13.07.2015 Views

PROCEEDINGS May 15, 16, 17, 18, 2005 - Casualty Actuarial Society

PROCEEDINGS May 15, 16, 17, 18, 2005 - Casualty Actuarial Society

PROCEEDINGS May 15, 16, 17, 18, 2005 - Casualty Actuarial Society

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.

INCORPORATION OF FIXED EXPENSES 693Rearranging the terms,Proj SW Fixed Expenses CurrProj SW Fixed Expenses PropSince=Proj CW Avg Premium Proj SW Avg Premium¤Historical CW Avg Premium Proj CW Avg Premium :Proj CW Avg Premium= Historical CW Avg Premium ¤ Premium Trend Factorwe have¤ On-Level Factor,Proj SW Fixed Expenses CurrProj SW Fixed Expenses Prop=PremiumTrendFactor¤ On-Level Factor ¤Proj SW Avg PremiumProj CW Avg Premium :The difference between the fixed expenses produced by thetwo methodologies is driven by premium trend, on-level factors,and the relationship of the statewide average premium to thecountrywide average premium. These are the three distortions inthe current methodology mentioned earlier. Thus, the proposedmethodology is not affected by these three distortions.Exhibit 3 shows the impact on the overall indication by locationfor the two methodologies (Exhibit 3-A lists the informationin table form and Exhibit 3-B displays the data graphically). Thisinformation is included to show two items: the total amount thecurrent procedure overstates (understates) the overall indicationrelative to the proposed procedure and the variation of the overstatement(understatement) by location. The former tells us aboutthe impact on the accuracy of the overall countrywide indication,while the latter is more indicative the potential for inequity betweenstates.An examination of the “countrywide” line on Exhibit 3-Ashows the current procedure overstates the premium needed to

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!