arxiv: v1 [stat.ap] 28 Feb 2016

Transcription

1 MACRO VS. MICRO METHODS IN NON-LIFE CLAIMS RESERVING (AN ECONOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE) arxiv: v1 [stat.ap 28 Feb 2016 ARTHUR CHARPENTIER & MATHIEU PIGEON 1. Introduction 1.1. Macro and Micro Methods. For more than a century, actuaries have been usin run-off trianles to project future payments, in nonlife insurance. In the 30 s, [1 formalized this technique that oriinated the popular chain ladder estimate. In the 90 s, [2 proved that the chain ladder estimate can be motivated by a simple stochastic model, and later on [3 provided a comprehensive overview on stochastic models that can be connected with the chain ladder method, included reression models, that could be seen as extension of the so-called factor methods used in the 70 s. But usin the terminoloy of [4 and [5, those were macro-level models for reservin. In the 70 s, [6 suested to used some marked point process of claims to project future payments, and quantify the reserves. More recently, [7,[8, [9, [10 or [11 (amon many others) investiated further some probabilistic micro-level models. These models handle claims related data on an individual basis, rather than areatin by underwritin year and development period. As mentioned in [12, these methods have not (yet) found reat popularity in practice, since they are more difficult to apply. All macro-level models are based on areate data found in a runoff trianle, which is their strenth, but also probably their weakness. They are easy to understand, and can be mentioned in financial communication, without disclosin too much information. From a computational perspective, those models can also be implemented in a sinle spreadsheet. But recently, [3 started questionin actuaries about possible use of detailed micro-level information. Those models can incorporate heteroeneity, structural chanes, etc (see [13 for a discussion). Date: February, 28th, Arthur Charpentier, UQAM-Quantact & Université de Rennes 1, France. Mathieu Pieon, UQAM-Quantact. 1

2 2 ARTHUR CHARPENTIER & MATHIEU PIGEON 1.2. Best estimates and Variability. In the context of macro-level models, [3 mention that prediction errors can be lare, because of the small number of observations used in run-off trianles. Quantifyin uncertainty in claim reservin methods is not only important in actuarial practice and to assess accuracy of predictive models, it is also a reulatory issue. [14 and [15 obtained, on real data analysis, lower variance on the total amount of reserves with micro models than with macro ones. A natural question is about the enerality of such result. Should micro model enerate less variability than standard macro ones? That is the question that initiated that paper Aenda. In section 2, we detail intuitive results we expect when areatin data by clusters, movin from micro-level models to macrolevel ones. More precisely, we explain why with a linear model and a Poisson reression, macro- and micro-level models are equivalent. We also discuss the case of the Poisson reression model with random intercept. In section 3, we study micro and macro models in the context of claims reservin, on real data, as well as simulated ones. 2. Clusterin in Generalized Linear Mixed Models In the economic literature, several papers discuss the use of micro vs. macro data, for instance in the context of unemployment duration in [16 or in the context of inflation in [17. In [16, it is mentioned that both models are interestin, since micro data can be used to capture heteroeneity while macro data can capture cycle and more structural patterns. In [17, it is demonstrated that both heteroeneity and areation miht explain the persistence of inflation at the macroeconomic level. In order to clarify notation, and make sure that objects are well defined, we use small letters for sample values, e.. y i, and capital letters for underlyin random variables, e.. Y i in the sense that y i is a realisation of random variable Y i. Hence, in the case of the linear model (see Section 2.1), we usually assume that Y i N (x T i b, σ 2 ), and then b is the estimated model, in the sense that b = (xx T ) 1 xy while B = (xx T ) 1 xy (here covariates x are iven, and non stochastic). Since B is seen as a random variable, we can write E[ B = b. With a Poisson reression, Y i P(λ i ) with λ i = exp[x T i b. In that case, Var[Y i = E[Y i = λ i. The estimate parameter b is a function of the observations, (x i, y i ) s, while B is a function of the observations, (x i, Y i ) s. In the context of the Poisson reression, recall that E[ B

