Hi,
I found two parts of this section on page 8 difficult to follow, given my lack of pricing experience.
1) "It is important in building such a model to ensure that the elements of the revenue account are self-consistent in their own right.
It is not sufficient to project premiums, investment income, death claims, lapses etc independently.
In other words, any such projection must be based upon a set of mutually consistent variables.
Both the resulting relationships between the elements of the accounts and the absolute values of those elements should be realistic."
Presume the latter part of the final sentence ("the absolute values of those elements should be realistic") means, for example that all elements (premium size, claim amount, investment return) should incorporate same inflation/other economic assumptions.
But what would be an example of the former part ("the resulting relationships between the elements of the accounts...should be realistic")?
2) "‘Profit test results’ in the above context means the cashflows for a single policy. This ‘scaling up’ will need to take into consideration the expected numbers of contracts of each type, including by rating factor."
Therefore the analysis of surplus is carried out separately for each rating factor? (For example a motor insurer would conduct separate analysis for each postcode, driver age, etc in its portfolio) I guess, in practice, the extent to which an insurer groups similar characteristics/rating factors together (for example, consider all 50-60 year old drivers in one analysis) , depends on the size of the insurers portfolio.
I found two parts of this section on page 8 difficult to follow, given my lack of pricing experience.
1) "It is important in building such a model to ensure that the elements of the revenue account are self-consistent in their own right.
It is not sufficient to project premiums, investment income, death claims, lapses etc independently.
In other words, any such projection must be based upon a set of mutually consistent variables.
Both the resulting relationships between the elements of the accounts and the absolute values of those elements should be realistic."
Presume the latter part of the final sentence ("the absolute values of those elements should be realistic") means, for example that all elements (premium size, claim amount, investment return) should incorporate same inflation/other economic assumptions.
But what would be an example of the former part ("the resulting relationships between the elements of the accounts...should be realistic")?
2) "‘Profit test results’ in the above context means the cashflows for a single policy. This ‘scaling up’ will need to take into consideration the expected numbers of contracts of each type, including by rating factor."
Therefore the analysis of surplus is carried out separately for each rating factor? (For example a motor insurer would conduct separate analysis for each postcode, driver age, etc in its portfolio) I guess, in practice, the extent to which an insurer groups similar characteristics/rating factors together (for example, consider all 50-60 year old drivers in one analysis) , depends on the size of the insurers portfolio.