This paper studies estimation of the conditional mean squared error of prediction, conditional on what is known at the time of prediction. The particular problem considered is the assessment of actuarial reserving methods given data in the form of run-off triangles (trapezoids), where the use of prediction assessment based on out-of-sample performance is not an option. The prediction assessment principle advocated here can be viewed as a generalisation of Akaike’s final prediction error. A direct application of this simple principle in the setting of a data-generating process given in terms of a sequence of general linear models yields an estimator of the conditional mean squared error of prediction that can be computed explicitly for a wide range of models within this model class. Mack’s distribution-free chain ladder model and the corresponding estimator of the prediction error for the ultimate claim amount are shown to be a special case. It is demonstrated that the prediction assessment principle easily applies to quite different data-generating processes and results in estimators that have been studied in the literature.

In this paper, four variants of calculating the Solvency Capital Requirement for long-tail liabilities satisfying Solvency II regulations are discussed. The merits of each metric are related to the stated objectives of Solvency II. Assumptions made in the calculations are assessed for suitability for the determination of an appropriate level of Solvency Capital. We show that two methods for calculating Solvency Capital provide insufficient capital to restore the Economic Balance Sheet in the event of distress. The standard formula referencing the Claims Development Result is shown to be too conservative when models are correctly specified.

Although loss reserving has been deeply studied in the literature, there are still practical issues that have not been addressed a lot. One of them is the estimation of reserves during the year, which is necessary for forecasts or closings during the year. We will study the following question: What can be done for forecasts and closings during the year that goes along with the reserving at year end? In order to make it not too complicated, we will focus on the Chain-Ladder method introduced by Mack (1993). We will describe several methods that are used in practice. We will discuss advantages and disadvantages of these methods based on a simple deterministic example. Roughly spoken, we will see that you may shift development or accident periods, or may split development periods, but should not split accident periods.

We show how estimators for the chain ladder prediction error in Mack's (1993) distribution-free stochastic model can be derived using the error propagation formula. Our method allows for the treatment of the general case of the prediction error of the loss development result between two arbitrary future horizons. In the well-known special cases considered previously by Mack (1993) and Merz and Wüthrich (2008), our estimators coincide with theirs. However, the algebraic form in which we cast them is new, considerably more compact and more intuitive to understand. For example, in the classical case treated by Mack (1993), we show that the mean squared prediction error divided by the squared estimated ultimate loss can be written as ∑jû2j, where ûj measures the (relative) uncertainty around the jth development factor and the proportion of the estimated ultimate loss that it affects. The error propagation method also provides a natural split into process error and parameter error. Our proofs identify and exploit symmetries of “chain ladder processes” in a novel way. For the sake of wider practical applicability of the formulae derived, we allow for incomplete historical data and the exclusion of outliers in the triangles.

The Cape Cod (CC) method was designed by Bühlmann and Straub in order to overcome some shortcomings of the chain ladder (CL) method. Owing to its simplicity and because of the advantages over the CL method, the CC method has become a well-established method in practice. In this paper we consider a distribution-free stochastic model for the CC method. Within this model we give the parameter estimates and we derive estimates for the conditional mean square error of prediction for the CC method. In addition, we derive an estimate for the uncertainty in the claims development result.

The claims development result (CDR) is the difference between the best estimate predictions of the ultimate claim in 2 successive years. With best estimate reserves it is often argued that CDR’s in consecutive years should fluctuate randomly around zero. However, in practice one frequently observes that CDR’s in a given line of business have the same sign over several consecutive years. We show that this is a phenomenon which is not unusual and to be expected in situations of change. Moreover, we show how situations of change can adequately be described by a model, taking into account the evolving external information.

In this article we want to motivate and analyse a wide family of reserving models, called linear stochastic reserving methods (LSRMs). The main idea behind them is the assumption that the (conditionally) expected changes of claim properties during a development period are proportional to exposures which depend linearly on the past. This means the discussion about the choice of reserving methods can be based on heuristic reasons about exposures driving the claims development, which in our opinion is much better than a pure philosophic approach. Moreover, the assumptions of LSRMs do not include the independence of accident periods.

We will see that many common reserving methods, like the Chain-Ladder-Method, the Bornhuetter-Ferguson-Method and the Complementary-Loss-Ratio-Method, can be interpreted in this way. But using the LSRM framework you can do more. For instance you can couple different triangles via exposures. This leads to reserving methods which look at a whole bundle of triangles at once and use the information of all triangles in order to estimate the future development of each of them.

We will present unbiased estimators for the expected ultimate and estimators for the mean squared error of prediction, which may become an integral part of IFRS 4. Moreover, we will look at the one period solvency reserving risk, which already is an important part of Solvency II, and present a corresponding estimator.

Finally we will present two examples that illustrate some features of LSRMs.

Under new solvency regulations, general insurance companies need to calculate a risk margin to cover possible shortfalls in their liability runoff. A popular approach for the calculation of the risk margin is the so-called cost-of-capital approach. A comprehensive cost-of-capital approach involves the consideration of multiperiod risk measures. Because multiperiod risk measures are rather complex mathematical objects, various proxies are used to estimate this risk margin. Of course, the use of proxies and the study of their quality raises many questions, see IAA position paper [8]. In the present paper we provide a first discourse on multiperiod solvency considerations for a general insurance liability runoff. Within a chain ladder framework, we derive analytic formulas for the risk margin which allow to compare the comprehensive approach to the different proxies used in practice. Moreover, a case study investigates and answers questions raised in [8].

In recent Solvency II considerations much effort has been put into the development of appropriate models for the study of the one-year loss reserving uncertainty in non-life insurance. In this article we derive formulas for the conditional mean square error of prediction of the one-year claims development result in the context of the Bayes chain ladder model studied in Gisler-Wüthrich. The key to these formulas is a recursive representation for the results obtained in Gisler-Wüthrich.