Why models need a certain culture to flourish

About half a year ago Ian Branagan, Chief Risk Officer of Renaissance Re - a Bermudian reinsurance company with a focus on property catastrophe insurance, gave a talk about the usage of models in risk management and how they evolved over the last twenty years. Ian's presentation, titled with the famous quote of George E.P. Box: "All models are wrong, but some are useful", was part of the lunch time lecture series of talks at Lloyd's, organised by the Insurance Institute of London.

I re-discovered the talk online over the weekend and found it most enlightening again.

So, what makes models useful? And here I mean models that estimate extreme outcomes / percentiles. Three factors are critical, according to Ian, to embed models successfully in risk management and decision making processes.

1. Need - A clear defined need for the model.
2. Capabilities - The skills and resources to build and maintain the model.
3. Culture - An organisational culture that embraces, understands and challenges the model.

The need, if not driven internally, is often imposed by external requirements, such as regulation, e.g. banks and insurers have to use models to estimate the risk of insolvency in many countries. Building capabilities can largely be achieved by investing in people, technology and data. However, the last factor culture, so Ian, is often the most challenging one. Changing business processes, particularly in decision making at senior level requires people to change.

Where in the past senior management may have relied on advisors' expert judgement to guide them in their decision makings, they have to use models in a similar way now as well. I suppose, in the same way as it takes time and effort to build effective relationships with people, it is true for models as well. And equally, decisions should never rely purely on either other people's opinion or indeed model output. As Ian put it, outsourcing all modelling/thinking, and with that the decision making to vendors of models, such as catastrophe modelling companies or rating agencies, who both aim to provide probabilities for extreme events (catastrophes and companies failures) may be sufficient to tick a risk management box, but can ultimately put the company at risk, if model assumptions and limitations are not well understood.

Perhaps we are at the dawn of another enlightenment? Recall Kant's first sentence of his essay What is enlightenment?: "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity." Indeed, it doesn't matter if we use experts' opinions or the output of models, relying blindly on them is dangerous and foolish. Don't stop thinking for yourself. Be critical! Remember, all models are wrong, but some are useful.

Reserving based on log-incremental payments in R, part III

This is the third post about Christofides' paper on Regression models based on log-incremental payments [1]. The first post covered the fundamentals of Christofides' reserving model in sections A - F, the second focused on a more realistic example and model reduction of sections G - K. Today's post will wrap up the paper with sections L - M and discuss data normalisation and claims inflation.

I will use the same triangle of incremental claims data as introduced in my previous post. The final model had three parameters for origin periods and two parameters for development periods. It is possible to reduce the model further as Christofides illustrates in section L onwards by using an inflation index to bring all claims payments to current value and a claims volume adjustment or weight for each origin period to normalise the triangle.

In his example Christofides uses claims volume adjustments for the origin years and an earning or inflation index for the different payment calendar years. The claims volume adjustments aims to normalise the triangle for similar exposures across origin periods, while the earnings index, which measures largely wages and other forms of compensations, is used as a first proxy for claims inflation. Note that the earnings index shows significant year on year changes from 5% to 9%. Barnett and Zehnwirth [2] would probably recommend to add further parameters for the calendar year effects to the model.

# Page D5.36
ClaimsVolume <- data.frame(origin=0:6, 
  volume.index=c(1.43, 1.45, 1.52, 1.35, 1.29, 1.47, 1.91))
# Page D5.36
EarningIndex <- data.frame(cal=0:6, 
  earning.index=c(1.55, 1.41, 1.3, 1.23, 1.13, 1.05, 1))
# Year on year changes
round((1-EarningIndex$earning.index[-1]/EarningIndex$earning.index[-7]),2)
# [1] 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.05

dat <- merge(merge(dat, ClaimsVolume), EarningIndex)

# Normalise data for volume and earnings
dat$logvalue.ind.inf <- with(dat, log(value/volume.index*earning.index))
 
with(dat, interaction.plot(dev, origin, logvalue.ind.inf))
points(1+dat$dev, dat$logvalue.ind.inf, pch=16, cex=0.8)
Indeed, the interaction plot shows the various origin years now to be much more closely grouped. Only the single point of the last origin period stands out now.  Christofides tests several models with different numbers of origin levels, but I am happy with the minimal model using only one parameter for the origin period, namely the intercept:

Read more »

Reserving based on log-incremental payments in R, part II

Following on from last week's post I will continue to go through the paper Regression models based on log-incremental payments by Stavros Christofides [1]. In the previous post I introduced the model from the first 15 pages up to section F. Today I will progress with sections G to K which illustrate the model with a more realistic incremental claims payments triangle from a UK Motor Non-Comprehensive account:

# Page D5.17
tri <- t(matrix(
  c(3511, 3215, 2266, 1712, 1059, 587, 340,
    4001, 3702, 2278, 1180,  956, 629,  NA,
    4355, 3932, 1946, 1522, 1238,  NA,  NA,
    4295, 3455, 2023, 1320,   NA,  NA,  NA,
    4150, 3747, 2320,   NA,   NA,  NA,  NA,
    5102, 4548,   NA,   NA,   NA,  NA,  NA,
    6283,   NA,   NA,   NA,   NA,  NA,  NA), nc=7))

The rows show origin period data, e.g. accident years, underwriting years or years of account and the columns present the development periods or lags. The triangle appears to be fairly well behaved. The last two years in rows 6 and 7 appear to be slightly higher than rows 2 to 5 and the values in row 1 are lower in comparison to the later years. The last payment of £1,238 in the third row stands out a bit as well.

