arxiv: v1 [math.st] 23 Aug 2018

Transcription

1 FRACTIONAL RISK PROCESS IN INSURANCE Arun KUMAR 1 Nikolai LEONENKO 2 Alois PICHLER 3 arxiv: v1 [math.st] 23 Aug 218 Abstract Important models in insurance, for example the Carmér Lundberg theory and the Sparre Andersen model, essentially rely on the Poisson process. The process is used to model arrival times of insurance claims. This paper extends the classical framework for ruin probabilities by proposing and involving the fractional Poisson process as a counting process and addresses fields of applications in insurance. The interdependence of the fractional Poisson process is an important feature of the process, which leads to initial stress of the surplus process. On the other hand we demonstrate that the average capital required to recover a company after ruin does not change when switching to the fractional Poisson regime. We finally address particular risk measures, which allow simple evaluations in an environment governed by the fractional Poisson process. 1 Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Ropar, Rupnagar, Punjab 141, India arun.kumar@iitrpr.ac.in 2 Cardiff School of Mathematics, Cardiff University, Senghennydd Road, Cardiff CF24 4AG, UK LeonenkoN@Cardiff.ac.uk 3 Chemnitz University of Technology, Faculty of Mathematics, Chemnitz, Germany alois.pichler@math.tu-chemnitz.de Key words: Fractional Poisson process, convex risk measures Mathematics Subject Classification (1991): 1 Introduction Poisson processes constitute a fundamental building block of stochastic processes as Lévy processes. They are employed and considered in insurance, particularly in non-life insurance. The process models inter-arrival times of claims, the compound Poisson process is obtained by taking randomly varying claim sizes into account in addition. For the Poisson process, the inter-arrival times are exponentially distributed and independent. However, real data do not always support this property or feature. The non-homogeneous Poisson process is a typical adaption which better fits real data, although inter-arrival times of the non-homogeneous Poisson process are still independent. This paper introduces the fractional Poisson process for a risk process as used in insurance. It is a parametrized stochastic counting process which includes the 1

2 classical Poisson process as a special, perhaps extreme case. We elaborate main features of this process and adapt them to applications in insurance. Further, we relate the fractional Poisson process with the classical Poisson process. As a particular application we consider the Cramér Lundberg model. We explain that an adaption of the model involving the fractional Poisson process does not change important characteristics of the model itself as the probability of ruin. The probability of ruin is an important quantity for a real world company. But what happens if ruin actually happens? The probability for this event does not vanish, so this question is of immediate and subsequent importance from economic perspective. Recall that some nations have decided to bail-out banks, so the question arising naturally is how much capital is to be expected to bailout an insurance company after ruin if complete liquidation is not an option. In short, what is the capital required to recover a firm? The paper introduces the average capital required to recover a company after ruin. It turns out that this quantity is naturally related to classical, convex risk measures. By combining the components we demonstrate that the ruin probability and the averagecapitalrequired to recoverthe firm arethe same forthe classicaland the fractional Poisson process. In special cases we can provide explicit relations. Outline of the paper. The following Section 2 considers Lévy subordinators. They are intrinsically related to the fractional Poisson process, which is introduced in Section 3. This section also provides a discussion and description of the fractional Poisson process. Section 4 applies the new Poisson process in insurance. Section 5 addresses insurance premiums in a dependent framework. Particularly, we provide a discussion of average capital injection to be expected in case of ruin. We finally discuss the risk process for insurance companies and conclude in Section 6. 2 Subordinators and inverse subordinators This section collects some known results from the theory of subordinators and inverse subordinators (see Bingham [8], Veillette and Taqqu [35], [36], [29], among others) and explains how to simulate sample trajectory paths for the fractional Poisson process. 2.1 Inverse subordinator Consider a non-decreasing Lévy process L = {L(t), t }, starting from, which is continuous from the right with left limits (càdlàg), continuous in probability, with independent and stationary increments. Such process is known as Lévy subordinator with Laplace exponent φ(s) = µs+ (1 e sx )Π(dx),s, (1) (, ) 2

3 where µ is the drift and the Lévy measure Π on R + {} satisfies This means that min(1, x)π(dx) <. (2) Ee sl(t) = e tφ(s), s. (3) Consider the inverse subordinator Y(t), t, which is given by the firstpassage time of L: Y(t) = inf{u : L(u) > t}, t. (4) TheprocessY(t), t,isnon-decreasinganditssamplepathsarealmostsurely (a.s.) continuous if L is strictly increasing. Also Y is, in general, non-markovian with non-stationary and non-independent increments. We have and for any z > {L(u i ) < t i, i = 1,...,n} = {Y(t i ) > u i, i = 1,...,n} (5) P{Y(t) > x} P{L(x) t} = P which implies thatey p (t) < for any p >. Let U (p) (t) :=EY p (t) and the renewal function and let { e zl(x) e tz} exp{tz xφ(z)}, U(t) := U (1) (t) =EY(t), (6) H u (t) := P{Y(u) < t}. Then for p > 1, the Laplace transform of U (p) (t) is given by Ũ (p) (s) = in particular, for p = 1 and Ũ(s) = U (p) (t)e st dt = Γ(1+p)/[sφ p (s)], e st dh u (t) = e tφ(s), (7) U(t)e st dt = 1 sφ(s) ; (8) thus, Ũ characterizes the inverse process Y, since φ characterizes L. Therefore, we get a covariance formula (cf. [35], [36]) Cov ( Y(s),Y(t) ) = Also it is known that min(s,t) U (p) (t) = p t ( U(s τ)+u(t τ) ) du(τ) U(s)U(t). (9) U (p 1) (t τ)du(τ), p 1, 3

