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

Create successful ePaper yourself

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

66 RISKINESS LEVERAGE MODELSbelow because it is very helpful in clarifying concepts in theKreps paper.)Venter also discusses Excess Tail Value at Risk (XTVAR)defined to be the average value of X ¡ ¹ when X>x q .Thesameproperties that Kreps proved for TVAR and co-TVAR can beshown to hold for XTVAR and co-XTVAR.Venter notes that if capital is set by XTVAR, it would coveraverage losses in excess of expected losses for those years wherethe portfolio losses X exceed the qth quantile x q . It is assumedthat expected losses have been fully reflected in pricing and inloss reserves. The capital allocated by co-XTVAR to a line wouldbe the line’s average losses above its mean losses in those sameadverse years. Venter notes that there should be some probabilitylevel q for which XTVAR or a multiple of it makes sense as acapital standard. He points out that co-XTVAR may not allocatecapital to a line that didn’t contribute significantly to adverseoutcomes. That is, the deviations from the mean for a line ofbusiness may average to approximately zero when total lossesexceeded the qth quantile. Venter believes this makes sense ifcapital is being held for adverse outcomes only.Value at Risk (VAR): Kreps defines a riskiness leveragemodel that produces the quantile x q as the assets needed to supporta portfolio of risks. This measure says that the shape of theloss distribution does not matter except to determine the one relevantvalue x q . The VAR measure is known not to be coherent[1].Semi-Variance: Kreps defines a riskiness leverage model thatyields needed surplus or risk load as a multiple of the semideviationof the aggregate loss distribution. This is the standarddeviation with all favorable deviations from the mean ignored(treated as zero). This measure implies that only outcomes worse(greater) than the mean should contribute to required risk loador surplus. This measure is consistent with the usual accountingview that risk is only relevant for adverse outcomes and further

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!