1. In accordance with guidance from the profession, all posts are now being moderated as we are in the exam period. You may not see your post appear for a day or two. See the 'Forum help' thread entitled 'Using forums during exam period' for further information. You must not discuss any of the current exams until the last exam has been sat.
    Dismiss Notice

CT6-2005-September Q9

Discussion in 'CM2' started by Jia Syuen, Sep 12, 2019.

  1. Jia Syuen

    Jia Syuen Active Member

    For the Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method, according to the examiner's report, I want to ask how to come up with the 1149,8,770 and 459.4. Thanks
     
  2. Anna Bishop

    Anna Bishop ActEd Tutor Staff Member

    Hi Jia

    I've now had a good look through this question.

    The BF method enables us to estimate the claims that have yet to emerge / be paid (called the emerging liability or o/s claims amount).

    To calculate the emerging liability for 2004 using the BF method, we start with an initial estimate of the ultimate claims (the total claim amount that we think we will end up paying in 2004) ...

    ... this initial estimate is based on the loss ratio ...

    ... then we use the development ratios from to work backwards to decide what we think should have been paid in each of the previous development years.

    The initial estimate of the ultimate claim amount is the premium * loss ratio = 5,250 * 0.75 = 3937.50.

    Therefore, if we believe that the loss ratio is accurate, we expect to pay 3937.50 in total in respect of accident year 2004.

    The development ratios were calculated on the previous page of the Examiners' Report, these are:

    DY0-1 1.73783
    DY1-2 1.28434
    DY2-3 1.13207

    (I'm assuming you're ok with the calculation of these?)

    With the basic chain ladder method we use these to project forwards. However, with BF, we use them to project backwards - ie if we believe 3937.5 is the correct ultimate claim figure, then what do we think the claims figures would have been in the previous development years? Instead of multiplying up by the development ratios, we divide by them to get estimates of the cumulative claims paid in each of the development years:

    _______DY0______DY1______DY2______DY3 (Ultimate)
    2004__1558.32___2708.10__3478.13___3937.5

    For example, to get the DY2 figure I have done 3937.5 / 1.13207 = 3478.13.
    And to get the DY2 figure, I have done 3937.5 / (1.13207 * 1.28434).

    These figures are still cumulative. We need to make them incremental in order to apply future inflation (inflation is only ever applied to the incremental figures). Taking the four figures above and disaccumulating them gives:

    _______DY0______DY1______DY2______DY3 (Ultimate)
    2004__1558.32__1149.78____770.03___459.37

    For example, to get the DY2 figure, I have done 3478.13 - 2708.10 = 770.03.

    Note that the three figures in DY1, DY2 and DY3 give us an estimate of the claims yet to emerge, ie the outstanding claims.

    Then the examiners' report goes on to apply the future inflation to these three figures to give us the face value of the amounts to be paid in the future years. These are then summed to give the total outstanding claims.

    Is this ok now?
    Anna
     
    Jia Syuen likes this.

Share This Page