4 and E Y(t) Y(s) p = U (p) (max(t,s)) p min(t,s) U (p 1) (max(t,s) τ)du(τ), p >. The most important example is considered in the next section, but there are some others. 2.2 Inverse stable subordinator Let L α = {L α (t),t }be an α-stable subordinatorwith φ(s) = s α, < α < 1, whose density g(t,x) is such that L α (1) has pdf g α (x) = g(1,x) = 1 π and with Laplace transform ( 1) k+1γ(αk +1) 1 sin(πkα) k! xαk+1 k=1 = 1 x W α,( x α ), x >, Ee slα(t) = exp{ ts α }, s ; (1) here we use the Wright s generalized Bessel function (see, e.g., [13]) W γ,β (z) = k= z k Γ(1+k)Γ(β +γk), z C, where γ > 1, and β R 1, and for β =, γ = α ( 1,) W α, (z) = k=1 by reciprocity relation for the Γ function. Also g α (x) sin(πkα) z k Γ(1+αk) π k! ( 2 α α { 2(1 α) ( x) x α } 1 α exp (1 α), x, 2πα(1 α) α) (11) and g α (x) α Γ(1 α)x1+α, x. The set of jump times of L α is a.s. dense, thus the Lévy subordinator is strictly increasing. Then the inverse stable subordinator has density Y α (t) = inf{u : L α (u) > t} f α (t,x) = t α x 1 1 α gα (tx 1 α ), x, t >. (12) Alternative form for the pdf f α in term of H-function and infinite series are discussed in [14, 15]. 4

5 Its paths are continuous and nondecreasing. For α = 1/2, the inverse stable subordinator is the running supremum process of Brownian motion, and for α (,1/2] this process is the local time at zero of a strictly stable Lévy process of index α/(1 α). Let z k E α (z) :=, α >, z C (13) Γ(αk +1) k= be the Mittag-Leffler function (cf. [13]) and recall the following: (i) The Laplace transform of the Mittag-Leffler function is of the form e st E α ( t α )dt = sα 1 1+sα, < α < 1, t, s >. (ii) The Mittag-Leffler function is a solution of the fractional equation: D α t E α(at α ) = ae α (at α ), < α < 1, wherethefractionalcaputo-djrbashianderivatived α t isdefinedas(see[29]) D α t u(t) = 1 t Γ(1 α) du(τ) dτ dτ (t τ) α, < α < 1. (14) Proposition 1 The following hold true for the processes Y α and L α : (i) The Laplace transform is Ee syα(t) = n= ( st α ) n Γ(αn+1) = E α( st α ), s >. e st f a (t,x)dt = s α 1 e xsα, s. (ii) Both processes L α (t),t and Y α (t) are self-similar L α (at) a 1/α d = Lα (t), Y α (at) a α d = Yα (t), a >. (iii) The derivatives take the explicit form E(Y α (t 1 ) Y α (t k )) = 1 t 1 t k Γ k (α) Important particular cases include (a) the case k = 1 and EY α (t) = 1 [t 1 (t 2 t 1 ) (t k t k 1 )] 1 α, < t 1 < < t k. t α Γ(1+α) ; E[Y α(t)] ν = Γ(ν +1) Γ(αν +1) tαν, ν > ; (15) 5

6 (b) the covariance (k = 2) Cov ( Y α (t),y α (s) ) (16) min(t,s) 1 ( = (t τ) α +(s τ) α) τ α 1 dτ (st)α Γ(1+α)Γ(α) Γ 2 (1+α). 1 = Γ(1+α)Γ(α) [t2α B(s/t;α,1+α)+s 2α B(α,1+α)] (st)α Γ 2 (1+α), s < t, where B(a,b) (B(z;a,b), resp.) is the Beta function (incomplete Beta function, resp.). (iv) The following asymptotic expansions hold true: (a) For fixed s and large t, it is easy to show that Cov ( Y α (t),y α (s) ) = αsα+1 t α 1 Γ(α)Γ(2+α) + +s2α B(1+α,α). (17) Further, Var ( Y α (t) ) ( ) = t 2α 2 Γ(1+2α) 1 Γ 2 = d(α)t 2α (say). (1+α) (b) For fixed s, it follows Cor ( Y α (t),y α (s) ) B(1+α,α) d(α) s α tα, as t. (18) A finite variance stationary process X(t) is said to have long-range-dependence (LRD)propertyif k=1 Cov( X(t),X(t+k) ) =. Further,foranon-stationary process Y(t) an equivalent definition is given as follows. Definition 2 (LRD for non-stationary process) Let s > be fixedand t > s. Then the process Y(t) is said to have LRD property if Cor(Y(s),Y(t)) c(s)t d, as t, (19) where the constant c(s) is depending on s and < d < 1. Thus this last property (18) can be interpreted as long-range dependence of Y α in view of (19). Remark 3 There is a (complicated) form of all finite-dimensional distributions of Y α (t), t, in the form of Laplace transforms, see [8]. 2.3 Simulation of the stable subordinator In order to obtain trajectories for the stable subordinator it is necessary to simulate random variables with finite Laplace transform satisfying (1). To this end it is necessary that the α-stable random variable L α (t) is spectrally positive, 6

