1 Research Double-Header Don Mango, FCAS, MAAA CAS Vice President of Research Director of Research and Development, GE ERC Midwest Actuarial Forum September.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Investment Centers and Transfer Pricing n Top managers of large companies evaluate their divisions as investment centers. The manager of an investment.
Advertisements

Chapter 9 Project Analysis Chapter Outline
Doctoral Training Workshops Getting published and the reviewing process Steve Potter, Alex Borda-Rodriguez, Sue Oreszczyn and Julius Mugwagwa February.
Doctoral Training Workshops Getting published and the reviewing process Steve Potter and Sue Oreszczyn January 2015.
4. Project Investment Decision-Making
Presenting DFA Results to Decision Makers Spring 2008 Midwest Actuarial Forum.
Reinsurance Presentation Example 2003 CAS Research Working Party: Executive Level Decision Making using DFA Raju Bohra, FCAS, ARe.
24 Performance Evaluation for Decentralized Operations Accounting 26e
1 Capital Consumption Don Mango American Re-Insurance 2003 CARe Seminar.
Finance, Financial Markets, and NPV
EEN [Canada] Forum Shelley Borys Director, Evaluation September 30, 2010 Developing Evaluation Capacity.
Other topics: Adjusted Present Value & Preferred Stock MF 807: Corporate Finance Professor Thomas Chemmanur.
Time and Cost Estimation
/ F.B : Lec# 1 Chapter # 1 Introduction to Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management By: Nusrat ullah noori / F.B.
03 July 2015Course Overview1 Energy Project Evaluation RES Course ESP606 Goal: To build up knowledge to so that participants will be able to assess if.
Copyright © 2001 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide Saving and Capital Formation.
Capital Consumption Don Mango American Re-Insurance 2003 CAS Ratemaking Seminar.
Australia’s Experience in Utilising Performance Information in Budget and Management Processes Mathew Fox Assistant Secretary, Budget Coordination Branch.
A Comparison of Property-Liability Insurance Financial Pricing Models Stephen P. D’Arcy, FCAS, MAAA, Ph.D. Richard W. Gorvett, FCAS, MAAA, Ph.D. Department.
1 © 2009 University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension, Program Development and Evaluation Getting started with evaluation.
20 Variable Costing for Management Analysis
Best Practices In Design Outcomes Of A Survey P. H. King, PhD, PE Joan Walker, PhD Vanderbilt University.
MANAGERIAL ECONOMICS.
PAD190 PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
SESSION ONE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT & APPRAISALS.
Enterprise Risk Management Challenges for Insurers Donald Mango, FCAS, MAAA Director of Research and Development, GE ERC.
AICT5 – eProject Project Planning for ICT. Process Centre receives Scenario Group Work Scenario on website in October Assessment Window Individual Work.
1 RCM-1 Broadening and Evolving the Ratemaking Role in Insurance Company Management Russ BinghamRatemaking Seminar Vice President Actuarial Research Atlanta,
Accounting Principles, Ninth Edition
Budget setting Nursery Management Understanding and Managing Finance.
Northcentral University The Graduate School February 2014
Profit Provisions Should Not Be a Function of the Firm Lee Van Slyke Provisions for Profits and Contingencies Casualty Actuarial Society Ratemaking Conference.
2 UTSA has developed a process to systematically review all fees to: 1. 1.Analyze expenditures and transfers to ensure appropriate use consistent with.
© 2010 South-Western, Cengage Learning Chapter © 2010 South-Western, Cengage Learning Personal Decision Making 20.1Making Better Decisions 20.2Spending.
Abcd 2001 Healthcare Conference Learning from Experience October 2001 © Peter Turvey.
On visible choice set and scope sensitivity: - Dealing with the impact of study design on the scope sensitivity Improving the Practice of Benefit Transfer:
RMK and Covariance Seminar on Risk and Return in Reinsurance September 26, 2005 Dave Clark American Re-Insurance Company This material is being provided.
1 Derivatives & Risk Management: Part II Models, valuation and risk management.
Capital Allocation using the Ruhm-Mango-Kreps Algorithm David L. Ruhm, FCAS Enterprise Risk Management Symposium Session CS-13: Risk-Adjusted Capital Allocation.
AEG recommendations on Non-life insurance services (Issue 5) Workshop on National Accounts December 2006, Cairo 1 Gulab Singh UN STATISTICS DIVISION.
Ratemaking ASOPS By the CAS Committee on Professionalism Education.
Discussion of Unpaid Claim Estimate Standard  Raji Bhagavatula  Mary Frances Miller  Jason Russ November 13, 2006 CAS Annual Meeting San Francisco,
Ratemaking Research Working Party Stewart Gleason, Ph.D., ACAS, ASA, MAAA CAS Research Initiatives Coordinator Senior Vice President Guy Carpenter & Company,
Research Working Party Kickoff Don Mango CAS VP Research & Development 2003 RCM Seminar.
Feasibility Study.
University of Minnesota Internal\External Sales “The Internal Sales Review Process” An Overview of What Happens During the Review.
Credit risk in banks - importance of appraisal and monitoring PRESENTED BY : KRATI VERMA (09bshyd0390)
RCM-4: From Enterprise Risk Management to Ratemaking Don Mango, FCAS, MAAA Director of R&D, GE Insurance Solutions Vice President of R&D, CAS CAS Annual.
Financial Management Glencoe Entrepreneurship: Building a Business Analyzing Your Finances Managing Your Finances 21.1 Section 21.2 Section 21.
2002 CLRS - Arlington, VA Reserve/Opinion Issues from a Regulatory Perspective Proposed Revision to the NAIC Annual Statement Instructions Richard Marcks,
2000 CLRS - September 18th CAS Fair Value Task Force White Paper Methods of Estimation Louise Francis Francis Analytics and Actuarial Data Mining, Inc.
26 September 2005 Stephen Lowe Survey Results / Overview of Methods CAS Limited Attendance Seminar on Risk and Return in Reinsurance.
Capital Consumption Don Mango American Re-Insurance 2002 CAS Risk and Capital Management Seminar.
Reserve Variability Working Party Kickoff Phil Heckman Aon Risk Consultants Roger Hayne Milliman USA CLRS 2003.
Needles Powers Crosson Principles of Accounting 12e The Budgeting Process 22 C H A P T E R ©human/iStockphoto.
Lessons learned - viewpoints on increasing analytical capabilities Elizabeth Riczko, FCAS, MAAA, CPCU 1.
Casualty Actuarial Society Insurance Accounting for Actuaries May 17, 2005  Presented by: Kevin Wick, FCAS, MAAA.
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization Presented by: Kuan Chen.
1 PROFIT AND CONTINGENCIES IN RATEMAKING (FIN - 12) Russ Bingham Vice President and Director of Corporate Research Hartford Financial Services Seminar.
Improve Own Learning and Performance. Progression from levels 1-3 Progression from levels 1-3 At all levels, candidates are required to show they can.
The Federal Reserve System. Prior to 1913, hundreds of national banks in the U.S. could print as much paper money as they wanted They could lend a lot.
Chapter © 2010 South-Western, Cengage Learning Personal Decision Making Making Better Decisions Spending Habits 20.
Proceedings Paper Value Creation in Insurance – A Finance Perspective Russ Bingham CAS Annual Meeting Vice President andNov , 2004 Director.
1 Measuring Impact Guide This guide is an introduction to assessing the impact and spending effectiveness of your district’s initiatives and the resources.
FASB Targeted Improvements
PROFIT AND CONTINGENCIES (FIN-28)
Setting Actuarial Standards
Personal Decision Making
Computer Simulation with Concert Tour Entrepreneur
1 Limits, Alternatives, and Choices
Presentation transcript:

1 Research Double-Header Don Mango, FCAS, MAAA CAS Vice President of Research Director of Research and Development, GE ERC Midwest Actuarial Forum September 24, 2003

2 Agenda 1. CAS Research Revision: official CAS business as the VP of Research and Development 2. Capital Consumption: latest prize-winning paper

3 CAS Research Revision Don Mango CAS VP Research & Development

4 Problem Statements No keepers of the state of the science Need for survey papers, syllabus material Research overload via Call Papers Role/function of the PCAS unclear

5 Proposed Solutions Rein in Call Paper programs Establish Working Paper and Model repository on the CAS Website Institute Working Parties Establish Research Corners and Working Party sessions at the major seminars

6 Why Call Papers? Bottom-up, fast-track research source. Stimulate communication, discussion and sharing. Good in concept, in practice is another story.

7 Call Paper Forum Not a top-tier professional journal Not peer reviewed. Inclusive editorial policy. Inconsistent review and prize standards. Inconsistent appearance and structure of papers. Not enough editorial oversight. Contributes to members’ filtration and overload problems.

8 Call Papers Not generating discussion Solitary practitioners produce, present No context, follow-up, formal discussion Not leading to systematic progress of the science No referencing standards, context No clear advancement of the science

9 Call Papers  Working Papers Many CPs are the equivalent of working papers within academia Posted on websites and discussion forums Works-in-progress, on their way to peer- reviewed journals We can still have bottom-up idea generation, idea sharing, and discussion by establishing a Working Paper (and Model) repository on the CAS Website

10 Working Paper Repository Categorized by research area Members can post and comment on posts (mini-reviews) Items receiving a lot of activity can be the material for the Research Corners at the major seminars

11 Call Paper Refinement Less often (~biennial) More editorial oversight Subject to the new CAS Research Paper template Impose length requirements (<30 pages) Must adhere more closely to the subjects of the Call

12 Working Parties Essentially a collective call paper task force Collective = group effort, single group work product Ideas come from the members attending major seminar Seminar has presentation of prior year’s work, selection of next year’s topics

13 Working Parties Group effort forces discussion during the production of the product Oversight by research committee Can enforce editorial standards, referencing, ensure that current state of the science is documented, as well as context and scope of new research

