• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

IBNER adjustment - RI pricing

P

phos2

Member
I am looking at chapter 20 - page 18/19/20:

The IBNER development from the cedant’s large loss experience can be derived by arranging historical loss developments into development triangles aggregated by year and then comparing the (trended) incurred at time t for losses for year n reported at time t, with the (trended) incurred at time t + 1 for losses for year n reported at time t.

Could someone explain by what is mean by "year" in this case? Can it be underwriting year/accident year/reporting year?

The reason I ask is because the SP7 notes say that IBNER adjustments are made by grouping the claims by reporting year and make no mention at all of this t/t+1 distinction. Are the two methods equivalent?
 
Can it be underwriting year/accident year/reporting year?
It doesn't much matter which origin year you use. The crucial thing here is the wording "for claims reported at time t". Think of it like this:

Take an incurred triangle at time t and compare it with time t+1, but you should exclude claims that were only reported in the last 12 months.

This way, you are analysing the development of reported claims from time t to t+1. By definition, this is IBNER.

Otherwise, the movement in the last 12 months will be a mix of both:
  • newly reported claims (ie claims that were IBNR claims at time t)
  • development of previously reported claims (this development is precisely the IBNER that you're trying to analyse)
The reason I ask is because the SP7 notes say that IBNER adjustments are made by grouping the claims by reporting year and make no mention at all of this t/t+1 distinction. Are the two methods equivalent?

It is similar yes, but if you construct a triangle differently (ie different origin years, or paid vs incurred or what have you) you'll end up with a different result.
 
Back
Top