Post on 18-Jan-2016
abRate Monitoring
Steven PetlickCAS Underwriting Cycle SeminarOctober 5, 2009
Slide 2
abRate Monitoring
Table of Contents
Rate monitoring from the perspective of the reinsurance pricing actuary
The effect of new business
What is the reinsurance pricing actuary to do?
Effect of economic crisis on price monitor
Conclusions
Slide 3
abRate monitoring from the perspective of the reinsurance pricing actuary
Standard Pricing Methodology includes:
Trend historical losses to prospective treaty period
Put historical premiums at rate level of prospective treaty period; i.e.. put them “on level”
During hard market periods, rate increases can turn dirt into gold
Opposite holds true in soft market periods
Slide 4
abRate monitoring from the perspective of the reinsurance pricing actuary
Rate Monitor for XYZ Insurance Company
Casualty Excess of Loss Treaty
Rate Change2001 02002 +10%2003 +35%2004 +9%2005 +3%2006 -1%2007 -9%2008 -10%
Slide 5
abRate monitoring from the perspective of the reinsurance pricing actuary
What would you do? I would immediately get
back to the client with questions:
Are the rate changes written or earned?
Are they adjusted for exposure changes?
Are they adjusted for changes in limits/ attachments/ deductibles/ SIRs?
Do they include new business or are they measured on renewals only? (most common)
Slide 6
abRate monitoring from the perspective of the reinsurance pricing actuary
Do they include the effect of commission changes?
Do they reflect changes in terms and conditions?
What types of increases/ decreases are they observing on lost business?
How are the rate changes actually calculated?
Slide 7
abThe Effect of New Business
Suppose you are trending and onleveling a 2007 loss ratio for a reinsurance treaty incepting at 1/1/2009. (In reality you would likely use at least 5 historical years, but, for simplicity, we will consider only 2007.) Assume the following:
2007 Ultimate Loss Ratio = 60%
Expected Annual Trend = 6%
Renewal Rate Changes = 2008 -10%, 2009 -10%
Slide 8
abThe Effect of New Business
If you assume that these rate changes apply to the entire book of business (i.e. new business rate adequacy = renewal rate adequacy) then your projected 2009 loss ratio would be:
60% x 1.06 / (1-.10) X 1.06/(1-.10) = 83.2%
Slide 9
abThe Effect of New Business
Now suppose that you believe that new business is less adequately priced than renewal business. How would this affect your projection?
In order to answer this, you would need a few more pieces of information:
Expected renewal retention rate
Projected premium growth
Slide 10
abThe Effect of New Business
Simulation Model for New Business Effect
Initial Assumptions
2007 base portfolio of 100 policies with premium of $50mm and loss ratio of 60%
Renewal rate changes of -10% for 2008 and 2009
Renewal retention rate of 80%
Slide 11
abThe Effect of New Business
Simulation Model for New Business Effect
Initial Assumptions
New business for 2008 and 2009 will consist of 20 new policies with same average premium as renewal book
“New business differential” values of 0, -10% and -20%
Slide 12
abThe Effect of New Business
What is “new business differential?”
It is defined as the difference in rate adequacy between new business in the portfolio as compared to the renewal book for the same period. It is NOT the rate change on new business.
More about this later.
Slide 13
abThe Effect of New Business
Simulation model operation:
Base year 2007 portfolio is simulated: premium is generated from uniform distribution on 0-$1000; loss ratio from normal, mean 60%, SD 10%
Each policy is either renewed or non-renewed for 2008 according to the renewal retention probability (80%)
If a policy is renewed, the premium reflects the renewal rate change (-10%)
Slide 14
abThe Effect of New Business
Simulation model operation:
For renewed policies, the loss ratio reflects assumed loss trend of 6% and renewal rate change
20 new business policies are generated using same uniform distribution reduced for renewal rate change
Loss ratio for new business policies is simulated using renewal loss ratio adjusted for new business differential
Slide 15
abThe Effect of New Business
Previous results assume that the base book of business carries a loss ratio of 60%, and after lost (i.e. non-renewed) business the renewed book is unchanged (i.e. base at 60%.) The reality is that there may be a bias in the quality of the lost business, and in the soft market we might expect “better” business to be leaving. Companies report that lost business frequently moves at rate reductions of 20-30% or more!
Slide 16
abThe Effect of New Business
We next assumed that the expected retention rate for an individual policy varies according to the loss ratio of the policy. For this simulation, we assume that for each point of loss ratio variation from the mean, the probability of renewal varies by one percentage point from the expected renewal retention rate. For example, if the base loss ratio for the book of business is 60%, and the renewal retention rate is 80%, a policy with a loss ratio of 62% would have a probability of renewal of 82%.
Slide 17
abThe Effect of New Business:Results of Simulation
80% Retention Rate
82.0%84.0%86.0%88.0%90.0%92.0%94.0%96.0%98.0%
0 -10% -20%
New Business Differential
Loss
Rat
io 2009 Base Case
2009 Vary Ret
Slide 18
abThe Effect of New Business
We next ran the simulations assuming a renewal retention of only 60%; not unheard of for some E&S writers.
Slide 19
abThe Effect of New Business:Results of Simulation
60% Retention Rate
82.0%84.0%86.0%88.0%90.0%92.0%94.0%96.0%98.0%
100.0%102.0%
0 -10% -20%
New Business Differential
Loss
Rat
io 2009 Base Case
2009 Vary Ret
Slide 20
abWhat is the reinsurance pricing actuary to
How do we estimate the “new business differential? Typically, such a quantity is not included in reinsurance submissions
Ask the ceding company if they have attempted to estimate the effect of new business/ lost business on their portfolio
Some rate monitors will already include these effects: e.g. ratio of actual to benchmark
Slide 21
abWhat is the reinsurance pricing actuary to
Look for ways to extract this information from the data that is provided: e.g. if you can identify new business in current bordereau of policies, then compare price per million for like limits, attachments, classes, etc.
