Dealing with the Differences in Hurricane Models Catastrophe Risk Management Seminar October 7 & 8, 2002 Ronald T. Kozlowski Martin M. Simons William Gardner.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
[ ] Preliminary Results of Full-Scale Monitoring of Hurricane Wind Speeds and Wind Loads on Residential Buildings Peter L. Datin Graduate Research Assistant.
Advertisements

Short-term: support populations most effected by trafficking trafficking Long-term: change societal norms and create sustainable options that increase.
Financial Statements Audit
Course on Professionalism ASOP 43 – Property / Casualty Unpaid Claim Estimates.
W Loss Rating Models: Challenges and Opportunities Brian Ingle, FCAS, MAAA WC-3 Perspectives on Pricing Large Accounts 2007 CAS Ratemaking Seminar.
Page 1 | Confidential and Proprietary Information Part C – Section 320 Presenting Information Jim Gaa, Chair, Part C Task Force IESBA Meeting Toronto,
Office of the Auditor General of Canada CANADA’S ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON AUDITING 20 FACTS PREPARERS of FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD KNOW.
Enhancing Data Quality of Distributive Trade Statistics Workshop for African countries on the Implementation of International Recommendations for Distributive.
Breach of a Requirement of the Code Marisa Orbea New York 19 June 2012.
Catastrophe Assessment: Actuarial SOPs and Model Validation CAS Seminar on Catastrophe Issues New Orleans – October 22, 1998 Session 12 Panel: Douglas.
Role of actuarial function supporting the FLAOR leading to the ORSA Ian Morris June 2014.
Assignment Four Underwriting. Definitions Underwriting – The process of selecting policyholders by recognizing and evaluation hazards, establishing prices.
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures ISA Implementation.
PPA 502 – Program Evaluation Lecture 5b – Collecting Data from Agency Records.
COURSE ON PROFESSIONALISM ASOP #17 - Expert Testimony by Actuaries.
HDM-4 Calibration. 2 How well the available data represent the real conditions to HDM How well the model’s predictions fit the real behaviour and respond.
Current CAS Issues and Directions Joanne Spalla MAF Fall Meeting September 21, 2007.
Codex Guidelines for the Application of HACCP
What is Business Analysis Planning & Monitoring?
Skit on Reserving Committee on Professionalism Education.
1 Manufacturing Processes and Validation for Next Generation Implants.
Course on Professionalism Actuarial Organizations and Qualification Standards.
Course on Professionalism ASOP Presentation. 2 Contents Introduction Introduction ASOP Highlights ASOP Highlights ASOP in Asia ASOP in Asia.
Incorporating Catastrophe Models in Property Ratemaking Prop-8 Jeffrey F. McCarty, FCAS, MAAA State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 2000 Seminar on Ratemaking.
Introduction to Experience Rating Kyle Vrieze, FCAS Senior Vice President, Willis Re CAS Ratemaking Seminar Cambridge, Massachusetts March 17, 2008.
1 Application of SAS 112 in a Single Audit GAQC Member Conference Call January 15, 2008 Presented by Mandy Nelson, CPA George Rippey, CPA.
Casualty Actuaries of the Southeast Ethics and Professionalism in Actuary and Auditor Relationships April 1, 2003 David K. Morgan, CPA.
Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar Minneapolis, Minnesota September 18 – 19, 2000 Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 36 Discussion of Implementation Considerations.
The Actuarial Standards Board and Actuarial Standards of Practice Actuaries’ Club of Boston Annual Meeting September 16, 2010 Kathleen A. Riley, FSA, MAAA,
Compliance Audit related to the Audit of Financial Statements Seminar on Financial Audit Standards October 2008 Deputy Director General Kelly Ånerud, Technical.
Ratemaking ASOPS By the CAS Committee on Professionalism Education.
Course on Professionalism ASOP 1 – Introductory Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP)
Monitoring & Evaluation. Objective Learn the why, what and how-to approach to monitoring Review monitoring techniques and define the roles monitoring.