3 MACRO VS. MICRO METHODSIN NON-LIFE CLAIMS RESERVING(AN ECONOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE)3 b as n oes to infinity. With a quasi-poisson reression, Y i does not have, per se, a proper distribution. Nevertheless, its moments are well defined, in the sense that Var[Y i = ϕe[y i = ϕλ i. And for convenience, we will denote Y i qp(λ i ), with an abuse of notation. In this section, we will derive some theoretical results reardin areation in econometric models The multiple linear reression model. Consider a (multiple) linear reression model, y = x T a + ε, (1) a = [ a 1... a k+1 T x = [ x,1... x,k+1 T, where observations belon to a cluster and are indexed by i within a cluster, i = 1,..., n, = 1,..., m. Assume further assumptions of the classical linear reression model [18, i.e., (LRM1) no multicollinearity in the data matrix; (LRM2) exoeneity of the independent variables E [ε x = 0, i = 1,..., n, = 1,..., m; and (LRM3) homoscedasticity and nonautocorrelation of error terms with Var [ε = σ 2. Stackin observations within a cluster yield the followin model where y = x T b + e, (2) y = 1 y and b = [ T b 1... b k+1 n i with similar assumptions except for Var [e = σ 2 /n. Those two models are equivalent, in the sense that the followin proposition holds. Proposition 2.1. Model (1) on a micro level and model (2) on a macro level are equivalent, in the sense that (i) â OLS = b OLS when weihts n are used in model (2); and (ii) ŷ = ŷ where y = n y. Proof. (i) The ordinary least-squares estimator for a - from model (1) - is defined as

4 4 ARTHUR CHARPENTIER & MATHIEU PIGEON â = armin a { ( y x T a ) } 2 which can also be written (3) â = armin a Now, observe that { ( y y + y x T a ) } 2. (4) ( y y + y x T a ) 2 = (y y ) 2 + (y X T a) 2 + 2(y y )(y x T a), where the first term is independent of a (and can be removed from the optimization proram), and the term with cross-elements sums to 0. Hence, â = armin a { (y x T a) 2 } = armin a { } n (y x T a) 2 = b, (5) where b is the least square estimator of b from model (2), when weihts n are considered. (ii) If we consider the sum of predicted values, observe that ŷ = n x T â = n x T b = }{{} ŷ ŷ. (6) Hence, the sum of predictions obtained from model (1) is the same as the sum of predictions obtained from model (2), even if partial sums are considered. In the proposition above, the equality should be understood as the equality between estimators. Hence we have the followin corollary. Corollary 2.2. We define the followin matrices

5 MACRO VS. MICRO METHODSIN NON-LIFE CLAIMS RESERVING(AN ECONOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE)5 Y = [ T Y 1,... Y n, Y = [ Y T 1... Y T T m Y = [ T Y 1... Y m ε = [ T ε 1,... ε n, ε = [ T ε 1... ε m e = [ T e 1... e m x n = [ x... x x = [ x n x nm m x = [ x xm 1, }{{} n times the (1 n ) vectors 1 n = [ and 0 n = [ , and the matrix 1 n1 0 n nm 0 1 = n1 1 n nm n1 0 n nm The OLS estimators are iven by  OLS = armin{ ( Y x T a ) T ( Y x T a ) } a = ( xx T) 1 xy ( B OLS = armin{ ( 11 T )Y b = ( x11 T x T) 1 x11 T Y. ) T ( ) 11 T x T b ( 11 T )Y ( 11 T )x T b } Model (1) on a micro level and model (2) on a macro level are equivalent, in the sense that (i) E[ÂOLS = E[ B OLS and Var[ÂOLS = Var[ B OLS, when weihts n [ are used in model [ (2); and [ [ (ii) E Ŷ = E Ŷ and Var Ŷ = Var Ŷ. Proof. Straihtforward calculations lead to (11 T ) 1 1Y = Y and x1 = x. (i) Let [ E BOLS = ( x11 T x T) 1 x11 T E [ Y = ( x11 T x T) 1 x11 T (11 T ) 1 1E [Y = ( xx T) 1 xe [Y = E [ÂOLS.