7 which means β = 1 in the standard parametrization (also type 1 parametrization, cf. [34, Definition and page 6]) of the α-stable random variable L α (t) S(α,β,γ,δ;1) (2) with characteristic function (Fourier-transform) ( Ee islα(t) = exp γ α s α( 1 iβtan πα ) 2 sign(s)) +iδs. α 1. This expression is also obtained by substituting is in the Laplace transform ) Ee slα(t) = exp ( γα s α δs. cos πα 2 Comparing the latter with (1) reveals that the parameters of the α-stable random variable L α (t), α (,1), in the parametrization (2) are β = 1, γ α = t cos πα 2 and δ =. α =.95 α = subordinator L α(t) inverse Y α(t) time t (a) Stable subordinator L α(t) time t (b) Inverse stable subordinator Y α(t) Figure 1: Sample trajectories of stable and inverse stable suordinators with α = 95%. 3 Classical fractional Poisson processes The first definition ofthe fractionalpoissonprocess(fpp) N α = {N α (t), t } is given by Mainardi et al. [24] (see also [25]) as a renewal process with Mittag- Leffler waiting times between the events N α (t) = max{n: T T n t} = = I{T T j t} j=1 I{U j G α (t)}, t, (21) j=1 7

8 where {T j },j = 1,2,... are iid random variables with the strictly monotone Mittag-Leffler distribution function and F α (t) = P(T j t) = 1 E α ( λt α ), t, < α < 1, j = 1,2,..., G α (t) = P(T T k t) = t h (k) (x)dx. Here we denote an indicator as I{ } and U j, j = 1,2,... are iid uniformly distributed on [,1] random variables. h (j) ( ) is the pdf of jth convolution of the Mittag-Leffler distributions which is known as the generalized Erlang distribution and it is of the form h (k) (x) = αλ k x kα 1 (k 1)! E(k) α ( λx α ) = λ k x αk 1 E k α,αk+1 ( λxα ), α (,1), x >, where the three-parametric Generalized Mittag-Leffler function is defined as (cf. (13), and [13]): E γ α,β (z) = j= (γ) j z j, α >, β >, γ >, z C, (22) j!γ(αj +β) where (γ) j := γ(γ+1)...(γ+j 1) = j! ( ) γ+j 1 j = Γ(γ+j) Γ(γ) is the rising factorial (sometimes also called Pochhammer function). Note that S(t) d = (t/l α (1)) α, and P(T j > t) =Ee λs(t), t. Meershaert et al. [28] find the following stochastic representation for FPP: N α (t) = N ( Y α (t) ), t, α (,1), where N = {N(t),t }, is the classical homogeneous Poisson process with parameter λ >, which is independent of the inverse stable subordinator Y α. One can compute the following expression for the one-dimensional distribution of FPP: P ( N α (t) = k ) = p (α) k (t) = = tλk αk! = (λtα ) k k! e λx (λt) k f α (t,x)dx k! e λx x k 1 1 α gα (tx 1 α )dx j= (k +j)! j! ( λt α ) j Γ(α(j +k)+1) = (λtα ) k k! E (k) α ( λt α ) = (λt α ) k E k+1 α,αk+1 ( λtα ), k =,1,2...,t, < α < 1, (23) 8

9 where E α (z) is the Mittag-Leffler function (13) evaluated at z = λt α, and E α (k) (z) is the kth derivative of E α (z) evaluated at z = λt α. Further, E γ α,β (z) is the Generalized Mittag-Leffler function (22) evaluated at z = λt α. Finally, Beghin and Orsingher (cf. [5], [6]) show that the marginal distribution of FPP satisfies the following system of fractional differential-difference equations: D α t p (α) k (t) = λ(p(α) k (t) p(α) k 1 (t)), k =,1,2,... with initial conditions: p (α) () = 1, p(α) k () =, k 1, where Dα t is the fractional Caputo-Djrbashian derivative (14). Remark 4 (Expectation and variance) Note that EN α (t) = [EN(u)]f α (t,u)du = where f α (t,u) is given by (12); Leonenko et al. [2]) show that Cov(N α (t),n α (s)) = λtα Γ(1+α), (24) [VarN(1)]min(u,v)H t,s (du,dv) (25) +(EN(1)) 2 Cov(Y α (t),y α (s)) = λ(min(t,s))α Γ(1+α) +λ 2 Cov(Y α (t),y α (s)), where Cov(Y α (t),y α (s)) is given in (16), and H t,s (u,v) = P ( Y α (t) < u,y α (s) < v ). In particular ( VarN α (t) = λ 2 t 2α 2 Γ(1+2α) 1 )+ λtα Γ 2 (1+α) Γ(1+α) = λ2 t 2α ( αγ(α) )+ Γ 2 (1+α) Γ(2α) 1 λtα Γ(1+α), t. For d = 1 the definition of Hurst index for renewal processes is discussed in [12]. For the FPP it is equal { } VarN α (t) H = inf β: lim sup t t β <, thus H = 2α (,2). Finally, Leonenko et al. [23, 22] introduced a fractional non-homogeneous Poisson process (FNPP) with an intecity function λ(t) as ( NN α (t) := N Λ ( Y α (t) )), t, α (,1), Λ(t) := t λ(s)ds, (26) where N = {N(t),t } is the classical homogeneous Poisson process with parameter 1, which is independent of the inverse stable subordinator Y α. 9

