br />

the contrary, for the −1/+ 2 and −1/+ 3 bonus-malus scales, the efficiencies appear to<br />

increase from the good to the average driver, and from the average driver to the bad one.<br />

The global efficiencies listed in Table 5.9 are rather poor, ranging from 23.23 % for the<br />

−1/top bonus-malus scale to 28.39 % in the −1/+ 2 bonus-malus scale. This means that<br />

these bonus-malus systems weakly respond to a change in the underlying claim frequency.<br />

Table 5.9 Loimaranta efficiency for three types <strong>of</strong> insured drivers (a good driver, with annual<br />

expected claim frequency 9.28 %, an average driver with annual expected claim frequency 14.09 %,<br />

and a bad driver with annual expected claim frequency 28.40 %) and global efficiency for Portfolio<br />

A, for the −1/top, −1/+ 2 and −1/+ 3 bonus-malus scales.<br />

Frequency Scale −1/top Scale −1/ + 2 Scale −1/ + 3<br />

0.0928 02865 02380 02987<br />

0.1409 03144 03793 04008<br />

0.2840 02901 06204 04733<br />

Portfolio A 02323 02839 02775

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!