This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

PREMIUI~( R A T E S

UNDER

INFLATIONARY

CONDITIONS

H. R. WATERS *

Heriot-Watt Univermty, Edinburgh

I. INTRODUCTION

This short note has as its starting point an interesting artlcle b y TAYLOR (1979) m which he considered the effects of inflation on a risk process. T a y l o r showed t h a t ~f the p r e m i u m density increased at the same rate as the cost of individual claims then, under certain conditions, ultimate rmn was certain. This raises a natural question, vlz. "If the cost of i n d l w d u a l clam~s is increasing how should the premiums be increased m order to keep the probability of ruin under control ?" It ~s this question t h a t we shall be considering in this note. In the next section we define the risk process t h a t we shall be s t u d y i n g for the remainder of thts note. Our process is essentially a c o m p o u n d Poisson process except t h a t we allow the distribution funcUon of an indiwdual clann to d e p e n d on the time at which the claim occurs. We start the t h i r d section b y deriving, with the help of a general result of GERBER (1973), a formula for the futuxe p r e m i u m density t h a t will keep the p r o b a b i h t y of r u m for our process below a p r e d e t e r m i n e d bound. We then derive a simple a p p r o x i m a t i o n to this formula t h a t shows more clearly how we require the p r e m m m density to change in relation to the change in claims costs. Finally we show t h a t if we consider the same process with annual premiums t h e n the p r o b a b i l i t y of u l t i m a t e ruin wall be kept below a p r e d e t e r m i n e d b o u n d if the annual p r e m i u m is calculated according to the principle of zero utility with an exponential utility function or, as a first a p p r o x i m a t i o n , according to the variance principle.

2. THE RISK PROCESS

In this section we describe the risk process t h a t we shall be s t u d y i n g in this note. We assume claims are i n d e p e n d e n t of each other and occur as the points of a Poisson process with a m e a n rate of p claims each year. The a m o u n t of a single claim occurring at time t years has distribution function Fe where

(1)

F t ( x ) = Fo(X/g(t) )

t ~ o

**and where ~(t) (> o) is a non-stochastic index of claims inflation at time t and
**

* T h e a u t h o r is g r a t e f u l t o t h e r e f e r e e for s o m o u s e f u l c o m m e n t s o n a n e a r l i e r d r a f t of thas paper

161 of TAYLOR (1979) we can regard i(t) as il(t)/ i2(t ) where il(t ) is a true index of claims inflation at t i m e t a n d i2(t ) is the a c c u m u l a t e d a m o u n t at t i m e t of a unit s u m i n v e s t e d at t i m e o. t~. T h e a b o v e conditions on F o a n d i(s) are not necess a r y for the results of t h e n e x t section. W e denote b y X t the a c c u m u l a t e d clainas in the i n t e r v a l [o. i. W e m a k e no specific allowance for i n v e s t m e n t income to be a d d e d to t h e insurer's reserves b u t following the r e m a r k s on p. R WATERS 1.e. t~ is (7) C. If we denote the m o m e n t g e n e r a t i n g function of F~ b y rnt it is clear redO ) = mo(Oi(t) ) W e shall a s s u m e t h a t too(0 ) is finite for all values of 0 b u t note the r e m a r k s following the proof of t h e t h e o r e m in the n e x t section. we define (4) so t h a t (5) Y~ = X ~ . . p. . Using (3) it is e a s y to show t h a t E[Yn~ = p m ~ i(s) ds #-1 (6) Var [Yn~ = pcc i i2(s) ds it-| where m a n d 0t are the first a n d second m o m e n t s of F o a b o u t the origin respectively.1 Yn is t h e t o t a l claims in t h e n . F o r n = 1. 2. T h e m o m e n t g e n e r a t i n g function of X t can be s h o w n to be (S) Mr(O) = e x p {lbt [lit S m.30 i(o) = that (2) H.X n . p. 3 . W e denote b y U the insurer's free reserves at t= o. p r o v i d e d only t h a t sufficiently large claims are possible a n d t h a t the r a t e of inflation is large enough.-. (O)ds0 11} F o r a d e r i v a t i o n of this f o r m u l a see either B/0HLMANN (1970 . 153 ) .t h year. .c ~ i(s) ds 0 for some c o n s t a n t c t h e n u l t i m a t e r u m is certain for our risk process p r o v i d e d only t h a t t h e r e exists some c o n s t a n t k such t h a t (8) Fo(c/k )< 1 a n d i * ( s ) ds~< 0 k*(t) forall t1> o. 60) or TAYLOR (1979 . TAYLOR (1979) has shown t h a t if the t o t a l p r e m i u m income in ~o.