2004 CAS RATEMAKING SEMINAR INCORPORATING CATASTROPHE MODELS IN PROPERTY RATEMAKING (PL - 4) ROB CURRY, FCAS.
Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project Caribbean Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology Tropical Cyclones Characteristics and Forecasting Horace H. P.
Discussion of Unpaid Claim Estimate Standard  Raji Bhagavatula  Mary Frances Miller  Jason Russ November 13, 2006 CAS Annual Meeting San Francisco,
Loss Reserves from the Actuarial, Accounting and IRS Perspectives Actuary’s Perspective by Alan E. Kaliski, FCAS, MAAA.
US Standard of Practice #43 Unpaid Claim and Claim Adjustment Expense Estimates Mary Frances Miller Christopher Carlson Casualty Actuarial Society Quebec,
Copyright © 2008 by the American Academy of Actuaries September 2008 Reserve Ranges – A Summary of the COPLFR Issue Brief Marc F. Oberholtzer, FCAS, MAAA.
Chap. 5 Building Valid, Credible, and Appropriately Detailed Simulation Models.
MODES-650 Advanced System Simulation Presented by Olgun Karademirci VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF SIMULATION MODELS.
Regulatory Guidance to the 2004 Changes to the Actuarial Opinion SWAF Fall 2004 Wendy Germani, FCAS, MAAA Nicole Elliott, Aspiring Actuary.
Building Simulation Model In this lecture, we are interested in whether a simulation model is accurate representation of the real system. We are interested.
NAIC Catastrophe Computer Modeling Handbook Purpose of the Handbook “What on Earth do we need this for?” n The purpose of the Catastrophe Modeling Handbook.
2004 CAS RATEMAKING SEMINAR INCORPORATING CATASTROPHE MODELS IN PROPERTY RATEMAKING (PL - 4) PRICING EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE DAVE BORDER, FCAS, MAAA.
2004 Hurricane Season Recap and Observations May 2005 CAS Meeting.
Medicaid Managed Care Rate Reviews November
Proposed ASB Actuarial Standard of Practice on Statements of Actuarial Opinion Regarding Property/Casualty Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves Status.
2002 CLRS - Arlington, VA Reserve/Opinion Issues from a Regulatory Perspective Proposed Revision to the NAIC Annual Statement Instructions Richard Marcks,
IRS/Actuary Actuary’s Perspective by Alan E. Kaliski, FCAS, MAAA.
Paul Budde, Ph. D., ACAS, MAAA Senior Vice President Using Catastrophe Models for Pricing: The Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund CAS Special Interest.
Copyright © 2011 by the American Academy of Actuaries Southwest Actuarial Forum June Lisa Slotznick, FCAS, MAAA Member, COPLFR Revised ASOP No.
Charles L. McClenahan 10 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL Dancin’ With the Devil Ranges and Adverse Deviation Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar, September.
Dealing With the Differences in Hurricane Models Catastrophe Risk Management Seminar October 2002 Will Gardner FIAA.
ISO 9001:2015 Subject: Quality Management System Clause 8 - Operation
1 Manufacturing Processes and Validation for Next Generation Implants.
Building Valid, Credible & Appropriately Detailed Simulation Models
Consultation on Guidance for (Re)Insurance undertakings on the Head of Actuarial Function Role (CP 103) Presentation to Society of Actuaries in Ireland.
1$1001 2$2002 3$3003 4$5004 6$2,0006 7$4,0007 8$8,0008 9$16, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1, $25, $1 Million15.
Actuarial Credibility Task Force Report & The Potential Impact to ASOP 36 Chris Carlson, FCAS, MAAA Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, Chair Casualty Committee.
15 $1 Million 14 $500, $250, $100, $50, $25,000 9 $16,000 8 $8,000 7 $4,000 6 $2,000 5 $1,000 4 $500 3 $300 2 $200 1 $100.
Auditing & Investigations II
Webinar on the Exposure Draft of CAS Continuing Education Policy
Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model Version 6.2
2000 CAS RATEMAKING SEMINAR
Catastrophe Modeling Personal Lines Perspective
Chapter 10 Verification and Validation of Simulation Models
Alignment of Part 4B with ISAE 3000
Building Valid, Credible, and Appropriately Detailed Simulation Models
Presentation transcript:

Dealing with the Differences in Hurricane Models Catastrophe Risk Management Seminar October 7 & 8, 2002 Ronald T. Kozlowski Martin M. Simons William Gardner

Agenda F Kozlowski - ASOP #38 - Using Models Outside the Actuary’s Area of Expertise F Simons - Why are hurricane models different? F Gardner - Quantification of model uncertainty and variations in model results

ASOP #38 - Development Background F American Academy of Actuaries Casualty Practice Council Meeting F ASB Casualty Council Why is a standard needed: Regulators and other users...question the applicability of these analyses when they are based in large part on the results of models that are either outside of the normal range of actuarial work or for which key parts of the model contain proprietary information and are not subject to normal disclosure processes.

ASOP #38 - Development Background F ASB Casualty Council believes that a new standard on the Use of Complex Models in Actuarial Practices is required.... Address the level of understanding of the model and any underlying theories... Also address what control processes must be used by the actuary in establishing a reliance on the model’s output. F ASB Task Force on Complex Models F Adopted by the Actuarial Standards Board June 2000

ASB Task Force on Complex Models F Karen F. Terry, Chair F Kay A. Cleary F Alice H. Gannon F Paul E. Kinson F Ronald T. Kozlowski F Godfrey Perrott F David A. Lalonde F Jeffrey F. McCarty F Daniel M. Scheibenreif F A. Eric Thorlacius F Joan M. Weiss F Kurt Reichle

Issues F Is a standard needed? F Should it address when to use a model? F Who should standard apply to? F Raising the bar F Reliance on experts F Proprietary issues

Using Models Outside the Actuary’s Area of Expertise (P/C) F Section 1 - Purpose, Scope, Cross References, and Effective Date F Section 2 - Definitions F Section 3 - Analysis of Issues and Recommended Practices F Section 4 - Communications & Disclosures F Appendices

Section 1 - Scope This standard applies to actuaries who use models that incorporate specialized knowledge outside of the actuary’s own area of expertise when performing professional services in connection with property and casualty insurance coverages... This standard applies to all models whether or not they are proprietary in nature. The standard is intended to be used in conjunction with other actuarial standards of practice (ASOPs) providing guidance for actuarial work,... If a conflict exists between this standard and applicable law, compliance with applicable law is not considered to be a deviation from this standard.

Section Introduction When using a model that incorporates specialized knowledge outside the actuary’s own area of expertise, the actuary should: FDetermine appropriate reliance on experts FHave basic understanding of the model FEvaluate whether model is appropriate for intended application FConfirm appropriate validation has occurred FDetermine appropriate use of model Level of effort in understanding and evaluating should be consistent with intended use and its materiality to results of actuarial analysis

Section Appropriate Reliance on Experts Actuary should consider whether: F individual is an expert F model has been reviewed by experts in field F there are standards that apply to the model or to the testing and validation of the model... certified as having met such standards

Section Understanding of the Model “The actuary should be familiar with the basic components of the model and understand both the user input and the model output...” FModel Components (familiar with basic components, basic understanding, is it generally accepted, how tested or validated, level of independent expert review) FUser Input (detail required to produce results consistent with intended use) FModel Output (consistent with intended use)

Section Appropriateness of the Model for the Intended Application Is the model appropriate for particular actuarial analysis? May consider: F Applicability of historical data F Developments in relevant fields. Impossible to remain up to date if not an expert in the field

Section Appropriate Validation The actuary should evaluate the user input and reasonableness of the model output F Directed to ASOP 23, Data Quality F Reasonability may consider  Results of alternative models or methods  Historical observations  Consistency of relationships  Sensitivity to variations in assumptions

Section Appropriate Use of the Model Having completed sections , the actuary should use judgment to determine whether it is appropriate to use the model results, making any compensating adjustments as necessary.

Section Reliance on Model Evaluation by Another Actuary F An actuary may rely on another actuary who followed this standard F Satisfied that other actuary’s evaluation performed in accordance and is appropriate for intended purpose F Disclose such reliance

HURRICANE MODELS WHY ARE THEIR RESULTS DIFFERENT?

MODEL COMPONENTS PRIMARY COMPONENTS w Meteorology w Vulnerability w Actuarial SECONDARY COMPONENTS w Statistical w Computer

METEOROLOGICAL COMPONENTS w Hurricane Frequencies geographical frequencies frequency by magnitude directional frequencies w Hurricane Tracks initial position initial direction directional movements

METEOROLOGICAL COMPONENTS - CONTINUED w Hurricane Characteristics central pressure wind speed forward velocity radius of maximum winds radius of hurricane force winds far field pressure other characteristics –Rankine vortex –Beta parameter

METEOROLOGICAL COMPONENTS - CONTINUED Surface water temperature Geographical impacts Distance from landfall Surface roughness topography buildings trees

VULNERABILITY CHARACTERISTICS w Data used to derive damage functions Insurance claim data Post hurricane inspections Wind tunnel tests Engineering judgment w Data used to verify damage functions Insurance claim data Post hurricane inspections

VULNERABILITY CHARACTERISTICS - CONTINUED w Adjustments to damage functions New building codes Mitigation measures Individual structural characteristics Roof type Cladding type Structure height Many others

ACTUARIAL COMPONENTS w Policy provisions Policy limits Deductibles Coinsurance w Insurer practices What constitutes a covered claim? What constitutes a total loss?

STATISTICAL TESTS w VERIFICATION w statistically reasonable results? w UNCERTAINTY w Causes of the variations? w SENSITIVITY w How does each component impact result?

STATISTICAL TESTS - CONTINUED w Verification of reasonable results Chi-square goodness-of-fit test Kolmogorov-Smirnov test Cramer-von Mises test w Sensitivity and Uncertainty Latin Hypercube Sampling

SO WHY DO MODEL RESULTS DIFFER? w Incomplete knowledge w Myriad of variables w Very short historical period w Constantly changing environment Structures Population shifts w Policy variations w Insurer practice variations