10 4 Fractional risk processes Based on the inverse subordinator process Y(t) (cf. (4)) one can introduce the risk process (also known as surplus process) α(t) R α (t) := u+µλ(1+ρ)y α (t) X i, t. (27) Here, u > is the initial capital relative to the number of claims per time unit (the Poisson parameter λ). The iid variables {X i }, i 1 with mean µ > model claim sizes. N α (t), t, is an independent of {X i }, i 1, fractional Poisson process. The parameter ρ is the safety loading; we demonstrate in Proposition 6 below that the risk process (27) satisfies the net profit condition iff ρ > (cf. Mikosch [3, Section 4.1]). The process for the non-homogeneous variant of (27) is R α (t) = u+µ(1+ρ)λ ( Y α (t) ) NN α(t) X i, t. Remark 5 (Consistency with equivalence principle) A main motivation for considering the risk process (27) comes from the fact that the stochastic processes α(t) and its non-homogeneous analogon NN α(t) X i µλy α (t), t X i µλ(y α (t)), t are martingales (cf. Proposition 6 below) with respect to natural filtrations. It follows from this observation that the time change imposed by Y α does not affect or violate the net or equivalence principle. The part of the risk process corresponding to the premium (i.e., µλy α (t) without ρ, or by setting ρ = ) is the fair premium of the remaining claims process even under the fractional Poisson process. Proposition 6 The fractional risk process R α (t) introduced in (27) is a submartingale (martingale, supermartingale, resp.) for ρ > (ρ =, ρ <, resp.) with respect to the natural filtration. Proof. Note that the compensated FPP N α (t) λy α (t) is a martingale with respect to the filtration F t = σ(n α (s), s t) σ(y α (s), s ), cf. [2]. We 1

11 have E[R α (t) R α (s) F s ] =E λµ(1+ρ)y α (t) α(t) =E λµ(1+ρ)(y α (t) Y α (s)) X i λµ(1+ρ)y α (s) α(t) i=n α(s)+1 [ ] =E (λµ(1+ρ)(y α (t) Y α (s))) F s E E X i F s α(t) α(s) i=n α(s)+1 X i F s X i N α (s),n α (t) F s [ ] [ ] =E (λµ(1+ρ)(y α (t) Y α (s))) F s E (N α (t) N α (s))µ F s [ ] = µe (λ(1+ρ)(y α (t) Y α (s))) (N α (t) N α (s)) F s [ ] [ ] = µe (N α (t) λy α (t)) (N α (s) λy α (s)) F s +λµρe Y α (t) Y α (s) F s [ ] = λµρe Y α (t) Y α (s) F s, since the compensated FPP is a martingale. Thus E [ ] > if ρ >, R α (t) R α (s) F s = = if ρ =, < if ρ <. This completes the proof. Remark 7 (Marginal moments of the risk process) The expectation and the covariance function of the process loss X 1 + +X Nα(t) in (27) can be given as α(t) E X i = and, by employing [2], N α(t) N α(s) Cov X i, X i =λtexi 2 λ(min(t,s)) α Γ(1+α) where Cov ( Y α (t),y α (s) ) is given in (16). 4.1 A variant of the surplus process λtα Γ(1+α) EX i, (28) + [ λex 2 i +λ 2 (EX i ) 2] Cov(Y α (t),y α (s)), A seemingly simplified version of the surplus process (27) is obtained by replacing the processes Y α (t) or Λ ( Y α (t) ) by their expectations (explicitly given 11

12 in (15)) and to consider or, more generally, t α R α (t) = u+µλ(1+ρ) Γ(1+α) α(t) R α (t) = u+µeλ ( Y α (t) ) NN α(t) X i, t X i, t, (29) for the non-homogeneous process. Here, u is the initial capital, µ is the constant premium rate and the sequence of iid random variables (X i ) i 1 is independent of FFP N α (t). For α = 1 we have that Y 1 (t) = t so that the simplified process (29) coincides with the classical surplus process considered in insurance. However, the simplified risk process R α (t), in general, is not a martingale unless α = 1 and ρ =, while R α (t) is martingale for any α and ρ = by Proposition 6. Remark 8 (Time shift) The formula (29) reveals an important property of the fractional Poisson process and the risk process R α (t). Indeed, for small times t, there are more claims to be expected under the FPP regime, as t α > t for t small. Γ(1+α) The inequality reverses for later times. This means that the premium income rate decays later. The time change imposed by FPP postpones claims to later times another feature of the fractional Poisson process and a consequence of the martingale property. However, the premium income is λµt in a real world situation. For this we conclude that the FPP can serve as a stress test for insurance companies within a small, upcoming time horizon. 4.2 Long range dependence of risk process R α (t) In this section, we discuss the long range dependency property (LRD property, see Definition 2) of the risk process R α (t). Proposition 9 The covariance structure of risk process R α (t) is given by Cov ( R α (t),r α (s) ) = µ 2 λ 2 ρ 2 Cov(Y α (t),y α (s))+ λ(ex2 i )sα, s t. (3) Γ(1+α) Further, the variance of R α (t) is Var(R α (t)) = µ 2 λ 2 ρ 2 Var(Y α (t))+ λ(ex2 i )tα Γ(1+α). 12

13 Proof. For s t, we have N α (s) N α (t). N α(t) N α(s) Cov X i, j=1 j=1 X j =E X i X j I{N α (s) j,n α (t) i} (EX i ) 2 E(N α (t))e(n α (s)) =E XjI{N 2 α (s) j} +E X i X j I{N α (s) j,n α (t) i} j=1 (EX i ) 2 E(N α (t))e(n α (s)) =E(Xj) 2 P(N α (s) j) j=1 +(EX i ) 2 P(N α (s) j,n α (t) i) P(N α (s) j) j=1 (EX i ) 2 E(N α (t))e(n α (s)) i j =E(X 2 i )EN α(s)+(ex i ) 2 E(N α (s)n α (t)) (EX i ) 2 EN α (s) (EX i ) 2 E(N α (t))e(n α (s)) =E(X 2 i)en α (s)+(ex i ) 2 Cov(N α (t),n α (s)) (EX i ) 2 EN α (s) =Var(X i )EN α (s)+(ex i ) 2 Cov(N α (t),n α (s)) =Var(X i )EN α (s)+(ex i ) 2 λs α Γ(1+α) +λ2 µ 2 Cov(Y α (t),y α (s)) j=1 =Var(X i )EN α (s)+(ex i ) 2 EN α (s)+λ 2 µ 2 Cov(Y α (t),y α (s)) =E(X 2 i)en α (s)+λ 2 µ 2 Cov(Y α (t),y α (s)) Further, Cov Y α (s), α(t) X i =E Y α (s) α(t) =E E Y α (s) X i α(t) µλe(y α (s))e(y α (t)) E(Y α (s))e N α(t) X i X i Y α (s),n α (t) = µe(y α (s)n α (t)) µλe(y α (s))e(y α (t)) = µλe(y α (s)y α (t)) µλe(y α (s))e(y α (t)) = µλcov((y α (t),y α (s)) Similarly, Cov Y α (t), α(s) X i = µλcov((y α (t),y α (s)). 13