Xe 0 (where cs is as defined in (9)) so that the insurer's reserves at time t are U+ Zt. for a standard compound Poisson risk process) the above theorem is nothing more than Lundberg's inequality . In the special case i(s)= I for all s (i.(r) ds-1]} 0 0 = exp { - i ~ + rcs. using (3). we have for any r t (I2) E[exp { .RU} if ct is chosen so that (9) c~ = p E m d R ) .rZt}] = exp {.e. We start this section by showing how to determine ct in such a way that the insurer's probability of ultimate ruin can be kept below a predetermined bound.RZt)] = 1 for all t>~ o.r f c8 ds) Ms(r) 0 = exp{-r i c.I]/R for t~> o where R is any positive number. Proof We define the process {Zt} ** o by $ (lo) Z~ = f csds. We do this in the following theorem. Remarks 1. ds+bt[1/t i m. Our theorem is then a simple consequence of Gerber's result.pros(r)] ds} 0 By putting r=R in (12) and then using (9) we can see that (13) E[exp { . This process has independent increments so we can use a result of GERBER (1973) which states that the probability of ultimate ruin for such a process is bounded above by (11) min exp {--rU} max r Oct E[exp {-rZt}] But. Theorem The insurer's probability of ultimate rum will be bounded above by exp { .P R E M I U M RATES U N D E R I N F L A T I O N A R Y C O N D I T I O N S 31 3" PREMIUM RATES We denote by ct the insurer's instantaneous rate of premium income at time t.

RZt) } t ~ o is a martingale. B y assumption. F o r m u l a (9) gives little indication of the way in which we require ct to change relative to i(t). Making a similar a p p r o x i m a t i o n to Em0(R). See GERBER (t 975).(t) )2 / 2+ Z (Ri(t) )Jo~j/7 . Suppose t h a t only the weaker condition mr(0) < oo for all o~< 0~< 0o and o~<t~<t o holds where 00. In practice R is hkely to be small so t h a t if i(t) is not large the first two terms on the right h a n d side of (18) should give a reasonable a p p r o x i m a t i o n to lint(R). (17) is a convergent series. Proof F o r m u l a (9) gives (16) ct = Co[mr(R)- Ill[too(R). An alternative i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of our result is t h a t we have chosen ct in such a way t h a t the process ( e x p ( . We t r y to provide th_ls.1] and we have (17) mr(R)-1= Ri(t)m+ c~(R. in the following corollary. at least for small values of l. Corollary I The rate of p r e m i u m income ct speclhed b y (9) gives the following approximation for small values of t. R WATERS for the p r o b a b i l i t y of ruin since it is clear from (9) t h a t R is the insurer's insolvency constant. (15) where X = ct = Coi(l) El+ x.1~ and p u t t i n g these two a p p r o x i m a t i o n s into (16) we obtain (15).t h m o m e n t of F 0 a b o u t the origin. 3. W h a t we have done is to e x t e n d this result to the case where the cost of a claim depends on the time at which it occurs and we have achieved this by requiring ct to be calculated m such a w a y t h a t the insurer's " i n s t a n t a n e o u s insolvency c o n s t a n t " at time t is held fixed at some value R > o.(t)]/El+ Ro~/2m. to> o. 2. See p.1].R U } p r o v i d e d R < 0o and provided ct is calculated as m (9) for o~< t~< l 0. The proof is as before except t h a t it reqmres the finite-time version of Gerber's result.32 H. We can then show t h a t the p r o b a b i h t y of rum before time t o is b o u n d e d above b y exp { . 207 of GERBER (1973). The a s s u m p t m n t h a t m0(0 ) is finite for all 0 imphes t h a t m~(R) and hence c~ will be finite for a n y values of R and t. .t where ~j is the j .