6 6 ARTHUR CHARPENTIER & MATHIEU PIGEON [ Var BOLS For the equality of variances, we have = ( x11 T x T) 1 x11 T Var [ Y ( ( x11 T x T) 1 x11 T = ( x11 T x T) 1 x11 T (11 T ) 1 1Var [Y 1 T ( (11 T ) 1) T ( ( x11 T x T) 1 x11 T = (xx T ) 1 xvar [Y x ( T (xx T ) 1) T = Var [ÂOLS. (ii) Let ) T ) T E [ Ŷ = E [1 m 11 TŶ [ = E 1 m 11 T x T B [ [ = E 1 m 11 T x T Â = E 1 n x T Â [ [ = E 1 n Ŷ = E Y. The proof of the equality of variances is similar The quasi-poisson reression. A similar result can be obtained in the context of Poisson reressions. A eneralized linear model [19 is made up of a linear predictor x T b, a link function that describes how the expected value depends on this linear predictor and a variance function that describes how the variance, depends on the expected value Var [Y = ϕv (E [Y ), where ϕ denotes the dispersion parameter. For the Poisson model, the variance is equal to the mean, i.e., ϕ = 1 and V (E [Y ) = E [Y. This may be too restrictive for many actuarial illustrations, which often show more variation than iven by expected values. We use the term over-dispersed for a model where the variance exceeds the expected value. A common way to deal with overdispersion is a quasi-likelihood approach (see [19 for further discussion) where a model is characterized by its first two moments. Consider either a Poisson reression model, or a quasi-poisson one, Y P(λ ) or Y qp(λ ). (7) In the case of a Poisson reression,

7 MACRO VS. MICRO METHODSIN NON-LIFE CLAIMS RESERVING(AN ECONOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE)7 E [Y = λ = exp[x T a + ln(1/n ) and Var [Y = λ, (8) and in the context of a quasi-poisson reression, E [Y = λ = exp[x T a + ln(1/n ) and Var [Y = ϕ micro λ, (9) with ϕ micro > 0 for a quasi-poisson reression (ϕ micro > 1 for overdispersion). Here aain, stackin observations within a cluster yield the followin model (on the sum and not the averae value, to have a valid interpretation with a Poisson distribution) Y = i Y P(λ ) or Y qp(λ ). (10) In the context of a Poisson reression, E [Y = λ = exp[x T b and Var [Y = λ, and in the context of a quasi-poisson reression, E [Y = λ = exp[x T b and Var [Y = ϕ macro λ, (11) with ϕ macro > 0 for a quasi-poisson reression. Here aain, those two models ( micro and macro ) are equivalent, in the sense that the followin proposition holds. Proposition 2.3. Model (7) on a micro level and model (10) on a macro level are equivalent in the sense that (i) â MLE = b MLE ; and (ii) ŷ = ŷ. Proof. (i) Maximum likelihood estimator of a is the solution of ( ) y exp[x T a x = 0 ϕ micro or equivalently ( y exp[x T a ) x = 0 With offsets λ = exp[x T b+lo(n ), = 1,..., m, maximum likelihood estimator of b is the solution (as previously, we can remove ϕ macro ) of

8 8 ARTHUR CHARPENTIER & MATHIEU PIGEON ( y n exp[x T b ) x = 0 ( y exp[x T b ) x = 0. Hence, â = b, as (unique) solutions of the same system of equations. (ii) The sum of predicted values is ŷ = = n λ = n exp[x T â = exp[x T b + lo(n ) = λ = n exp[x T b Nevertheless, as we will see later on, the Corollary obtained in the context of a Gaussian linear model does not hold in the context of a quasi-poisson reression. Corollary 2.4. Model (7) on a micro level and model (10) on a macro level are asymptotically equivalent for Poisson reressions, in the sense that (i) E[ÂMLE = E[ B MLE and Var[ÂMLE = Var[ B MLE, when n oes [ to infinity; and [ [ [ (ii) E Ŷ = E Ŷ and Var Ŷ = Var Ŷ, when Proof. n oes to infinity. (i) A classical result of asymptotic theory for maximum likelihood estimators indicates that, [ under mild reularity conditions, E [ÂMLE a and E BMLE b as n. Without [ micro covariates in the model, a = b and so, E BMLE = [ÂMLE E when n. For model (7), the Fisher information matrix is I(A) = xw x T and, when n, Var [Â ( ) xw x T 1, where W = dia((λ1 /n 1 )1 n1,..., (λ m /n m )1 nm ). For model (10), we [ have I(B) = x1w 1 T x T = xw x T and, when n, Var B ( xw x T) 1. ŷ.

