• 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.

Run-off triangle (adjustment for inflation)

N

Naruto

Member
Hi,

I have a question relating to the inflation adjustment (be it past or future)....

As shown in the notes, the adjustment is performed through transforming the diagonal (calendar year) incremental claims into, usually, latest year's price. However, I have found it weird as I would have thought that we should be adjusting the rows instead of the diagonal...

Probably an example is clearer..

Assuming there are 3 incurred years (2004 - 2005), and each year there are equivalent incremental claims of S$100 in each development year. Hence, the incremental diagonal would look like below:

0 1 2
2004 100 100 100
2005 100 100
2006 100

Assuming 10% inflation each year, adjusted incremental claims is then below:
0 1 2
2004 121 110 100
2005 110 100
2006 100

However, my thought is that each row contains claims that were incurred in the year. And believe that an incurred claim (say incurred 2004) of an amount of S$100 would ultimately be paid out in S$100 irregardless of which year the amount is settled (i.e. a claim that was incurred in 2004 but paid in 2006 should be in 2004's price). This suggested that the highlighted figure above is expressed in 2004's price instead of 2006's price even though the claim is settled in 2006.

Hence my suggested incremental claims triangle for inflation is below instead:
0 1 2
2004 121 121 121
2005 110 110
2006 100


Greatly appreciate your help and many thanks in advance!!!
 
Hi Naruto

If I recalled correctly, the purpose of indexing the historical increments is to bring the triangle to the current valuation.

So an increase of 100 in 2004 is equivalent to an increment of 121 in the year 2006 (current year). That is why the diagonal (from bottom left to top right) is unadjusted because these figures are in the year 2006.

Does it make sense?
 
Back
Top