catastrophe models: a non cat-modeller’s · catastrophe modelling conference earlier this year. 3...
TRANSCRIPT
© 2013 Finity Consulting Pty Limited
Catastrophe Models:
A non cat-modeller’s
perspective
Prepared by Tim Andrews | May 2014
2
Nine quotes from a Catastrophe Modelling Conference earlier this year
3
“Boards don’t understand what a return period is”
4
1 in
Source: Stirling et al, 2012
A paradox
5
How can a 1 in 400 year event occur every 50 years?
Does a diversified insurer need to allow for a more severe catastrophe than an insurer concentrated in one location?
Single State Insurer – Single Peril
6
$300m
1 in 200
Two State Insurer – Single Peril
7
$300m
$300m
1 in 200
1 in 200
$300m event every 100 years for the portfolio
Multi State Multi Peril
8
$300m
$200m
$400m
$300m
$500m
$200m
$500m
$400m$300m
- 1 of these 1 in 400 year events every 44 years!- $700m event every 200 years for portfolio
Single State vs Multi State
9
PML equivalent to worst1 in 200 year event$200m
PML equivalent to worst1 in 200 year event for portfolio$700m
Single State Insurer Multi State Insurer
An insurer’s modelled cats
10
Event Frequency Cost Location Description
A 0.00000042 $1,350m WA, Yilgam E/Q 7.1
B 0.00000038 $1,350m Northern New England
E/Q 6.8
C 0.00000000 $1,348m NW Victoria E/Q 7.2
D 0.00000513 $1,346m Perth Basin E/Q 6.5
E 0.00000774 $1,342m Nth Qld Cat 5 Cyclone
F 0.00000775 $1,342m NT Cat 5 Cyclone
11
“Why aren’t the regulators here to listen to this?”
Some onerous guidance
12
“……an insurer to be able to articulate its view on overall probability of sufficiency with respect to model outputs…….”
Really?!
“More generally, boards and senior management of insurers should satisfy themselves that the policies and practices they follow for catastrophe risk management are sound and lead to appropriately prudent outcomes. Each insurer should ensure that it: • clearly sets and articulates its appetite for
catastrophe risk; • understands the strengths, weaknesses
and inherent assumptions of any models it uses; “
Some insurer responses
13
Clarify who has responsibility for assessing the PML
Implement clear framework, and process for oversight
More communication with cat modellers
Better documentation
More education
Possible roles of stakeholders
14
Catastrophe modellers
Running models
Assessment of models
Sensitivities
Realistic Disaster
Scenarios
Reinsurance Manager
Improving data quality
Dialogue with modellers
Assess gaps in modelling
Design of reinsurance
arrangements
CFO, Actuary, CRO
Develop decision making
framework
Consistency with capital targets, risk
appetite
Consideration of key risks,
allowance for uncertainty
Set RDSs
CEO
Agree framework
Implement oversight process
Recommend PML and RI
Board
Set risk appetite
Agree framework
Oversight
Approve PML and RI
15
“The models are being ‘opened up’ and this will enable better
understanding and will impact insurer decision making”
Understanding what is modelled
16 Source: GNS
Hazard - Seismic risk Response - Ground shaking (RMS Paper)
Damage - Damage Ratios
Types of questions that an insurer may
seek answers to
17
What model are we using and why?
How does it compare to other models?
What are the key assumptions in the model?
How does the seismic assessment compare to Geoscience Australia’s current view?
What would be the impact of using alternative views of ground shaking?
How was the damage ratio calibrated?
What did we learn from Christchurch about the damage ratio?
18
“If I was an insurer my main focus would be on ensuring our data is as
good as we can get it”
What insurer data is important?
19
For each location (vs each policy)
Location of risk
Construction details
Age of property
Exposure ANZSIC
20
“APRA keep asking us about our model for non-modelled perils”
A framework that considers non-modelled
hazards and perils
21
Modelled PML
Explicit allowance for non modelled:
Hazards Costs
e.g. Fire following earthquake
e.g. Loss Adjustment Expenses
Are these modelled?