14 Finally, Cov(R α (t),r α (s)) = µ 2 λ 2 (1+ρ) 2 Cov((Y α (t),y α (s)) µλ(1+ρ)cov Y α (s), µλ(1+ρ)cov Y α (t), +Cov N α(t) α(t) α(s) α(s) X i, X j j=1 X i X i = µ 2 λ 2 ((1+ρ) 2 2(1+ρ)+1)Cov((Y α (t),y α (s)) +E(X 2 i)en α (s) = µ 2 λ 2 ρ 2 Cov((Y α (t),y α (s))+e(x 2 i )EN α(s) = µ 2 λ 2 ρ 2 Cov(Y α (t),y α (s))+ λ(ex2 i )sα Γ(1+α), which completes the proof. Next, we show that the risk process R α (t) has the LRD property. Proposition 1 The process R α (t) has LRD property for all α (,1). Proof. Note that Var(R α (t)) = µ 2 λ 2 ρ 2 Var(Y α (t))+ λ(ex2 i )tα Γ(1+α) µ 2 λ 2 ρ 2 d(α)t 2α as t. For fixed s and large t with (17) and (3), it follows Cor(R α (t),r α (s)) = µ2 λ 2 ρ 2 Cov(Y α (t),y α (s))+ λ(ex 2 i )sα Γ(1+α) Var(Rα (t)) Var(R α (s)) [ αs α+1 t α 1 Γ(α)Γ(2+α) + +s2α B(1+α,α) ]µ 2 λ 2 ρ 2 + λ(ex2 i )sα Γ(1+α) Var(Rα (s))µλρ d(α)t α µ2 λ 2 ρ 2 B(1+α,α)s 2α + λ(ex 2 i )sα Γ(1+α) µλρ d(α) t α. Var(R α (s)) Hence the process R α (t) has LRD property in view of (19). 4.3 Ruin probabilities We are interested in the marginal distributions of the stochastic processes R α (t) := inf s t {R α(s)} and ψ α (v,t) := P{R α (t) v}, (31) which generalize the classical ruin probability ψ(, t) (α = 1). We demonstrate next that the ruin probability for the classical and fractional Poisson process coincide. 14

15 Lemma 11 It holds that ψ α (v) := lim t ψ α (v,t) is independent of α and coincides with the classical ruin probability. Proof. It holds that P ( L α (t) ) = (the emphasis being here that does not concentrate measure, P(L α (t) = ) = ). The inverse process Y α is continuous (cf. the discussion after (12) and Figure 1 for illustration), almost surely strictly increasing without jumps and hence the range of Y α ( ) is R almost surely. The composition N α (t) = N(Y α (t)) thus attains every value as well, as the non-fractional (classical) process R( ). Note that if there exists B( ) = Λ ( 1) ( ), (32) then ruin probability for non-homogeneous processes can be reduced to the ruin probability for homogeneous one via formulae: and hence NN α(t) R α (t) = u+µλ(y α (t)) X i = RH(Λ ( 1) (t)), α(t) RH(t) := u+µλy α (t) X i, t, P{R(s) v, s t} = P{RH(s) v, s Λ(t)}. We thus have the following corollary. Corollary 12 (to Lemma 11) The assertions of Lemma 11 hold even for the fractional (FPP) and non-homogeneous process, provided that Λ( ) is unbounded. 5 Premiums based on the fractional Poisson processes Risk measures are designed to quantify the risk associated with a random, R-valued random variable Z Z and they are employed to compute insurance premiums. In what follows we consider risk measures on Z = L p for an appropriate p [1, ] and use them to express the average capital for a bailout after ruin for the fractional Poisson process and to compare premiums related to the classical and fractional Poisson process. Definition 13 (Coherent measures of risk, cf. [3]) Let Z be an appropriate Banach space of random variables. A risk functional is a convex mapping ρ: Z R, where (i) ρ(λz) = λρ(z) whenever λ > and Z Z (positive homogeneity), (ii) ρ(z +c) = ρ(z)+c whenever c R (cash invariance), 15