.e x p { . This formula for Pn gives the following approximation for small values of n (22) Pn -. a total premium Pn is payable at a constant rate t h r o u g h o u t the year. Tins gives the exact relationship (19) c. 2. the probability of ultimate rmn for our risk process will be bounded above by exp { . It can be easily checked t h a t if i(l)>~ 1 and m.Coi(t)[l+ Ri(t)/a]/[l+ R/a 3 So far in tlns sectmn we have been concerned with ct.R U } if P n is calculated b y the formtfla )t (21) Pn= P [ J" m d R ) a t . Let us suppose then t h a t Fo(X) = I . Using similar approximations to those used in the proof of . the instantaneous rate of premium income.(l) and F o. .Rz(t)/a] F o r m u l a (15) gives the following approxnnation (20) c. It is interesting to compare (15) with (7). which we have assumed to be continuously variable. . However.R/a~/[1. We now suppose t h a t in the time interval I n . o~.2 . -. =j~> o for j>~ 3 then the "-4-" sign in (15) can be changed to a ">~" sign. F o r m u l a (9) gives (18) ct = #i(t)/[a. . 3.R. Corollary 2 Assuming either t h a t i(t) is a non-decreasing function of t or t h a t " r u m " can only occur after an integral number of years. n].(t)] provided a > Ri(t).~] Proof The first part of the corollary as easily proved since (21) can be written (23) Pn = S c~ dt where ct is as in (9). = Coi(t)Et.a x } for some a > o so t h a t m= 1/a and ~= 2/a =.PREMIUM RATES U N D E R I N F L A T I O N A R Y C O N D I T I O N S 33 Remarks a.I. The range of values of t for wlnch (15) is likely to be a reasonable approximation ~s not ammcdiately clear since it depends on the relationships between R. where n is a positive integer.E[Yn] + (R/2) Var [Y.1 ] / R n= 1. in the special case where F 0 is a negative exponential distribution we can get a clearer idea of the accuracy of (15).

U (t973). 2. 307-322 TAYLOR.R. M~tte. Astzn Bullet. H. Astzn Bullehn. (1974) On Additive Premium Calculation Principles. (1975) The Surplus Process as a Fair Game--Utihtywise.Rx}) ~BUHLMANN. 149-162 . Remarks i(t)~> 1 and ~j>~ o for j>~3 the " ~ .R U } t h e annual p r e m i u m should be calculated using the principle of zero utility with the utility function (26) See GERBER (1974). H U.n Bullehn." sign in (22) can be replaced b y a ">~" sign.n.lungen der Vere. G. If (25) P n = (I/R) In [E[ exp {RYn}]] In other words to keep the probability of ruin below e x p { . Mathenlattcal Methods in lhsk Theory. Probablhty of Ruin under Inflationary Condttlons or under Experience Rating. (t970). G E R B E R .exp { . Martingales in Risk Theory.34 Corollary 1 we have t h a t (24) H. 10. WATERS P~ ~ P i [mi(t)+ o~Ri2 (t)/2] dt n-I and so (22) follows from (5) and (6). C. GERBER. 7. 205-216. F o r m u l a (21) is equivalent to I. REFERENCES u(x) = (l/R) ( I .mgung Schwe*zer~scher Verszcherungsmathemahker. Ast. 73. H U. H. (1979). 215-222 GERBER. 8. New York. Springer.

finance

finance

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd