IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/astinb/v39y2009i01p81-99_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Credible Loss Ratio Claims Reserves: the Benktander, Neuhaus and Mack Methods Revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Hürlimann, Werner

Abstract

The Benktander (1976) and Neuhaus (1992) credibility claims reserving methods are reconsidered in the framework of a credible loss ratio reserving method. As a main contribution we provide a simple and practical optimal credibility weight for combining the chain-ladder or individual loss ratio reserve (grossed up latest claims experience of an origin period) with the Bornhuetter-Ferguson or collective loss ratio reserve (experience based burning cost estimate of the total ultimate claims of an origin period). The obtained simple optimal credibility weights minimize simultaneously the mean squared error and the variance of the claims reserve. We note also that the standard Chain-Ladder, Cape Cod and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods can be reinterpreted in the credible context and extended to optimal credible standard methods. The new approach is inspired from Mack (2000). Two advantages over the Mack method are worthwhile to be mentioned. First, a pragmatic estimation of the required parameters leads to a straightforward calculation of the optimal credibility weights and mean squared errors of the credible reserves. An advantage of the collective loss ratio claims reserve over the Bornhuetter-Ferguson reserve in Mack (2000) is that different actuaries come always to the same results provided they use the same actuarial premiums.

Suggested Citation

  • Hürlimann, Werner, 2009. "Credible Loss Ratio Claims Reserves: the Benktander, Neuhaus and Mack Methods Revisited," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 81-99, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:astinb:v:39:y:2009:i:01:p:81-99_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0515036100000040/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:astinb:v:39:y:2009:i:01:p:81-99_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/asb .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.