9 MACRO VS. MICRO METHODSIN NON-LIFE CLAIMS RESERVING(AN ECONOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE)9 (ii) By usin a similar arument, we have when n oes to infinity E [ Ŷ = E [1 m 11 TŶ ( = 1 m 11 T M ) B x T ( = 1 m 11 ) T M x T = E [1 n 1 T e xtâ = E [1 n e xtâ [ [ = E 1 n Ŷ = E Ŷ,i. In small or moderate-sized samples, it should be noted that  and B may be biased for A and B, respectively. Generally, this bias is neliible compared with the standard errors (see [20 and [21). In the quasi-poisson micro-level model (from model (7)), as discussed above, the estimator of a is the solution of the quasi-score function ( ) y λ x = 0, ϕ micro which implies â QLE = â MLE. The classical Pearson estimator for the dispersion parameter ϕ micro is ϕ micro = (y ŷ ) 2 /ŷ n (k + 1) = (n y ŷ ) 2 /n ŷ n (k + 1). Empirical evidence (see [29) support the use of the Pearson estimator for estimatin ϕ because it is the most robust aainst the distributional assumption. In a similar way, the quasi-poisson macro-level model (from model (10)), the estimator of b is the solution of ( ) y λ x = 0, ϕ macro which implies here also b QLE = b MLE. The dispersion parameter ϕ is estimated by ϕ macro = (y ŷ ) 2 /ŷ m (k + 1).

10 10 ARTHUR CHARPENTIER & MATHIEU PIGEON Clearly, ϕ micro ϕ macro involvin the followin results. Corollary 2.5. Model (7) on a micro level and model (10) on a macro level are not asymptotically equivalent for quasi-poisson reressions, in the sense that (i) E[ÂQLE = E[ B QLE but Var[ÂQLE Var[ B QLE, when n oes to[ infinity; and [ [ [ (ii) E Ŷ = E Ŷ but Var Ŷ Var Ŷ, when n oes to infinity. Proof. (i) The property that variances are not equal is a direct consequence of classical results from the theory of eneralized linear models (see [19), since the covariance matrices of estimators are iven by [ ( Var B ϕ ) macro xw x T 1 and ( Var [Â ϕ ) micro xw x T 1, (12) when n oes to infinity. Thus, covariance matrices of estimators are asymptotically equal for the Poisson reression model but differ for the quasi-poisson model because ϕ micro ϕ macro. (ii) Since the MLE and the QLE share the same asymptotic distribution (see [19), the proof is similar to 2.4(ii) Poisson reression with random effect. In the micro-level model described by Equation (7), observations made for the same event (subject) at different periods are supposed to be independent. Withinsubject correlation can be included in the model by addin random, or subject-specific, effects in the linear predictor. In the Poisson reression model with random intercept, the between-subject variation is modeled by a random intercept γ which represents the combined effects of all omitted covariates. Let Y (t) represent the sum of all observations from subject t, in the cluster and

11 MACRO VS. MICRO METHODSIN NON-LIFE CLAIMS RESERVING(AN ECONOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE) 11 E [ Y (t) γ t = exp[x T a + γ t Var [ [ Y (t) γ t = E Y (t) γ t γ = γ 1 (... N T 0, σ 2 I ), γ T where I is the (T T ) identity matrix, and N T (µ, Σ) the T -dimensional Gaussian distribution with mean µ and covariance matrix Σ. Straihtforward calculations lead to Hence, E [ Y (t) = exp[x T a + σ 2 /2 Var [ [ ( [ ( Y (t) = E Y (t) 1 + E Y (t) exp[σ 2 1 )). Var [ [ Y (t) > E Y (t), σ 2 > 0. (13) This last equation shows that the Poisson reression model with random intercept leads to an over-dispersed marinal distribution for the variable Y (t). The maximum likelihood estimation for parameters requires Laplace approximation and numerical interation (see the Chapter 4 of [22 for more details). This model is a special case of multilevel Poisson reression model and estimation can be performed with various statistical softwares such as HLM, SAS, Stata and R (with packae lme4). One may be interested to verify the need of a source of betweensubject variation. Statistically, it is equivalent to testin the variance of γ to be zero. In this particular case, the null hypothesis places σ 2 on the boundary of the model parameter space which complicates the evaluation of the asymptotic distribution of the classical likelihood ratio test (LRT) statistic. From the very eneral result of [23, it can be demonstrated (see [25) that the asymptotic null distribution of the LRT statistic is a 50/50 mixture of χ 2 0 and χ 2 1 as n. In this case, obtainin an equivalent macro-level model is of little practical interest since the construction of the variance-covariance matrix would require knowlede of the individual ( micro ) data. 3. Clusterin and loss reservin models A loss reservin macro-level model is constructed from data summarized in a table called run-off trianle. Areation is performed by

