Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This paper compares solvency capital requirements under Solvency I and Solvency II for a sample mid-size insurance portfolio. According to the results of a study, changing the solvency capital regime from Solvency I to Solvency II will lead to a substantial additional solvency capital requirement that might represent a heavy burden for the company's shareholders. One way to reduce the capital requirement under Solvency II is to increase reinsurance protection, which will reduce the net retained risk exposure and hence also the solvency capital requirement. Therefore, this paper proposes an extended reinsurance structure that, under Solvency II, brings the capital requirement back to the level of that required under Solvency I. In a step-by-step approach, the paper demonstrates the extent of solvency relief attained by the insurer by applying different possible adjustments in the reinsurance structure. To evaluate the efficiency of reinsurance as the solvency capital relief instrument, the authors introduce a cost-of-capital based approach, which puts the achieved capital relief in relation to the costs of extending the reinsurance protection. This approach allows a direct comparison of reinsurance as a capital relief instrument with debt instruments available in the capital market. With the help of the introduced approach, the authors show that the best capital relief efficiency under all examined reinsurance alternatives is achieved when a financial quota share contract is chosen for proportional reinsurance.

Banking Law --- Capital Requirement --- Debt Markets --- Finance and Financial Sector Development --- Hazard Risk Management --- Insurance & Risk Mitigation --- Insurance Law --- Insurance Portfolio --- Non-Life --- Private Sector Development --- Reinsurance --- Risk Management --- Solvency I --- Solvency II

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Machine learning is a relatively new field, without a unanimous definition. In many ways, actuaries have been machine learners. In both pricing and reserving, but also more recently in capital modelling, actuaries have combined statistical methodology with a deep understanding of the problem at hand and how any solution may affect the company and its customers. One aspect that has, perhaps, not been so well developed among actuaries is validation. Discussions among actuaries’ “preferred methods” were often without solid scientific arguments, including validation of the case at hand. Through this collection, we aim to promote a good practice of machine learning in insurance, considering the following three key issues: a) who is the client, or sponsor, or otherwise interested real-life target of the study? b) The reason for working with a particular data set and a clarification of the available extra knowledge, that we also call prior knowledge, besides the data set alone. c) A mathematical statistical argument for the validation procedure.

History of engineering & technology --- deposit insurance --- implied volatility --- static arbitrage --- parameterization --- machine learning --- calibration --- dichotomous response --- predictive model --- tree boosting --- GLM --- validation --- generalised linear modelling --- zero-inflated poisson model --- telematics --- benchmark --- cross-validation --- prediction --- stock return volatility --- long-term forecasts --- overlapping returns --- autocorrelation --- chain ladder --- Bornhuetter–Ferguson --- maximum likelihood --- exponential families --- canonical parameters --- prior knowledge --- accelerated failure time model --- chain-ladder method --- local linear kernel estimation --- non-life reserving --- operational time --- zero-inflation --- overdispersion --- automobile insurance --- risk classification --- risk selection --- least-squares monte carlo method --- proxy modeling --- life insurance --- Solvency II --- claims prediction --- export credit insurance --- semiparametric modeling --- VaR estimation --- analyzing financial data --- n/a --- Bornhuetter-Ferguson

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Machine learning is a relatively new field, without a unanimous definition. In many ways, actuaries have been machine learners. In both pricing and reserving, but also more recently in capital modelling, actuaries have combined statistical methodology with a deep understanding of the problem at hand and how any solution may affect the company and its customers. One aspect that has, perhaps, not been so well developed among actuaries is validation. Discussions among actuaries’ “preferred methods” were often without solid scientific arguments, including validation of the case at hand. Through this collection, we aim to promote a good practice of machine learning in insurance, considering the following three key issues: a) who is the client, or sponsor, or otherwise interested real-life target of the study? b) The reason for working with a particular data set and a clarification of the available extra knowledge, that we also call prior knowledge, besides the data set alone. c) A mathematical statistical argument for the validation procedure.

History of engineering & technology --- deposit insurance --- implied volatility --- static arbitrage --- parameterization --- machine learning --- calibration --- dichotomous response --- predictive model --- tree boosting --- GLM --- validation --- generalised linear modelling --- zero-inflated poisson model --- telematics --- benchmark --- cross-validation --- prediction --- stock return volatility --- long-term forecasts --- overlapping returns --- autocorrelation --- chain ladder --- Bornhuetter-Ferguson --- maximum likelihood --- exponential families --- canonical parameters --- prior knowledge --- accelerated failure time model --- chain-ladder method --- local linear kernel estimation --- non-life reserving --- operational time --- zero-inflation --- overdispersion --- automobile insurance --- risk classification --- risk selection --- least-squares monte carlo method --- proxy modeling --- life insurance --- Solvency II --- claims prediction --- export credit insurance --- semiparametric modeling --- VaR estimation --- analyzing financial data --- deposit insurance --- implied volatility --- static arbitrage --- parameterization --- machine learning --- calibration --- dichotomous response --- predictive model --- tree boosting --- GLM --- validation --- generalised linear modelling --- zero-inflated poisson model --- telematics --- benchmark --- cross-validation --- prediction --- stock return volatility --- long-term forecasts --- overlapping returns --- autocorrelation --- chain ladder --- Bornhuetter-Ferguson --- maximum likelihood --- exponential families --- canonical parameters --- prior knowledge --- accelerated failure time model --- chain-ladder method --- local linear kernel estimation --- non-life reserving --- operational time --- zero-inflation --- overdispersion --- automobile insurance --- risk classification --- risk selection --- least-squares monte carlo method --- proxy modeling --- life insurance --- Solvency II --- claims prediction --- export credit insurance --- semiparametric modeling --- VaR estimation --- analyzing financial data