16 (iii) ρ(z) ρ(y) for Z Y a.s. (monotonicity), and (iv) ρ(z +Y) ρ(z)+ρ(y) (subadditivity) for every Z, Y Z. The most prominent risk functional is the Average Value-at-Risk, as any other, law-invariant risk functional satisfying (i) (iv) above can be expressed by AV@Rs (see Kusuoka [16]): Definition 14 (Average Value-at-Risk) The Average Value-at-Risk at risk level β (,1) is the functional AV@R β (Z) := 1 1 β 1 β F 1 Z (u)du,, Z Z, where F 1 Z (u) := V@R u(z) := inf{z R: P(Z z) u} is the Value-at-Risk (quantile function) at level u (u [,1]). An equivalent expression for the Average Value-at-Risk, which will be useful later, is the formula derived in [31]. 5.1 Bailout after ruin AV@R β (Z) =E[Z Z V@R β (Z)] (33) The probability of ruin introduced in(31) describes the probability of bankruptcy of an insurance company based on the surplus process. The quantity does not reveal any information of how much capital is required to recover the company after ruin. This can be accomplished by considering the random variable R α := inf t R α (t) in an infinite time horizon with corresponding distribution (ruin probability) ψ(v) := P{R α v}. (34) In this setting, the average capital required to recover the company from bankruptcy (i.e, conditional on bankruptcy) is κ α (v) := E(R α R α v). (35) By involving the ruin probability (34) the average capital required to recover from bankruptcy thus is κ α (v) = E(R α R α v) = AV@R 1 ψ(v) ( R α ), (36) where the risk level involves ψ(v), the cdf (34). We shall discuss this quantity in the limiting case corresponding to large companies, for which claims occur instantaneously. 16

17 It is well-known that the compensated Poisson process converges to the Wiener process weakly (in distribution, cf. [11]), that is ( ) Nt λt λ (W t) t [,T] (37) λ t [,T] and thus more generally for the risk process (based on Wald s formula) 1 N t λu+λµ(1+ρ)t λ EX 2 X j λ which is a Brownian motion with drift j=1 t [,T] ( u EX 2 +W t + µρ EX )t [,T] 2t, (38) δ := ρ µ EX 2 (39) started at u := u EX 2. We shall refer to the process (38) as the limiting case of the risk process. Lemma 15 The average capital after ruin defined in (35) can be recovered by in particular, κ α (v) = 1 ψ(v) κ := κ α () = 1 ψ() v ψ( u)du; ψ( u)du. Proof. The proof is an immediate consequence of (36) and the fact that EZ = P(Z > z)dz, valid for every non-negativerandom variable, Z a.s. and applied to Z := R α here. Remark 16 (Relation to the fractional Poisson process) It is an essential consequence of Lemma 11 that the average capital to recover from ruin is independent of α in a regime driven by the fractional Poisson process. Theorem 17 (The limiting case) The capital requirement κ(v) defined in (35) is independent of u and it holds that κ(v) = v + EX2 2ρµ. (4) Proof. We infer from Borodin and Salminen [9, Eq. (1.2.4)] that { } { } P inf W t +u +δt v = P u inf W t +δt v = e 2δ(v u) (41) t> t> 17

18 so that the random variable Z := sup{w t δt: t > } is exponentially distributed with rate 2δ. It follows that P(Z x Z x ) = e 2δ(x x) and, by Lemma 15, the Average Value-at-Risk is e 2δy ( dy κ(v) = E u (Z Z v) = v + e 2δv = v 1 ). 2δ The result follows by substituting (39) for δ. Remark 18 (Units) Note that X is measured in monetary units ($, say). Then the unit of δ = 1 EX 2 2ρ EX is in the same monetary unit as well, which identifies (4) as a relevant economic quantity. Remark 19 (Premium loadings, ρ) The premium loading ρ is in the denominator of (4). As a consequence, the capital injection required in case after ruin is much higher for small premium loadings. Although evident from economic perspective, this is a plea for sufficient premium loadings and it is not possible to recover a company in a competitive market where premium margins are not sufficient. Corollary 2 The average capital required to recover a firm from ruin is κ = κ() = EX2 2ρEX, (42) even if the underlying risk process is driven by the fractional (FPP) or nonhomogeneous Poisson process, provided that Λ( ) is unbounded. Proof. The process (27) with ρ = is symmetric and in the limit thus is a time-changed Brownian motion. As in Corollary 12 it is thus sufficient to recall that the range of the process Y α (t) is R > almost surely. Remark 21 A further example of a risk functional satisfying the axioms (i) (iv) in Definition 13 is the proportional Hazard risk measure (cf. Young [4]), which can be stated as ρ c (Z) := F Z (y) c dy for a non-negative random variable Y and a parameter c (,1). The random variable Z = sup t> W t δt is exponentially distributed by (41). The proportional Hazard risk corresponding to the average capital required to recover a company thus is κ c := a simple multiple of (42). F c Z (y)dy = e 2δcy dy = 1 2δc = 1 EX 2 c 2ρEX = κ c, 5.2 The natural relation of the fractional Poisson process to the Entropic Value-at-Risk The premium of an insurance contract with random payoff X Z based on a risk functional ρ is ρ(x). (43) 18

19 This assignment does not take dependencies into account. The fractional Poisson process has an incorporated, natural dependency structure (cf. Section 4, in particular 4.2 above) and so it is natural to choose ( ) 1 n ρ X i (44) n as a fair premium in a regime, where dependencies cannot be neglected; by convexityofthe riskfunctionalρ(cf. (i) and(iv) indefinition 13), thepremium (43) is more expensive than (44). In a regime base on the fractional Poisson process, the claims up to time t are N α (t) and thus the quantity is of particular interest. S Nα(t) := X X Nα(t) The Entropic Value-at-Risk has natural features, which combine usefully with the fractional Poisson process. Definition 22 For an R-valued random variable Z Z, the entropic Value-at- Risk at risk level κ [,1) is { EV@R κ (Z) := sup EYZ: Y,EY = 1 and EY logz 1 }. 1 κ The Entropic Value-at-Risk derives its name from the constraint EY logy, which is the entropy. The convex conjugate (i.e., the dual representation, cf. [1]) of the Entropic Value-at-Risk is given by { } 1 EV@R κ (Z) := inf h ln 1 1 κ EehZ : h >. (45) The representation (45) bases the Entropic Value-at-Risk on the moment generating function. This function is explicitly available for the fractional Poisson process. This allows evaluating EV@R ( ) X 1 + +X Nα(t) for specific t > based on the fractional Poisson process by a minimization exercise with a single variable via (45). Proposition 23 (Moment generating function) Assume that the random variables X 1, X 2,... are iid. Then the moment generating function of the process loss X 1 + +X Nα(t) with respect to the fractional Poisson process up to time t is given explicitly by E [e ] ( h(x1+ +X Nα(t)) = E α λt α( ϕ X (h) 1 )), (46) where ϕ X is the moment generating function of X 1, ϕ X (h) :=Ee hx. 19

