current loss reserving developments cas annual meeting november 15, 2005 chuck emma, pinnacle tom...
TRANSCRIPT
Current Loss Reserving Developments
CAS Annual MeetingNovember 15, 2005
Chuck Emma, PinnacleTom Ryan, MillimanJohn J. Kollar, ISO
ISO Study of Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves
A. Industry Schedule P (Net)B. Analysis of Direct Losses
CAS Annual Meeting
November 15, 2005
John J. Kollar, ISO
A. Industry Loss Reserve Analysis
• More than 900 insurer groups
• Year-ended 12/31/04
• Schedule P data compiled by A. M. Best
• More than 95% of LLAE reserves for studied lines
Lines studied
• PP Auto Liability• HO/Farmowners• Com. Auto Liability• Other & Products Liab.
Claims-Made• Other Liab. Occurrence• Com. Multi-Peril
• Med Mal Occurrence• Med Mal Claims-Made• Products Occurrence• Reinsurance (Non-
Proportional Liability)• Workers Compensation
Some Key Points• Excludes reserves for environmental
and asbestos (E&A) claims– Possibly $30B to $50B deficient
• Analysis assumes incurred losses from 9/11 were fully developed at year-end 2004– Estimated direct insured losses: $20B to
$30B– U.S. net insured losses: $6B to $9B
• Adjustments have been made for other major catastrophes
Methodology
• Paid link-ratio technique
• Case-incurred link-ratio technique
• Consistent with ISO study of 2003 data
Factors affecting analysis
• Data quality
• Development factors
• Tail factors
• Professional judgment
Conventions
• Each deficiency/redundancy expressed as percentage of indicated undiscounted reserve as estimated by ISO– Positive percentages indicate deficiencies– Negative percentages indicate
redundancies
Summary Preliminary Indications of Reserve Deficiencies
Paid Case Incurred
• Lines Studied + 2% + 7%
• All Other Lines + 3% + 3%
• Total – all lines + 2% + 7%
• In Dollars $9B $31B– (excluding E & A )
Perspective
• Reserve adequacy has improved for 3 consecutive years– Reserves were about 3 percentage points
more adequate at year-end 2004 than at year-end 2003
– Reserves were about 11 percentage points more adequate at year-end 2004 than at year-end 2001
Preliminary Indications by Line
• Lines with deficiencies Paid Case
Inc.
• Products Occurrence + 7% +12%• Com. Multi-Peril + 1% + 4%• Workers Comp + 9% +15%• Reinsurance (Non-Prop.) +25% +33%
Preliminary Indications by Line
• Other Lines Paid Case Inc.
• Priv. Pass. Auto Liability - 4% - 6%• Homeowners/Farmowners -16% -10%• Commercial Auto Liability -10% - 1%• Other Liability Occurrence - 3% + 5%• Claims Made Other & Prod. - 8% + 1%• Medical Malpractice – Occ.* - 3% +12%• Medical Malpractice – C-M.* -11% - 9%
*ISO still investigating whether reserve adequacy is overstated consequent to data anomalies.
LALAE Ratios: Accident Year vs. Calendar Year
6065707580859095
100
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Accident Year Calendar Year
Reserve adequacy deteriorated for at least 6 years but then improved in 2002, 2003 & 2004.
Loss Reserve Changes vs. Industry Profitability, All Lines
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
'71 '74 '77 '80 '83 '86 '89 '92 '95 '98 '01 '04
%
Change in LLAE Reserves / Paid LLAE
GAAP Return on Average Net Worth
Changes in reserves arecorrelated with profitability.
-10-505
1015202530
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Paid Link Ratio Case-Incurred Link Ratio
Compound Discount Factor
Retrospective Estimated Deficiencies &Economic Discount, All Studied Lines
Discounted reserves wereinadequate from 2000 to 2003.
B. Analysis of Direct Losses
• Segment Analysis– State/coverage/class group/etc.
• Reserving/Benchmarking– Comparable mix of business
• Tail Factors
• Confidence Intervals
Schedule P Lines with
• Homeowners/Farmowners
- Homeowners
• Private Passenger Auto Liability/Medical
• Commercial Auto/Truck Liability/Medical
• Commercial Multiple Peril
- Commercial Multiple Peril Liability
- Commercial Multiple Peril Property
ISO Distributions
Schedule P Lines with
• Medical Malpractice - Occurrence- Hospitals- Physicians- Surgeons
• Other Liability - Occurrence• Products Liability - Occurrence• Auto Physical Damage
- Commercial Auto Physical Damage- Private Passenger Auto Physical Damage
ISO Distributions (Cont’d)
Schedule P Lines withISO Distributions (Cont’d)
• Special Property
- Fire
- Allied Lines
- Inland Marine
Segment Analysis – Link RatiosPeriod 1 To Ultimate
Chain Ladder Link Ratios
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14R
atio
Sch. POth. Liab.
