IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/insuma/v44y2009i2p214-228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multivariate probit models for conditional claim-types

Author

Listed:
  • Young, Gary
  • Valdez, Emiliano A.
  • Kohn, Robert

Abstract

This paper considers statistical modeling of the types of claim in a portfolio of insurance policies. For some classes of insurance contracts, in a particular period, it is possible to have a record of whether or not there is a claim on the policy, the types of claims made on the policy, and the amount of claims arising from each of the types. A typical example is automobile insurance where in the event of a claim, we are able to observe the amounts that arise from say injury to oneself, damage to one's own property, damage to a third party's property, and injury to a third party. Modeling the frequency and the severity components of the claims can be handled using traditional actuarial procedures. However, modeling the claim-type component is less known and in this paper, we recommend analyzing the distribution of these claim-types using multivariate probit models, which can be viewed as latent variable threshold models for the analysis of multivariate binary data. A recent article by Valdez and Frees [Valdez, E.A., Frees, E.W., Longitudinal modeling of Singapore motor insurance. University of New South Wales and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Working Paper. Dated 28 December 2005, available from: http://wwwdocs.fce.unsw.edu.au/actuarial/research/papers/2006/Valdez-Frees-2005.pdf] considered this decomposition to extend the traditional model by including the conditional claim-type component, and proposed the multinomial logit model to empirically estimate this component. However, it is well known in the literature that this type of model assumes independence across the different outcomes. We investigate the appropriateness of fitting a multivariate probit model to the conditional claim-type component in which the outcomes may in fact be correlated, with possible inclusion of important covariates. Our estimation results show that when the outcomes are correlated, the multinomial logit model produces substantially different predictions relative to the true predictions; and second, through a simulation analysis, we find that even in ideal conditions under which the outcomes are independent, multinomial logit is still a poor approximation to the true underlying outcome probabilities relative to the multivariate probit model. The results of this paper serve to highlight the trade-off between tractability and flexibility when choosing the appropriate model.

Suggested Citation

  • Young, Gary & Valdez, Emiliano A. & Kohn, Robert, 2009. "Multivariate probit models for conditional claim-types," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 214-228, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:insuma:v:44:y:2009:i:2:p:214-228
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-6687(08)00142-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2006. "Calculation of multivariate normal probabilities by simulation, with applications to maximum simulated likelihood estimation," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(2), pages 156-189, June.
    2. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-426, March.
    3. Pinquet, Jean, 1998. "Designing Optimal Bonus-Malus Systems from Different Types of Claims," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 205-220, November.
    4. Balia, Silvia & Jones, Andrew M., 2008. "Mortality, lifestyle and socio-economic status," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-26, January.
    5. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1984. "Convenient specification tests for logit and probit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 241-262, July.
    6. Bunch, David S., 1991. "Estimability in the Multinomial Probit Model," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1gf1t128, University of California Transportation Center.
    7. Small, Kenneth A & Hsiao, Cheng, 1985. "Multinomial Logit Specification Tests," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 26(3), pages 619-627, October.
    8. Melvyn Weeks, 1997. "The Multinomial Probit Model Revisited: A Discussion of Parameter Estimability, Identification and Specification Testing," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(3), pages 297-320, September.
    9. Keane, Michael P, 1992. "A Note on Identification in the Multinomial Probit Model," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(2), pages 193-200, April.
    10. Bolduc, Denis, 1992. "Generalized autoregressive errors in the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 155-170, April.
    11. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2003. "Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(3), pages 278-294, September.
    12. Bunch, David S., 1991. "Estimability in the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-12, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arzhenovskiy, Sergey & Sinyavskaya, Tatiana & Bakhteev, Andrey, 2020. "Multivariate probit model for a priori assessment of behavioral risks in audit," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 60, pages 102-114.
    2. Zhen, Feng & Du, Xiaojuan & Cao, Jason & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2018. "The association between spatial attributes and e-shopping in the shopping process for search goods and experience goods: Evidence from Nanjing," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 291-299.
    3. Rahman, Sanzidur & Daniel Chima, Chidiebere, 2015. "Determinants of modern technology adoption in multiple food crops in Nigeria: a multivariate probit approach," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 4(3), April.
    4. Bermúdez, Lluís & Karlis, Dimitris, 2011. "Bayesian multivariate Poisson models for insurance ratemaking," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 226-236, March.
    5. Nivorozhkina, Ludmila, 2017. "Current incomes and financial behavior of households: Who loses more in a crisis?," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 48, pages 85-96.
    6. Jia Tang & Feng Zhen & Jason Cao & Patricia L. Mokhtarian, 2018. "How do passengers use travel time? A case study of Shanghai–Nanjing high speed rail," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 451-477, March.
    7. Francisco Rosas & Santiago Acerenza & Peter F. Orazem, 2020. "Optimal pricing strategies for a cluster of goods: own- and cross-price effects with correlated tastes," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(7), pages 742-755, February.
    8. Ulimwengu, John & Sanyal, Prabuddha, 2011. "Joint estimation of farmers' stated willingness to pay for agricultural services:," IFPRI discussion papers 1070, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Oparinde, Adewale & Hodge, Ian, 2011. "Building livelihood resilience: a case study of factors affecting farm households’ adoption of coping and adaptive strategies in rural Nigeria," MPRA Paper 39162, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Friederike Paetz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2017. "The benefits of incorporating utility dependencies in finite mixture probit models," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 39(3), pages 793-819, July.
    2. GRAMMIG, Joachim & HUJER, Reinhard & SCHEIDLER, Michael, 2001. "The econometrics of airline network management," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2001055, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    3. Victoria Prowse, 2012. "Modeling Employment Dynamics With State Dependence and Unobserved Heterogeneity," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(3), pages 411-431, April.
    4. Yai, Tetsuo & Iwakura, Seiji & Morichi, Shigeru, 1997. "Multinomial probit with structured covariance for route choice behavior," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 195-207, June.
    5. Paul Gertler & Roland Sturm & Bruce Davidson, 1994. "Information and the Demand for Supplemental Medicare Insurance," NBER Working Papers 4700, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Rennings, Klaus & Ziegler, Andreas & Zwick, Thomas, 2001. "Employment changes in environmentally innovative firms," ZEW Discussion Papers 01-46, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    7. David Roodman, 2009. "Estimating Fully Observed Recursive Mixed-Process Models with cmp," Working Papers 168, Center for Global Development.
    8. Langche Zeng, 2000. "A Heteroscedastic Generalized Extreme Value Discrete Choice Model," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 29(1), pages 118-144, August.
    9. Tobias Müller & Stefan Boes, 2020. "Disability insurance benefits and labor supply decisions: evidence from a discontinuity in benefit awards," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 2513-2544, May.
    10. Joachim Grammig & Reinhard Hujer & Michael Scheidler, 2005. "Discrete choice modelling in airline network management," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 467-486, May.
    11. Massimiliano Bratti, 2005. "Social Class and Undergraduate Degree Subject in the UK," UNIMI - Research Papers in Economics, Business, and Statistics unimi-1015, Universitá degli Studi di Milano.
    12. Liesenfeld, Roman & Richard, Jean-François, 2010. "Efficient estimation of probit models with correlated errors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 367-376, June.
    13. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    14. Rinus Haaijer & Michel Wedel & Marco Vriens & Tom Wansbeek, 1998. "Utility Covariances and Context Effects in Conjoint MNP Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 236-252.
    15. Ziegler Andreas, 2010. "Z-Tests in Multinomial Probit Models under Simulated Maximum Likelihood Estimation: Some Small Sample Properties," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 230(5), pages 630-652, October.
    16. David Roodman, 2011. "Fitting fully observed recursive mixed-process models with cmp," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 11(2), pages 159-206, June.
    17. Geweke, John & Keane, Michael P & Runkle, David, 1994. "Alternative Computational Approaches to Inference in the Multinomial Probit Model," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(4), pages 609-632, November.
    18. Daziano, Ricardo A., 2015. "Inference on mode preferences, vehicle purchases, and the energy paradox using a Bayesian structural choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-26.
    19. Ziegler, Andreas, 2001. "Simulated z-tests in multinomial probit models," ZEW Discussion Papers 01-53, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Darla Hatton MacDonald & Mark Morrison & Mary Barnes, 2010. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept Compensation for Changes in Urban Water Customer Service Standards," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(12), pages 3145-3158, September.

    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:eee:insuma:v:44:y:2009:i:2:p:214-228. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505554 .

    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.