14 Working Parties An easy to implement answer that helps on many fronts: Solitary  Group Bottom-up + Top-down Consistency in format, referencing, etc. Member involvement Natural seminar cycle supports it

15 Working Parties Four WPs kicked off at 2003 RCM Seminar Reserve Variability (led by Roger Hayne) kicked off at 2003 CLRS More to come

16 Publications Task Force Impact and notoriety of PCAS outside the CAS is essentially NIL Forum is used / abused Large bodies of work published without formal peer review Considering some radical surgery Maybe we join the NAAJ

17 Capital Consumption Don Mango Director of Research and Development GE ERC

18 Why Even Consider This? Despite significant efforts throughout the industry, capital allocation has yet to be effectively implemented in (re)insurance This alternative method also has strong linkages to financial theory, while more accurately representing the actual capital usage of insurance

19 Problem Statements Capital allocation is a de facto paradigm  a requirement or necessity But insurance capital usage is fundamentally different than it is for manufacturing, being in fact the mirror- image in time For these decision evaluation processes, capital allocation is sufficient but not necessary

20 Problem Statements Even worse, the resulting insurance IRR framework is now completely fictional (“imputed”), since no capital is transferred or returned However, insurance capital is consumed when results are worse than planned

21 Actually  This IS capital allocation for insurance, done right  But I needed new terminology to shake loose the old thought processes

22 Core Paradox  Manufacturers need capital committed to support the operation…  …and they actually use it, spending it on materials, operations, labor…  …and it’s invested in their business, in the production of their goods.

23 Core Paradox  Insurance companies need capital committed to support the operation…  …but they can’t actually use it (or not too much of it anyway)…  …and it’s not invested in their business, but in financial instruments.

24 Two Bets Bet #1 You pay me $10 now I might pay you $50 later Bet #2 I pay you $10 now You might have to pay me $50 later

25 Payoff Diagrams

26 Bet #1 Spend then Maybe Receive You spend now, hope to receive later You spend NOW, voluntarily With the odds I give you, you can compute an expected value and decide if you want to make the bet

27 Bet #2 Receive then Maybe Spend You receive now, hope you don’t have to spend later You MAY spend LATER, contingent on something happening With the odds I give you, you can compute an expected value and decide if you want to make the bet

28 Capital? Bet #1 = $10 You spend $10 capital NOW no matter what The capital investment is current and certain – i.e., not contingent The capital is allocated = spent = consumed Natural capacity constraint = your budget

29 Capital? Bet #2 = $??? I should be sure you have $40 available LATER, but you don’t spend anything NOW If Bet #2 hits, you spend $40 capital LATER Capital expenditure (= allocation) is contingent and in the future Capacity constraints = ???

30 Allocation vs Consumption Two different but equally valid frameworks for Treating capital Evaluating insurance business segments Developing indicated prices for reinsurance Nearly orthogonal

31 Allocation vs Consumption Three questions: 1. What do you do with the total capital? 2. How do you evaluate business segments? 3. What does it mean to be in a portfolio?

32 Allocation vs Consumption

33 Allocation vs Consumption

34 Allocation vs Consumption The difference between having your own kiddie pool and joining a swim club This is THE CRITICAL SLIDE!

35 Options Framework The company capital pool is giving each reserving segment a series of options to draw upon (consume) the capital These options Expire unused if segment meets or beats Plan Are exercised if segment’s results deteriorate

36 Options Framework Similar to a Line of Credit (LOC) A contingent loan, with full expectation to be reimbursed This is a valid alternative financial analogue Much closer to the way capital actually gets used by an insurer

37 Options Beware “Options” does not imply Black- Scholes formula For one thing, we cannot hedge our exposure We must price it from first principles  modeled payoff distribution and internal risk charges

38 Details of the Framework Scenario analysis Default-free discounting Scenario-level capital consumption Evaluation of capital consumption using a “quasi~utility” approach

39 Scenario Capital Consumption Experience fund From Finite Reinsurance Fund into which goes all revenue, from which comes all payments Bakes in investment income When the fund is exhausted, but further payments still need to be made, exercise the Call Option for capital That capital gets spent  CONSUMED

40

41 Capital Call Cost Function Risk-based overhead expense loading Pricing decision variable Application of utility theory Borch (1961): To introduce a utility function which the company seeks to maximize, means only that such consistency requirements (in the various subjective judgments made by an insurance company) are put into mathematical form.

42 Implicit Preferences Preferences buried in Kreps’ “Marginal Standard Deviation” risk load approach: The marginal impact on the portfolio standard deviation is our chosen functional form for transforming a given distribution of outcomes to a single risk measure. Risk is completely reflected, properly measured and valued by this transform. Upward deviations are treated the same as downward deviations.

43 Capital Call Cost Function Make the implicit explicit Express your preferences explicitly, in mathematical form, and apply them via a utility function The mythical “Risk Appetite” Enforce consistency in the many judgments being made

44 THANK YOU!