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.

THE “MODIFIED BORNHUETTER-FERGUSON” APPROACH 739payable or any other form of collateral, more than it does whatmethod is used to allocate ceded IBNR to reinsurer. For in thecase of a single reinsurer, 100% of the ceded IBNR is allocatedto that single reinsurer. If that single reinsurer were unauthorized,then collateral would be demanded and received. But evenat 100% allocation, the security can prove inadequate. Reinsurancecollectibility, though fully secured, is not assured, and themethodology of ceded IBNR allocation is not at fault. At thislevel, it seems more prudent to base the collateral on a probablemaximum ceded methodology.Realistic applications of the probable maximum ceded methodare generally not as extreme as the simplistic example set forthfor illustration. But where security is required for at least onereinsurer, the aggregate probable maximum ceded IBNR can easilybecome significantly and materially higher than the aggregateceded IBNR. It may be a challenge for a company to obtain thesecurity beyond that implied by a ceded IBNR allocation. Butthe difference between the aggregate probable maximum cededIBNR and the aggregate ceded IBNR is simply the amount ofadverse reserve development to which the company is exposed,arising from possible ceded IBNR misallocation.There are several difficulties associated with a probable maximumceded methodology. Among these difficulties are the burdenon the actuary to calculate it, the burden on the company toobtain higher security, and the burden on the reinsurer to commitadditional funds to this new standard. Of course the burden ofadverse reserve development arising from a ceded IBNR misallocationto a troubled reinsurer can be significant as well.I do not anticipate that Schedule F will be transformed to aprobable maximum ceded basis of security. Just as primary insurerscannot possibly reserve for probable maximum loss risk byrisk, few reinsurers, even the financially healthiest, can possiblypost collateral at probable maximum loss by risk. If a reinsurercould secure its liabilities on a probable maximum basis by risk,its financial condition would appear better. There is hope that

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!