Before I plot the data, I will transform the triangle into a data frame and add extra columns:

m <- dim(tri)[1]; n <- dim(tri)[2]
dat <- data.frame(
  origin=rep(0:(m-1), n),
  dev=rep(0:(n-1), each=m),
  value=as.vector(tri))

## Add dimensions as factors
dat <- with(dat, data.frame(origin, dev, cal=origin+dev, 
                            value, logvalue=log(value),
                            originf=factor(origin),
                            devf=as.factor(dev),
                            calf=as.factor(origin+dev)))

I am particularly interested in the decay of claims payments in the development year direction for each origin year on the original and log-scale. The interaction.plot of the stats package does an excellent job for this:

op <- par(mfrow=c(2,1), mar=c(4,4,2,2))
with(dat, interaction.plot(x.factor=dev, trace.factor=origin, 
          response=value))
points(dat$devf, dat$value, pch=16, cex=0.5)
with(dat, interaction.plot(x.factor=dev, trace.factor=origin, 
          response=logvalue))
points(dat$devf, dat$logvalue, pch=16, cex=0.5)
par(op)

Indeed the origin years 1 to 4 (rows 2 to 5) look quite similar and the decay of claims in development year direction appears to be linear on a log-scale from development year 1 onwards.

Based on those observations Christofides suggests two models; the first one will have a unique level for each origin year and a unique level for the zero development period. The parameters for development periods 1 to 6 are assumed to follow a linear relationship with the same slope \(s\):
\begin{align}
\ln(P_{ij}) & = Y_{ij} = a_i + d_j + \epsilon_{ij}
&\mbox{for } i,\,j \mbox{ from } 0 \mbox{ to } 6\\
\mbox{where } d_0 &= d,\quad d_j = s \cdot j
&\mbox{for } j > 0
\end{align}and \(\epsilon_{ij} \sim N(0, \sigma^2)\). The second model will be a reduced version of the above with only two levels for the origin years 5 and 6. Hence, I add four more columns to my data frame:Read more »

Reserving based on log-incremental payments in R, part I

A recent post on the PirateGrunt blog on claims reserving inspired me to look into the paper Regression models based on log-incremental payments by Stavros Christofides [1], published as part of the Claims Reserving Manual (Version 2) of the Institute of Actuaries.

The paper is available together with a spread sheet model, illustrating the calculations. It is very much based on ideas by Barnett and Zehnwirth, see [2] for a reference. However, doing statistical analysis in a spread sheet programme is often cumbersome. I will go through the first 15 pages of Christofides' paper today and illustrate how the model can be implemented in R.

Let's start with the example data of an incremental claims triangle:

## Page D5.4
tri <- t(matrix(
  c(11073,  6427, 1839, 766,
    14799,  9357, 2344,  NA,
    15636, 10523,   NA,  NA,
    16913,    NA,   NA,  NA), 
  nc=4, dimnames=list(origin=0:3, dev=0:3)))

The above triangle shows incremental claims payments for four origin (accident) years over time (development years). It is the aim to predict the bottom right triangle of future claims payments, assuming no further claims after four development years.

Christofides model assumes the following structure for the incremental paid claims \(P_{ij}\):
\begin{align}
\ln(P_{ij}) & = Y_{ij} = a_i + b_j + \epsilon_{ij}
\end{align}where i and j go from 0 to 3, \(b_0=0\) and \(\epsilon_{ij} \sim N(0, \sigma^2)\). Unlike the basic chain-ladder method, this is a stochastic model that allows me to test my assumptions and calculate various statistics, e.g. standards errors of my predictions.
Read more »

Reshaping the IT world

During my university time I worked on the IT help desk for a while. One day I received a call from a professor, who said that his printer had stopped working. So I asked him, if there was a message on the display and if he could read it to me. "Oh yes", he said, "it says: 'Load A4 paper.'"

Rachel King quotes a study by Cisco on ZDnet, which believes to have found out that college students and young employees under the age of 30 would rather take a lower salary than having no social media freedom, device flexibility and work mobility.

It feels like the 1960's in a lot of offices and IT departments of today. A younger generation is demanding more freedom and fun. It just not called rock music, mini skirts or of course the anti baby pill, which the generation of my professor was fighting for. That's all established now. It is the digital equivalent of those rights and I can understand that IT departments are concerned about this.

Read more »