20 Proof. can be given by employing (23) as Ee h(x1+ +X Nα(t)) =E = k= [ ] E e h(x1+ +Xk) N t = k (λt α ϕ X (h)) k k= After formally substituting j l k we get Ee h(x1+ +X Nα(t)) = which is the desired assertion. = = k! l= k= l= l= j= (k +j)! j! ( λt α ) j Γ(α(j +k)+1) l ( ) l ( λt (λt α ϕ X (h)) k α ) l k k Γ(αl+1) ( λt α ) l Γ(αl+1) l k= ( ) l ( ϕ k X (h)) k ( λt α ) l Γ(αl+1) (1 ϕ X(h)) l = E α ( λt α( 1 ϕ X (h) )), 5.3 The risk process at different levels of α In what follows we compare the fractional Poisson process with the usual compound Poisson process. To achieve a comparison on a like for like basis the parameters of the processes are adjusted so that both have comparable claim numbers. The fractional Poisson process imposes a covariance structure which accounts for accumulation effects, which are not present for the classical compound Poisson process. Employing the Entropic Value-at-Risk as premium principle we demonstrate that the premium, which is associated with the fractional process, is always higher than the premium associated with the compound Poisson process. To obtain the comparison on a like for like basis we recall from (24) that the number of claims of the fractional Poisson process grows as t α, which is much faster than the claim number of a usual compound Poisson process and hence, the fractional Poisson process generates much more claims than the compound Poisson process at the beginning of the observation (cf. also Remark 8). To compare on a like for like basis we adjust the intensity or change the time so that the comparison is fair, that is, we assume that the claims of the classical compounded Poisson process triggered by λ (denoted N1 λ ) and the fractional Poisson process Nα λ are related by λ t =EN1 λ (t ) ENα λ λtα (t) = Γ(1+α) ; (47) note that equality in (47) corresponds to the situation of Poisson processes at different α levels, but with an identical number of average claims up to time t (t, resp.). 2

21 Proposition 24 Let λ t λtα Γ(1+α) so thatenλ 1 (t) ENλ α (t) by (24) and X i be iid. random variables with X i bounded. It holds that EV@R κ (S N λ 1 (t ) ) ( EV@R κ SN λ α (t)), κ [,1), (48) where S N = X 1 + +X N. If equality holds in (47), then the assertion (48) holds for all random variables (i.e., which are not necessarily nonnegative). Proof. It holds that Γ(1+αk) Γ(1+α) k 1; (49) k! indeed, the statement is obvious for k = and k = 1 and by induction we find that Γ ( 1+α(k +1) ) = α(k +1)Γ(α+αk) α(k +1)Γ(1+αk) α(k +1)Γ(1+α) k k! (5) Γ(1+α) k+1 (k +1)!, i.e, Equation (49), where we have employed the induction hypothesis in (5). We conclude that ( ) λt α k ( ) λt α k ( ) λt α k Γ(kα+1) Γ(1+α) k k! = 1 Γ(1+α) k! (λ t ) k. k! From the moment generating function we have by (46) that Ee hs N λ α = (λt α (ϕ X (h) 1)) k. Γ(αk +1) k= Now assume that Y i and thus Ee hyi exp(ehy i ) by Jensen s inequality and we have that ϕ Y (h) 1 whenever h >. The statement then follows from (45) together with (46). Remark 25 We mention that the mapping α E α ( tz α ) is not monotone in general, so the result in Propositon 24 does not extend to a comparison for all αs. 6 Summary and conclusion This paper introduces the fractional Poisson process and discusses its relevance in insurance. A natural feature of the fractional Poisson process is its dependence structure. We demonstrate that this dependence structure increases premiums in a regime governed by the fractional Poisson process in comparison to the classical process. The fractional Poisson process can serve as a stress test for insurance companies, as the number of claims is higher at its start. It can hence have importance for start ups and for re-insurers, which have a very particular, dependent claim structure in their portfolio. 21