12 12 ARTHUR CHARPENTIER & MATHIEU PIGEON occurrence and development periods (typically years). For occurrence period i, i = 1, 2,..., I, and for development period j, j = 1, 2,... I, let C i,j and Y i,j represent the total cumulative paid amount and the incremental paid amount, respectively with Y i,j = C i,j C i,j 1, i = 1,..., I, j = 2,..., I. C 1,1 C 1,2... C 1,I 1 C 1,I C 2,1 C 2,2... C 2,I C I,1 Y 1,1 = C 1,1 Y 1,2... Y 1,I 1 Y 1,I Y 2,1 = C 2,1 Y 2,2... Y 2,I Y I,1 = C I,1 where columns, rows and diaonals represent development, occurrence and calendar periods, respectively. Each incremental cell Y i,j can be seen as a cluster stackin n i,j amounts paid in the same development period j for the occurrence period i. These payments come from M claims and let Y (k) i,j represent the sum of all observations from claims k in the cluster (i, j). It should be noted that all claims are not necessarily represented in each of the clusters. To calculate a best estimate for the reserve, the lower part of the trianle must be predicted and the total reserve amount is R = I Ĉ t,i t=2 I C t,i t+1 = t=2 I I Ŷ t,s. t=2 s=i+2 t To quantify uncertainty in estimated claims reserve, we consider the mean square error of prediction (MSEP). Let R be a Y-mesurable estimator for E [R Y and a Y-mesurable predictor for R where Y represents the set of observed clusters. The MSEP is [ ( MSEP R Y ( R) ) 2 = E R R Y = Var [R Y + ( R E [R Y ) 2.

13 MACRO VS. MICRO METHODSIN NON-LIFE CLAIMS RESERVING(AN ECONOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE) 13 Independence between R and Y is assumed, so the equation is simplified as follows MSEP R Y ( R) ( ) 2 = Var [R + R E [R and the unconditional MSEP is MSEP R ( R) = Var [R + E 3.1. The quasi-poisson model for reserves. [ ( R E [R ) Construction. From the theory presented in Subsection 2.2, we construct quasi-poisson macro- and micro-level models for reserves. For both models, constitutive elements are defined in Table 1. Table 1. Quasi-Poisson macro- and micro-level models for reserve (i, j = 1,..., I). All clusters and all payments are independent. Components Macro Micro [ Exp. value E [Y i,j = λ i,j E Y (k) i,j = λ i,j Inv. link func. λ i,j = exp[x T i,jb λ i,j = exp[x T i,ja + lo(1/n i,j ) = exp[b i + b I+j = exp[a i + a I+j + lo(1/n i,j ) with b I+1 = 0 with a I+1 = 0 [ Variance Var [Y i,j = ϕ macro λ i,j Var Y (k) i,j = ϕ micro λ i,j Pred. value Ŷ i,j = exp[ b i + b I+j Ŷ (k) i,j = exp[â i + â I+j + lo(1/n i,j ) Known values Y macro Y micro As a direct consequence of Proposition 2.3, the best estimate for the total reserve amount is R = n i,j (i,j) K k=1 Ŷ (k) i,j = (i,j) K Ŷ i,j, where K represents unobserved clusters. For both models, the Proposition 3.1 ives results for the unconditional MSEP. Proposition 3.1. In the quasi-poisson macro-level model, the unconditional MSEP is iven by

14 14 ARTHUR CHARPENTIER & MATHIEU PIGEON MSEP R ( R) (i,j) K + ϕ macro ŷ i,j (i,j),(n,m) K ϕ macro ŷ i,j ŷ m,n x T i,j ( xw x T ) 1 xn,m, where x and W are defined by Equation (12). The unconditional MSEP for the quasi-poisson micro-level model is similar with ϕ macro replaced by ϕ micro. Proof. The proof for the macro-level model is done in [21. micro-level model, we have For the [ ( MSEP R ( R) ) 2 = Var [R + E R E [R = n i,j (i,j) K k=1 + ϕ micro exp[x T i,jâ + lo(1/n i,j) n i,j n m,n (i,j) K (m,n) K k=1 t=1 = (i,j) K + ϕ micro exp[x T i,jâ n i,j n m,n (i,j) K (m,n) K k=1 t=1 (k) Cov [Ŷ i,j, Ŷ m,n (t) exp[x T i,ja + lo(1/n i,j ) exp[x T m,na + lo(1/n m,n ) Cov [ exp[x T i,jâ xt i,ja, exp[x T m,nâ xt m,na Althouh Ŷ (k) i,j [ is not an unbiased estimator of E Y (k) i,j, the bias is enerally of small order and by usin the approximation exp[x 1 +x for x 0, we obtain = (i,j) K + ϕ micro exp[x T i,jâ (i,j),(m,n) K exp[x T i,ja + x T m,nacov [ x T i,jâ, xt m,nâ.

