Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pr(N=
n)
0.049
79
0.149
36
0.224
04
0.224
04
0.168
03
0.100
82
0.050
41
0.021
60
0.008
10
0.002
70
0.000
81
Pr(N<
=n)
0.0497
9
0.1991
5
0.4231
9
0.6472
3
0.8152
6
0.9160
8
0.9664
9
0.9881
0
0.9962
0
0.9989
0
0.9997
1
= 0.003 * 200
= 0.60
Since we are assuming a 0% interest rate, Risk Premium = 60 cents per policy
(b) If the insurer charges $1 per policy, what is the expected profit for the group of policies?
Profit = Premium Income Claims
= 1 * 1000 200 * N
What is the new probability of ruin and the new expected profit for the insurer?
What is the expected profit for the reinsurer? What is the probability that the reinsurer
will make a loss on this policy?
For the insurer, the amount available to pay claims is the capital plus the NET premium income
Amount available to pay claims = 200 + 1000 300 = 900
The insurer might have to pay 0,1,2,3, or 4 claims, but he will never have to pay more than 4 claims. So
the amount payable will never exceed $800. Since he has $900 available to pay claims, there is no risk
of ruin. The probability of ruin is 0.
The expected profit is harder to work out. The easiest way is to set out the expected claims cost in a
table. Then the expected profit is the premium income less the expected claims cost
Then the expected profit is the net premium income less the expected claims cost
Expected profit = 700 536.13 = $163.87
In order to find out the expected claims cost for the insurer, the easiest method is usually by subtraction.
Reinsurers expected claims costs = Total expected claims cost Insurers expected claims cost
= 3*200 536.13
= 63.87
The reinsurer is receiving a premium of $300, and will pay any claims after the 4th claim. The reinsurer
will make a profit is he has to pay 0 or 1 claims, but will make a loss if he has to pay 2 or more claims.
So in this case:
* the reinsurer will make a profit if there are 5 claims in total (the reinsurer pays just one claim
of $200)
* the reinsurer will make a loss if there are 6 or more claims in total (the reinsurer pays 2 or more
claims of $200 each)
So the probability of a loss for the reinsurer is Pr(N>=6) = 1 Pr (N < =5) = 8.39%
Number
of claims
0
1
2
3
4
5
Probability
0.135064
522
0.270670
386
0.270941
598
0.180627
732
0.090223
371
0.036017
025
Gross
Profit
Profit
Share
500000
350000
400000
280000
300000
210000
200000
140000
100000
70000
211,561.
55
The NET expected profit for the insurer is the premium income less the expected claims less the
expected profit share payment to the superannuation fund
= 500,000 100,000 * E(D) 211,561.55
= 88,438.45
The insurer received $500,000 in premiums and will suffer a loss on this policy if there are more than 5
claims.
Pr(Loss for the insurer) = Pr(D>5)
= 1 Pr(D<=5)
= 1- BINOMDIST(5,1000,0.02,1)
= 1.65%
So there is a much lower probability of suffering a loss on the policy but also lower expected profits.
From the perspective of the superannuation fund, they are paying a much higher premium rate at the
start of the year. If things go well, they will receive a large profit share payment at the end of the year.
But if things go badly (a lot of deaths) they will receive no profit share payment at all. So this creates
more uncertainty for the superannuation fund.
If we test, we will make a loss of 1980 instead of a profit of 2000, so it is better NOT to test.
The cost of testing outweighs the benefits
(b) Repeat the same analysis, but with sum insured $500,000
If the sum insured is $500,000, then the risk premium is 0.002 * 500,000 = 1000
And the premium including a 10% safety loading is 1100
With no testing, expected profits = 1100 * 1000 -990 * 0.002 * 500,000 10 * 0.020 * 500,000
= 10,000
With testing, expected profits = 991 * 1100 - 990 * 0.002 * 500,000 - 1 * 0.020 * 500,000 20 * 1000
=70100
Expected profits increase if we test, so we would go ahead with testing.
Note that as the sum insured increases, the benefit of testing also increases
(c) We have seen that it is not worthwhile to test if the sum insured is 100,000 and it IS worthwhile to test of the
sum insured is 500,000. There must be some sum insured, between 100,000 and 500,000, where the costs of
testing are exactly equal to the benefits of testing.
Let S be this breakeven sum insured. S is the value where the expected profits WITH testing equal the expected
profits without testing.
Expected profits without testing = 1.10*S*0.002 * 1000 -990 * 0.002 * S 10 * 0.020 * S
Expected profits with testing = 991 * 1.10S*0.002 - 990 * 0.002 * S - 1 * 0.020 * S 20 * 1000
Setting these equal and solving for S gives S = 124,844
So the insurer would not bother to test people with sums insured below this limit, but would test people above
this limit (To prevent arbitrage, you would check to see whether people applied for 2 policies of 100,000 each in
order to avoid testing).
(d) If the cost of the test goes down, then you would be more likely to test. The breakeven sum insured would
go down to S = 93,633
(e) If you can narrow down the group which needs testing, then it becomes more feasible to test. You could
eliminate 9 out of the 10 high risk people by testing just the blue-eyed people, so the test cost would be only
$20 * 100 people= 2000. The breakeven sum insured falls to below $10,000, so it practice you would test all the
blue eyed customers (not many people buy sums insured below $10,000 anyway).
To give a more realistic example, insurers are unlikely to test everyone for harmful genetic mutations, since
many of these mutations are uncommon and the cost of testing is currently quite high. But they might decide to
test people who have a family history of a particular disease (such as breast cancer), because they are much
more likely to carry the harmful mutation.
0.02
0.04
$
2500
100,000.00
0.05
$30
1
Without testing
Premium Income
Claims cost
Disease
X
Healthy
Profit
2,500,000.00
$
$
200,000.00
1,900,000.00
400,000.00
$
$
950.00
2,375,000.00
$
$
With testing
Number of customers
Premium Income
Claims cost
Disease
X
Healthy
Test
cost
Profit
$
$
1,900,000.00
30,000.00
445,000.00
(b)Suppose that the customers all buy policies with different sums insured. You have decided
that you will test all customers who want to buy a policy with sum insured exceeding $S (S
is called the break-even level). What is the value of S which will maximise your profits ?
[5.5 marks]
Answer
Let the break even sum insured be S
If there is no testing, then the companys profit will be calculated as follows
We will sell 1000 policies. If the sum insured is S for a $100,000 policy, then the
premium for a sum insured of S is 2500 * S / 100000.
The premium income will be 1000 * 2500/100000 * S = 25S
The death claims for the 950 normal lives will be 0.02*S*950 = 19S
The death claims for the 50 people with disease X will be 0.04*S*50 = 2S
Total death claims will be 21S
So profits will be 4S
If there IS testing, and we reject all the Disease X people
We will sell 950 policies at the same premium rate, i.e. premium income is 23.75S
The number of death claims will be 19S
The total testing costs will be 30*1000 = 30000
Hence profit = 4.75S - 30000
The break even cost occurs when these two profits are equal, i.e.
4S = 4.75S 30000
0.75S = 30000
S = 40000
(c) Under each of the following conditions, would the value of the break-even level S go up or
down ? You are NOT required to recalculate S, just state whether it would go up or down,
and explain your reasoning. [1.5 marks each = 4.5 marks]
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
The accuracy of the test is reduced , so that it only detects 80% of people who have
Disease X.
Answer
(i)
If the cost of the test increases, then we are less likely to test. The value
of S goes UP.
(ii)
(iii)
[2 marks]
(b) One of the managers has pointed out that the company is losing money by insuring bad drivers. He has
suggested that it would be simple to identify the bad drivers by looking at the past driving experience.
The company could simply refuse to renew the insurance policy for anyone who has had two or more
accidents in the previous year. Assess this suggestion: would it lead to improved profits in the next year?
Provide calculations to support your answer.
[4 marks]
(c) Another manager has heard of this new invention, the Telematics monitor. This can be installed in any
car, and it records information such as distance travelled, speed, proportion of time spent driving after
dark, etc. It costs $30 to install the monitor in each car and collect the data.
The Telematics system is not perfect, but it can be used to correctly identify x% of the bad drivers. (x is
the accuracy level)
Suppose the insurer installs the Telematics monitor in each customers car in 2014. At the end of the
year, the company will refuse to renew the policies of any customers who have been identified as
probable bad drivers by the Telematics system, i.e. these customers will not be allowed to buy a policy
in 2015.
However, they will only do this if a cost benefit analysis shows the benefits of doing so will exceed the
costs. (Ignore interest and the impact on profits in years after 2015; ignore the possibility that the
company will be able to gain new customers in 2015).
What is the minimum accuracy level (i.e. the minimum value of x) which would make it worthwhile for
the company to install Telematics monitors in all cars? Provide calculations to support your answer.
[5
marks]
Note that the same type of cost benefit analysis applies to general insurance (such as car insurance or home
insurance) as well as life insurance. The motor vehicle insurance market is very competitive so the insurers
devote a lot of energy to finding better methods of choosing rating factors (i.e. choosing factors which are used
to set premium rates).
How many bad drivers have had two or more claims in the year?
For a Poisson probability of 0.20,
Pr(0 claims) = exp(-0.20) (0.20)^0 / 0! = exp(-0.20)
Pr(1 claim) = exp(-0.20)*(0.20^1)/1! = 0.20 * exp(-0.20)
Pr(2 or more claims) = 1 - 0.982477 = 0.017523
Therefore we would eliminate 150*0.017523 = 2.6285 bad drivers
How many good drivers would be eliminated?
For a Poisson probability of 0.10,
Pr(0 claims) = exp(-0.10) (0.10)^0 / 0! = exp(-0.10)
Pr(1 claim) = exp(-0.10)*(0.10^1)/1! = 0.10 * exp(-0.10)
Pr(2 of more claims) = 1 - 1.10 exp(-0.10) = 1-0.99532= 0.00468
Therefore we would eliminate 850*0.00468 = 3.9770 good drivers
The number of customers would be (1000-2.6285-3.9770) = 993.3945
The expected claims for the bad drivers would be 0.982577*150,000 = 147,387
The expected claims for the good drivers would be 0.99532*425,000 = 423,011
This means that expected profits = 600*993.3945 - 147,387 - 423011 = 25,638
This is an increase in profits so it is a good idea.
{In practice you would just charge the people with 2 or more claims a higher premium, e.g. they would
lose their no-claim discount}
(c) If they do NOT install Telematics in any car, then the expected profits is as calculated in part b(i), i.e. 25,000
If they DO install Telematices, then they will exclude x% of the bad drivers.
Premium income will be 600*(850+(1-x%))*150) = 510,000 + 90000*(1-x%)
Expected Claims cost will be 425,000 for the good drivers and (1-x%)*150000 for the bad drivers.
Cost of testing is 30*1000 = 30,000
Expected profit will be = 510000+90000*(1-x%)-425000-150000*(1-x) - 30000
= 55,000 -60000*(1-x%)
We will choose this underwriting approach if the expected profits under this system are greater than our current
expected profits of 25000, i.e. when
55000 - 60000*(1-x%) > 25000
Solving for x:
55000 - 60000 - 25000 > - 60000*x%
-30000 > - 60000*x%
0.5 < x%
So we will choose this approach if x% is greater than 50%, i.e. if the Telematics machine can correctly identify
at least 50% of the bad drivers.