If you cannot identify new business, then look at changes in price per million from year to year, again for like limits, attachments, classes, etc. This can at least give you an indicator of the total (new + renewal) rate change – compare to the rate change provided in the submission
Slide 22
abWhat is the reinsurance pricing actuary to
Compare the rate change that the ceding company provides to that of similar portfolios and to industry benchmarks (CIAB, MarketScout.) If they are very different and you have no way of estimating the new business effect, then you might assume that the differences are at least partially attributable to new business/ lost business.
Slide 23
abWhat is the reinsurance pricing actuary to
New Adjust
ed
WrittenRenew
al Rate BusinessExposu
re Rate
Year PremiumRetenti
onChang
eDifferent
ialInflatio
nChang
e
2003 40,000 80%
2004 40,000 80% 15.0% 0% 0.0% 15.0%
2005 40,000 80% 29.0% 0% 0.0% 29.0%
2006 40,000 80% 10.0% 0% 0.0% 10.0%
2007 49,470 80% 2.0% -5% 0.0% 0.3%
2008 44,409 80%
-10.0% -10% 0.0% -11.8%
2009 43,054 80% -8.0% -10% 0.0% -10.2%
Slide 24
abEconomic Crisis Effect on Rate Monitors
Most rate monitors calculate rate changes based on change in premium per exposure
Exposures are typically estimated at time of policy renewal and premium is calculated based on exposure base
Rate monitors are typically created using actual premium and estimated exposures at time of pricing
For many types of policies, premium is not adjusted if exposure base turns out different than that assumed at time of pricing
In most cases, rate monitors are not adjusted
Slide 25
abEconomic Crisis Effect on Rate Monitors
This can result is distortions in rate monitors if exposure estimates are materially incorrect
During current economic crisis, many exposures were overestimated, in particular for classes like Construction (sales), Manufacturing (sales)
This may have resulted in overstatement of rate decreases during 2008 and possibly 2009
Slide 26
abEconomic Crisis Effect on Rate Monitors
Example: Renewal rate change
Portfolio of 20 risks with 2007 premium of $1.76m and exposure of $37.1m (could be sales)
Portfolio renews in 2008 with premium of $1.66m and exposure of $37.9m
Rate change = -7.80%
Company provides this information to reinsurer for 1/1/2009 treaty renewal
Assumed rate change for 2009 is +1.5%
Slide 27
abEconomic Crisis Effect on Rate Monitors
Actual exposure for 2008 comes in on average 10.8% below projected. Since premium does not change, effective rate change becomes +3.40% (as opposed to original -7.80%.)
Does the company go back and adjust their rate monitor for the revised exposure? Probably not.
When 1/1/2010 renewal is done, the rate monitor should “self-adjust”; i.e.. the 2009 monitor should reflect the revised exposure and the effective 2009 rate change will be much higher, all other things being equal.
Slide 28
abEconomic Crisis Effect on Rate Monitors
Example: Reinsurance treaty Effective 1/1/2009
Using 2008 rate change of -7.8% (2009 assumption +1.5%), indicated loss ratio = 87.6%
Using “real” 2008 rate change of +3.4% (2009 assumption +1.5%), indicated loss ratio = 78.1%
This would have a major impact on the reinsurance underwriting decision
Slide 29
abEconomic Crisis Effect on Rate Monitors
Example: Renewal Effective 1/1/2010
“Real” rate change for 2009 is +1.5%; however, company does not go back and correct exposures used in 2008 rate monitor, so understated premium per exposure is used. With “real” 2009 premium per exposure (that is, reflecting reduced exposure), the 2009 rate change appears to be +13.8%. (+2% rate change is assumed for 2010.) Indicated loss ratio is 86.5%.
If 2008 exposures are corrected, and 2008 rate change of +3.4% is used, along with real rate change of +1.5% for 2009 (and same +2% for 2010), indicated loss ratio is ________
Slide 30
abEconomic Crisis Effect on Rate Monitors
Example: Renewal Effective 1/1/2010
86.5%
So the process self-corrected.
However, the underwriting decision for 2008 could have be affected. In addition, if the exposures continue to drop, this process could be perpetuated over multiple years.
Slide 31
abEconomic Crisis Effect on Rate Monitors
Caveats:
• Just because exposure base falls short, does that mean that actual exposure has fallen short? For example, for a Construction risk, if sales decline, was it due to less actual work or lower fees for the same work? The latter may not represent a real drop in loss exposure.
• Is exposure auditable; i.e. can premium be adjusted for audited exposure? (Example: Workers Comp.)
Slide 32
abEconomic Crisis Effect on Rate Monitors
Caveats:
• Is the chosen exposure base the best measure of exposure to loss? For example, for a Trucking risk, exposure base may be number of units. In the recession, the number of units may not change, but the miles driven may be down.
Slide 33
abConclusions
Summary:
Always understand how rate monitors in reinsurance submissions are computed
In addition, ask the client if new business is being included in the rate monitor
If not, request information that would enable you to estimate the new business effect
Understand how exposure base is being used in the rate monitor
Slide 34
abConclusions
Summary:
Determine if company is making corrections to rate monitor to account for revisions in exposure base
Incorporate assumptions on going forward exposure base when projecting future rate movement