15 MACRO VS. MICRO METHODSIN NON-LIFE CLAIMS RESERVING(AN ECONOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE) 15 By usin the fact that b = â and the remark at the end of subsection 2.2, we obtain = (i,j) K ϕ micro ŷ i,j + (i,j),(m,n) K ϕ micro ŷ i,j ŷ m,n x T i,j ( xw x T ) 1 xm,n. Thus, the difference between the variability in macro- and microlevel models results from the difference between dispersion parameters. Define standardized residuals for both models r = (y ŷ ) ŷ and r = (y ŷ ) ŷ. Direct calculations lead to Ψ = r2 r2 n (k + 1) m (k + 1) ϕ micro ϕ macro. (14) Thus, if the total number of payments ( n ) is reater than the value Ψ(m (k + 1)) + k + 1, then the micro-level model (7) will lead to a reater precision for the best estimate of the total reserve amount and conversely. Addin one or more covariate(s) at the micro level will decrease the numerator of Ψ and will increase the interest of the micro-level model Illustration and Discussion. To illustrate these results, we consider the incremental run-off trianle from UK Motor Non-Comprehensive account (published by [26) presented in Table 2 where each cell (i, j), i + j 7, is assumed to be a cluster, i.e., the value Y is the sum of n independent payments.

16 16 ARTHUR CHARPENTIER & MATHIEU PIGEON Table 2. Incremental run-off trianle for macro-level model (in 000 s) We construct 2 macro-level models Model A: Y P(λ ) λ = exp[x T a Model B: Y qp(λ ) and 2 micro-level models Model C: Y P(λ ) λ = exp[x T a lo(n ) Model D: Y qp(λ ). The final reserve amount obtained from the Mack s model ([2) is $. To create micro-level datasets from the macro one, we perform the followin procedure: (1) simulate the number of payments for each cluster assumin N P(θ), = 1,..., m; (2) for each cluster, simulate a (n 1) vector of proportions assumin ω = [ ω 1... ω n T Dirichlet(1), = 1,..., m; (3) for each cluster, define Y 1,. = ω Y, = 1,..., m; Y n, (4) adjust Model C and Model D; and (5) calculate the best estimate and the MSEP of the reserve. For each value of θ, we repeat this procedure times and we calculate the averae best estimate and the averae MSEP. Those results are consistent with Corollaries 2.4, 2.5 and Proposition 3.1. For Poisson reression (Model A and C), results are similar. For micro-level

17 MACRO VS. MICRO METHODSIN NON-LIFE CLAIMS RESERVING(AN ECONOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE) 17 models, converence of MSEP fowards (11 622) is fast. For quasi- Poisson reression (Model B and D), Fiure 1 shows MSEP as a function of a expected total number of payments, for the portfolio. Above a certain level, (close to here), accuracy of the micro approach exceed the macro. MSEP^(1/2) 1e+06 2e+06 3e+06 4e+06 5e+06 6e+06 7e Expected total number of payments Fiure 1. Square root of the mean square error of prediction obtained for Model D (solid line) and the Model C (broken line) from simulated values for increasin expected number of payments for the portfolio. In order to illustrate the impact of addin a covariate at the microlevel, we define a quasi-poisson micro-level model with a weakly correlated covariate (Model E) and with a stronly correlated covariate (Model F). Followin a similar procedure, we obtain results presented in Table 3 and Fiure 2.