22
Hazards
“Ultra-liquefaction”
Landslide
Fire following
Sprinkler leakage
Tsunami
Costs
LAE
BI
Fences, driveways
Temporary accom
Legal
Post loss amplification
Loss of rent (tenanted)
Infrastructure
23
“Its hard to know what to do about unknown unknowns, or
known unknowns for that matter”
24
“The Board wants to know if we have identified 85% of the risk, or
25%. What is the order of magnitude?”
25
“We are uncertain about how to deal with the uncertainty”
Approaches for dealing with uncertainty
26
Make no adjustment
Blending the results of various catastrophe models
Adopt a higher return period
Add a judgemental margin
Add explicit margin tied to the assessment of uncertainty
27
“An RDS is a better way of gaining Board understanding”
Lloyds RDS for Japan Quake
28
“Managing agents should consider all other lines of business that would be affected by the event. Particular consideration should be given to losses arising from: 1) Personal Accident - it should be assumed that 2,000 deaths and 20,000 injuries will arise as a result of this major earthquake. Assume that 50% of those injured will have PA cover……..”
Issues a Board may consider
29
Linked to oversight
How did we assess how good our data is? Do we have a process for dealing with shortcomings?
How did we assess different models?
How did we assess what perils are not modelled?
How does the level of protection compare to our competitors?
How should we allow for uncertainty?
As evidence of process
What model are we using and why?
What allowance is made for growth?
What costs are not allowed for by the models?
Did we prepare RDSs? What did we learn from them?
Final thoughts on cat models
30
Yes there is a lot of uncertainty
The models are a good place to start, but not the end point
We have learned a lot in recent years
Keep asking questions, but don’t expect them all to be answered (yet)
Diversified insurers have an advantage
31
An update on the weather
What I said at a previous FSAA conference
32
Impact of climate change on insurance costs in Australia to date minor
Variability in costs linked to natural cycles
Climate change will impact insurance costs, but gradual and over many years
Main areas of increase flood and bushfire
Impacts will vary by region
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Norm
alis
ed C
laim
s C
osts
$m
Normalised Australian Natural Disaster Claims Costs
Source: Risk Frontiers/ICA
Feeling a little hot?
33
Sea levels do vary
34
18,000 years ago sea levels were 110 metres lower
During the previous intergalacial period (120,000 years ago) sea levels were 6m higher than current
How has our view changed?
35
Not much
Bushfire risk has probably increased already
Regional impacts are greater than I had appreciated
Actions of the sea to be the biggest issue. Will make the current flood problems look minor
2014/15 forecast to be a strong El Nino. Is ENSO variability changing?
Increase in Bushfire Risk
Super El Nino in 2014/15?
36
El Niño likely in 2014The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Tracker status is at El Niño ALERT level, meaning that there is at least a 70% chance of an El Niño occurring in 2014. Current observations and model guidance indicate an El Niño is likely to develop by spring, with some models indicating a transition to El Niño as early as July.
Source: BoM
Distribution & Use
This presentation has been prepared for the
FSAA conference held on 19 May 2014. It
is not intended, nor necessarily suitable, for
any other purpose.
Third parties should recognise that the
furnishing of this presentation is not a
substitute for their own due diligence and
should place no reliance on this
presentation or the data contained herein
which would result in the creation of any
duty or liability by Finity to the third party.
Reliances & Limitations
Finity wishes it to be understood that the
information presented at the seminar is of a
general nature and does not constitute
actuarial advice or investment advice.
While Finity has taken reasonable care in
compiling the information presented, Finity
does not warrant that the information
provided is relevant to a particular reader’s
situation, specific objectives or needs.
Finity does not have any responsibility to
any attendee at the conference or to any
other party arising from the content of this
presentation. Before acting on any
information provided by Finity in this
presentation, readers should consider their
own circumstances and their need for
advice on the subject – Finity would be
pleased to assist.