Occ.
ISOPrem OpsAll TablesW. CRR
ISOPrem Ops
Table 1
ISOPrem Ops
Table 2
ISOPrem Ops
Table 3
ISOPrem Ops
Tables1, 2, & 3
The Schedule P data is net, includes Composite Rated Risks (CRR), and is evaluated as of 12, 24, etc. months. The ISO data is direct, excludes CRR (except as noted), and is evaluated as of 15, 27, etc. months.
Reserving/Benchmarking• Used aggregate direct data by segment
– State/coverage/class/etc.– Paid/incurred/losses/claim counts/LAE
• Weighted aggregate direct data by each insurer’s unique mix of business– Losses rather than link ratios– Separately for each accident year
• Applied link ratios based on aggregate data to an insurer’s data to calculate an indicated reserve
Benchmarking of Reserves
Reserve Estimates with 10 Years of DataBased on Average Best 3 of 5 & Modified Bondy Method
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
Latest 10 Years
With CompanyFactors & Mix
With ISOFactors &Company Mix
Tail Factors
• Modified Bondy MethodThe ultimate factor (UF) determined using the first prior factor (FF) and the second prior factor (SF) as follows: If SF > 1 and [ 0.8 * LN(SF) >= LN(FF) >= 0 ] or SF < 1 and [ 0.8 * LN(SF) <= LN(FF) <= 0 ] then UF = FF ^ { LN(FF) / [ LN(SF) – LN(FF) ] } Otherwise, UF = FF ^ 4
• Development beyond 10 years – up to 20 years using direct data
Development 10 vs. 20 Years
Comparison of 10 & 20 Year Experience
0.0000
0.5000
1.0000
1.5000
2.0000
2.5000
3.0000
3.5000
All-Year Average 2-Year Average 3-Year Average 5-Year Average Average Best 3 of 5
10 Years:1994-2003
20 Years:1984-2003
Other Liability Occurrence Coverage Incurred Losses for BI & PD Combined
Relative Volatility of Tail Factors
Modified Bondy Method Tail FactorsBased on Average Best 3 of 5
0.960
0.970
0.980
0.990
1.000
1.010
1.020
1.030
1.040
1.050
1.060
Company Tail
Factors & Mix
ISO Tail
Factors &
Company Mix
Modifi ed Bondy Method
120 Months-To-Ultimate:1994-2003
240 Months-To-Ultimate:1984-2003
Other Liability Occurrence Coverage Incurred Losses & ALAE for BI & P D Combined
Development of Parameters for Confidence Intervals
• By line
• By settlement lag (valuation)
• Industry for severity
• By insurer size for frequency
Estimated parameters for claim severity and frequency separately
Reserve Risk:Average size and volatility of open claims increases over time
Big Claims Settle Slowly
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Open After n Years
Cla
im A
mo
un
t
95th %Mean
Development of an Insurer’s Confidence Intervals• An insurer’s loss and loss adjustment
expense reserves- By line- By accident year (latest valuation)
• Reinsurance arrangements- Retention- Coinsurance- Per claim limit
• Scale factors to reflect differences in average severity
Measures of VariabilityFrequency/Severity/Reserves
Measure of variabilityin aggregate reserves
Measure of variabilityin frequencies
Measure of variabilityin severities
Measure ofvariability
in reserves byline and period
Confidence Interval and Aggregate Loss Reserve Distribution
Aggregate Loss Reserve Distribution
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800
Loss Reserves ($Millions)
Cu
mu
lati
ve P
rob
abil
ity
50% Confidence Interval
Expected Loss
Confidence Intervals for Loss Reserves – Effect of Reinsurance
Intervals for Small Products Liability Writer
5,000,000
15,000,000
25,000,000
35,000,000
45,000,000
70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90%Confidence Intervals
Without Reinsurance With Reinsurance
Confidence Intervals for Loss Reserves – Effect of Size
Confidence Intervals for General Liability*(Relative to the Aggregate Mean)
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90%Confidence Intervals
Smaller Insurer Larger Insurer
Aggregate Mean = 40,292,261
Aggregate Mean = 604,383,911
(15 times the smaller insurer's volume)
* A mix of Other Liability and Products Liability.
Applications• Reserving triangles
– Combine segments using each insurer’s unique mix of business
• Individual segment analysis• Tail factors• Confidence intervals (ranges around
expected)• Benchmarking for CEO/CFO, Board,
investors, rating agencies, regulators, etc.