18 18 ARTHUR CHARPENTIER & MATHIEU PIGEON Method Table 3. Results. E [Reserve MSEP Mack s model Poisson re. Model A Model C quasi-poisson re. Model B Model D see Fiure 1 quasi-poisson re. Model E (ρ 0) see Fiure 2 Model F (ρ 0.8) see Fiure 2 As opposed to standard classical results on hierarchical models, the averae of explanatory variable within a cluster ((1/n ) i x i) has not been added to the macro-level model (Model B), for several reasons, (i) impossible to compute that averae without individual data; (ii) discrete explanatory variables used in the micro-level model; and (iii) since claims reserve model have a predictive motivation, it is risky to project the value of an areated variable on future clusters.

19 MACRO VS. MICRO METHODSIN NON-LIFE CLAIMS RESERVING(AN ECONOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE) 19 MSEP 0e+00 1e+13 2e+13 3e+13 4e+13 5e Expected total number of payments Fiure 2. Mean square error of prediction (±2σ) obtained from simulated values as a function of the expected number of payments for Model E (red lines) and Model F (blue lines). For comparison purposes, the MSEP obtained for the Model D (solid black line) and the Model B (broken black line) are added. With an explanatory variable hihly correlated with the response variable, results obtained with Model D and E are very close. As claimed by Proposition 3.1 and equation (14), an explanatory variable hihly correlated with the response variable will decrease the value of MSEP, and lowers the threshold above which the micro-level model is more accurate than the macro-level one. The quasi-poisson macro-level model (Model B) with maximum likelihood estimators leads to the same reserves as the chain-ladder alorithm and the Mack s model (see [28), assumin the clusters exposure, for (i, j) K, is one. To obtain similar results with a quasi- Poisson micro-level model (Model D), a similar assumption is necessary: exposure of each claim within cluster (i, j) is 1/n i,j. That assmption implies, on a micro level, that predicted individual payments Ŷ (k) ij are proportional to 1/n ij. That assumption has unfortunately no foundation. In the Poisson and quasi-poisson micro-level models (Model C and D), payments related to the same claim, in two different clusters are supposed to be non-correlated. As discussed in the previous Section, it is possible to include dependencies amon payments for a iven claim

20 20 ARTHUR CHARPENTIER & MATHIEU PIGEON usin a Poisson reression with random effects. Simulations and computations were performed in R, usin packaes ChainLadder and tools The Mixed Poisson model for reserves Construction. From the results obtained in Section 2.3, it is possible to construct a micro-model for the reserves that includes a random intercept.the later will allow to model dependence between payments from a iven claim. Note that it is hard to find an areated model with random effects that could be compared with individual ones. In the context of claims reserves, Y (t) represents the sum of paids made for claim t within cluster. The assumptions of that model (called model G) are ( Y (t) γ t ) P(λ e γt ), λ = exp[x T c + ln(1/n ) γ t N(0, σ 2 ). Because of those two random variables in the model, two kinds of predictions can be derived: un-conditional ones, where so that E (Ŷ (t) γ t ) P( λ e γt ) [Ŷ (t) λ = exp[x T ĉ + ln(1/n ) = λ e σ2 /2 ; and conditional ones, where the unknown manitude of claim t is predicted by the so-called best linear estimate (that minimizes the MSEP) γ t (see [21) (Ỹ (t) ) γ t P( λ e γt ) so that E = λ e γt. [Ỹ (t) It is then possible to compute the overall best estimate for the total amount of reserves Illustration and Discussion. In order to construct a micro-level model from trianle 2, we follow a procedure to the one described in the provious section, with steps 1 3 (that are not mentioned here) 4. for each accident year, allocate randomly the source of each payment 5. fit model G; and

21 MACRO VS. MICRO METHODSIN NON-LIFE CLAIMS RESERVING(AN ECONOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE) compute the best estimate and the MSEP of the reserve. For a fixed value of θ, the procedure is repeated 1000 times. Various values were considered for θ (10, 25, 50, 100 and 250), and results were similar. In order to avoid heavy tables, only the case where θ = 10 is mentioned here. Simulations and computations were performed with R, relyin on packae lme4. On Fiure 3 we can see predictions of the model on observed data, while on Fiure 4 we can see predictions of the model for non-observed cells. Finaly, results are reported in Table 4. At each step, a LRT is performed (see section 2.3) and each time, the variance at oriin was sinificant non-null, meanin that correlation amon payments (related to the same claim) is positive. Observe that with the random model, the lo-likelihood is approximated usin numerical interration, which miht bias computed p-values of the test. Here, p have been confirmed usin a bootstrap procedure (usin packae lmmml). Total Amount 0.0e e e e cell Fiure 3. Observed data (circles) with conditional prediction (plain red lines) and un-conditional (plain blue lines) from model G (θ = 10).