22 It is demonstrated that quantities as the average capital to recover after ruin is independent of the risk level of the fractional Poisson process. Further, the Entropic Value-at-Risk is based on the moment generating function of the claims, and for this reason the natural combination of the fractional Poisson process and the Entropic Value-at-Risk is is demonstrated. 7 Acknowledgment N. Leonenko was supported in particular by Australian Research Council s Discovery Projects funding scheme(project DP ) and by project MTM P of MINECO, Spain (co-funded with FEDER funds). References [1] Ahmadi-Javid, A. and Pichler, A. (217) An analytical study of norms and Banach spaces induced by the entropic value-at-risk, Mathematics and Financial Economics vol. 11(4), [2] Aletti, G., Leonenko, N. N. and Merzbach, E. (218) Fractional Poisson processes and martingales, Journal of Statistical Physics, 17, N4, [3] Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J-M and Heath, D. (1999) Coherent Measures of Risk, Mathematical Finance 9, [4] Beghin, L. and Macci, C. (213) Large deviations for fractional Poisson processes, Stat. & Prob. Letters, 83(4), , doi: 1.116/j.spl [5] Beghin, L. and Orsingher, E. (29) Fractional Poisson processes and related planar random motions, Electron. J. Probab. 14, no. 61, [6] Beghin, L. and Orsingher, E. (21) Poisson-type processes governed by fractional and higher-order recursive differential equations. Electron. J. Probab. 15, no. 22, [7] Biard, R., Saussereau, B. (214) Fractional Poisson process: long-range dependence and applications in ruin theory. J. Appl. Probab. 51, no. 3, [8] Bingham, N.H. (1971) Limit theorems for occupation times of Markov processes, Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete 17, [9] Borodin, A. N. and Salminen, P. (212) Handbook of Brownian motionfacts and formulae, Birkhäuser, doi:1.17/ [1] Cahoy, D. O., Uchaikin, V. V. and Woyczynski, W. A. (21) Parameter estimation for fractional Poisson processes, J. Statist. Plann. Inference, 14, no. 11, [11] Cont, R. and Tankov, P. (24) Financial Modeling With Jump Processes, Chapman & Hall/ CRC. 22

23 [12] Daley, D. J. (1999) The Hurst index for a long-range dependent renewal processes, Annals of Probablity, 27, no 4, [13] Haubold, H. J., Mathai, A.M. and Saxena, R.K. (211) Mittag-Leffler functions and their applications. J. Appl. Math. Art. ID , 51 pp. [14] Kataria, K. K. and Vellaisamy, P. (218) On densities of the product, quotient and power of independent subordinators. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 462, [15] Kumar, A. and Vellaisamy, P. (215) Inverse tempered stable subordinators. Statist. Probab. Lett. 13, pp [16] Kusuoka, S. (21) On law invariant coherent risk measures. Advances in mathematical economics, Vol. 3 Ch. 4, Springer, [17] Laskin, N. (23) Fractional Poisson process. Chaotic transport and complexity in classical and quantum dynamics, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 8, no. 3-4, [18] Leonenko, N. N., Meerschaert, M. M. and Sikorskii, A. (213) Correlation structure of fractional Pearson diffusions, Computers and Mathematics and Applications, 66, [19] Leonenko, N. N., Meerschaert, M. M. and Sikorskii, A. (213) Fractional Pearson diffusions, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 43, [2] Leonenko, N. N., Meerschaert, M. M., Schilling, R. L. and Sikorskii, A. (214) Correlation structure of time-changed Lévy processes. Commun. Appl. Ind. Math. 6, no. 1, e-483, 22 pp. [21] Leonenko, N. N. and Merzbach, E. (215) Fractional Poisson fields, Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, 17, no.1, [22] Leonenko, N. N., Scalas, E. and Trinh, M. (217) Limit Theorems for the Fractional Non-homogeneous Poisson Process, Submitted, [23] Leonenko, N. N., Scalas, E. and Trinh, M. (217) The fractional nonhomogeneous Poisson process, Statistic and Probability Letters, 12, [24] Mainardi, F., Gorenflo, R. and Scalas, E. (24) A fractional generalization of the Poisson processes, Vietnam J. Math. 32, Special Issue, [25] Mainardi, F., Gorenflo, R. and Vivoli, A. (25) Renewal processes of Mittag-Leffler and Wright type, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 8, no. 1, [26] Mainardi, F., Gorenflo, R. and Vivoli, A. (27) Beyond the Poisson renewal process: a tutorial survey. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 25, no. 2, [27] Malinovskii, V. (1998) Non-Poissonian claims arrival and calculation of the ruin, Insurance Math. Econom. 22,

24 [28] Meerschaert, M.M., Nane, E. and Vellaisamy, P. (211) The fractional Poisson process and the inverse stable subordinator, Electron. J. Probab. 16, no. 59, [29] Meerschaert, M. M. and Sikorskii, A. (212) Stochastic Models for Fractional Calculus, De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston. [3] Mikosch, T. (29) Non-life insurance mathematics, an introduction with the Poisson process. Springer. [31] Pflug, G. Ch. and Römisch, W. (27) Modeling, Measuring and Managing Risk, World Scientific, doi: / [32] Podlubny, I. (1999) Fractional differential equations. An introduction to fractional derivatives, fractional differential equations, to methods of their solution and some of their applications, Mathematics in Science and Engineering, 198, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA. [33] Repin, O. N. and Saichev, A. I. (2) Fractional Poisson law, Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics, 43, no. 9, [34] Samorodnitsky, G. and Taqqu, M. S. (1994) Stable Non-Gaussian Random Processes. Chapman & Hall, New York. [35] Veillette, M. and Taqqu, M. S. (21) Numerical computation of first passage times of increasing Lévy processes, Methodol. Comput. Appl. Probab. 12, no. 4, [36] Veillette, M. and Taqqu, M. S. (21) Using differential equations to obtain joint moments of first-passage times of increasing Lévy processes, Statist. Probab. Lett. 8, no. 7-8, [37] Wang, X.-T. and Wen, Z.-X. (23) Poisson fractional processes, Chaos Solitons Fractals, 18, no. 1, [38] Wang, X.-T., Wen, Z.-X. and Zhang, S.-Y. (26) Fractional Poisson process. II, Chaos Solitons Fractals, 28, no. 1, [39] Wang, X.-T., Zhang, S.-Y. and Fan, S. (27) Nonhomogeneous fractional Poisson processes. Chaos Solitons Fractals, 31, no. 1, [4] Young, V. R. (26) Premium Principles in Encyclopedia of Actuarial Science. 24