22 22 ARTHUR CHARPENTIER & MATHIEU PIGEON Table 4. Numerical Results for θ = 10. different values of θ are similar. Results for Modèle E [Reserve Var(Reserve) coll. quasi-pois mixed Poisson non-cond mixed Poisson cond Predicted amount 0e+00 2e+06 4e+06 6e+06 8e cell Fiure 4. Predictions with the quasi-poisson macrolevel model (stron black line), with conditional prediction (plain red lines) and un-conditional (plain blue lines) from model G (θ = 10). References [1 Astesan, E. Les réserves techniques des sociétés d assurances contre les accidents automobiles; Librairie énérale de droit et de jurisprudence, [2 Mack, R. Distribution-free calculation of the standard error of chain ladder reserve estimates. ASTIN Bulletin 1993, 23(2), [3 Enland, P.D.; Verrall, R.J. Stochastic claims reservin in eneral insurance. British Actuarial Journal 2003, 8(3), [4 van Eehen, J. Loss reservin methods. In Surveys of Actuarial Studies 1; Nationale-Nederlanden, [5 Taylor, G.C. Claims reservin in non-life insurance; North-Holland, [6 Karlsson, J.E. (1976). Karlsson, J.E. The expected value of IBNR claims. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal 1976, 1976(2), [7 Arjas, E. The claims reservin problem in nonlife insurance - some structural ideas. ASTIN Bulletin 1989, 19(2),

23 MACRO VS. MICRO METHODSIN NON-LIFE CLAIMS RESERVING(AN ECONOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE) 23 [8 Jewell, W.S. (1989). Jewell, W.S. Predictin IBNYR events and delays I. Continuous time. ASTIN Bulletin 1989, 19(1), [9 Norber, R. Prediction of outstandin liabilities in non-life insurance. ASTIN Bulletin 1993, 23(1), [10 Hesselaer, O. A Markov model for loss reservin. ASTIN Bulletin 1994, 24(2), [11 Norber, R. Prediction of outstandin liabilities II: model variations and extensions. ASTIN Bulletin, 1999, 29(1), [12 Hesselaer, O.; Verrall, R.J. Reservin in Non-Life Insurance; Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, [13 Friedland, J. Estimatin Unpaid Claims Usin Basic Techniques; Estimatin Unpaid Claims Usin Basic Techniques, [14 Antonio K.; Plat R. Micro-level stochastic loss reservin for eneral insurance. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal 2014, 2014(7), [15 Pieon M.; Antonio K.; Denuit M. Individual Loss Reservin usin Paid Incurred Data. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 2014, 58, [16 van den Bera, G.J.; van der Klaauw, B. Combinin micro and macro unemployment duration data. Journal of Econometrics 2001, 102, [17 Altissimo, F.; Mojon, B.; Zaffaroni, P. Fast micro and slow macro: can areation explain the persistence of inflation? European Central Bank Workin Papers 2007, 729. [18 Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis, Fifth edition; Prentice Hall, [19 McCullah, P.; Nelder, J.A. Generalized Linear Models; Chapman [20 Cordeiro, G.M.; McCullah, P. Bias correction in eneralized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 1991, 53(3), [21 Wüthrich, M.; Merz, M. Stochastic claims reservin methods; Wiley Interscience, [22 Snijders, T.A.B.; Bosker, R.J. Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelin; Sae Publishin, [23 Self, S.G.; Lian, K.Y. Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under nonstandard conditions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1987, 82, [24 Skrondal, A.; Rabe-Hesketh, S. Prediction in multilevel eneralized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 2009, 172(3), [25 Zhan, D.; Lin, X. Random Effect and Latent Variable Model Selection. Lecture notes in statistics, 2008, 182. [26 Christofides, S. Reression models based on lo-incremental payments. Claims Reservin Manual 1997, D5.1-D5.53. [27 Imbens, G.W.; Lancaster, T. Combinin micro and macro data in microeconometric models. Review of Economic Studies 1994, 61, [28 Mack, T.; Venter, G. A Comparison of Stochastic Models that Reproduce Chain Ladder Reserve Estimates. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 2000, 26, & Hall/CRC, [29 Ruoyan, M. Estimation of dispersion parameters in GLMs with and without random effects. Stockholm University 2004,