IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v6y2018i2p34-d140625.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multivariate Credibility in Bonus-Malus Systems Distinguishing between Different Types of Claims

Author

Listed:
  • Emilio Gómez-Déniz

    (Department of Department of Quantitative Methods, Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences, TiDES Institute, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, E-35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain)

  • Enrique Calderín-Ojeda

    (Centre for Actuarial Studies, Department of Economics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne VIC 3010, Australia)

Abstract

In the classical bonus-malus system the premium assigned to each policyholder is based only on the number of claims made without having into account the claims size. Thus, a policyholder who has declared a claim that results in a relatively small loss is penalised to the same extent as one who has declared a more expensive claim. Of course, this is seen unfair by many policyholders. In this paper, we study the factors that affect the number of claims in car insurance by using a trivariate discrete distribution. This approach allows us to discern between three types of claims depending wether the claims are above, between or below certain thresholds. Therefore, this model implements the two fundamental random variables in this scenario, the number of claims as well as the amount associated with them. In addition, we introduce a trivariate prior distribution conjugated with this discrete distribution that produce credibility bonus-malus premiums that satisfy appropriate traditional transition rules. A practical example based on real data is shown to examine the differences with respect to the premiums obtained under the traditional system of tarification.

Suggested Citation

  • Emilio Gómez-Déniz & Enrique Calderín-Ojeda, 2018. "Multivariate Credibility in Bonus-Malus Systems Distinguishing between Different Types of Claims," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-11, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:6:y:2018:i:2:p:34-:d:140625
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/6/2/34/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/6/2/34/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dionne, Georges & Vanasse, Charles, 1989. "A Generalization of Automobile Insurance Rating Models: The Negative Binomial Distribution with a Regression Component," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 199-212, November.
    2. Edward Frees, 2003. "Multivariate Credibility for Aggregate Loss Models," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 13-37.
    3. Heilmann, Wolf-Rudiger, 1989. "Decision theoretic foundations of credibility theory," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 77-95, March.
    4. de Jong,Piet & Heller,Gillian Z., 2008. "Generalized Linear Models for Insurance Data," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521879149, September.
    5. Sarabia, José María & Gómez-Déniz, Emilio & Vázquez-Polo, Francisco J., 2004. "On the Use of Conditional Specification Models in Claim Count Distributions: an Application to Bonus-Malus Systems," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 85-98, May.
    6. Frangos, Nicholas E. & Vrontos, Spyridon D., 2001. "Design of Optimal Bonus-Malus Systems With a Frequency and a Severity Component On an Individual Basis in Automobile Insurance," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 1-22, May.
    7. Jewell, William S., 1974. "Credible Means are exact Bayesian for Exponential Families," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 77-90, September.
    8. Jean-Philippe Boucher & Michel Denuit & Montserrat Guillén, 2007. "Risk Classification for Claim Counts," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 110-131.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gómez-Déniz, E., 2016. "Bivariate credibility bonus–malus premiums distinguishing between two types of claims," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 117-124.
    2. Tzougas, George & Hoon, W. L. & Lim, J. M., 2019. "The negative binomial-inverse Gaussian regression model with an application to insurance ratemaking," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101728, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Emilio Gómez-Déniz & Enrique Calderín-Ojeda, 2020. "A Survey of the Individual Claim Size and Other Risk Factors Using Credibility Bonus-Malus Premiums," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Tan, Chong It, 2016. "Varying transition rules in bonus–malus systems: From rules specification to determination of optimal relativities," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 134-140.
    5. George Tzougas, 2020. "EM Estimation for the Poisson-Inverse Gamma Regression Model with Varying Dispersion: An Application to Insurance Ratemaking," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Tzougas, George, 2020. "EM estimation for the Poisson-Inverse Gamma regression model with varying dispersion: an application to insurance ratemaking," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Yang Lu, 2019. "Flexible (panel) regression models for bivariate count–continuous data with an insurance application," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 182(4), pages 1503-1521, October.
    8. Payandeh Najafabadi Amir T. & MohammadPour Saeed, 2018. "A k-Inflated Negative Binomial Mixture Regression Model: Application to Rate–Making Systems," Asia-Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 1-31, July.
    9. Yang Lu, 2018. "Dynamic Frailty Count Process in Insurance: A Unified Framework for Estimation, Pricing, and Forecasting," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 85(4), pages 1083-1102, December.
    10. Olena Ragulina, 2017. "Bonus--malus systems with different claim types and varying deductibles," Papers 1707.00917, arXiv.org.
    11. Mahmoudvand Rahim & Tan Chong It & Abbasi Narges, 2017. "Adjusting the Premium Relativities in a Bonus-Malus System: An Integrated Approach Using the First Claim Time and the Number of Claims," Asia-Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, July.
    12. Tzougas, George & Vrontos, Spyridon & Frangos, Nicholas, 2018. "Bonus-Malus systems with two component mixture models arising from different parametric families," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84301, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Azaare Jacob & Zhao Wu, 2020. "An Alternative Pricing System through Bayesian Estimates and Method of Moments in a Bonus-Malus Framework for the Ghanaian Auto Insurance Market," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, July.
    14. Tzougas, George & Yik, Woo Hee & Mustaqeem, Muhammad Waqar, 2019. "Insurance ratemaking using the Exponential-Lognormal regression model," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101729, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Tan, Chong It & Li, Jackie & Li, Johnny Siu-Hang & Balasooriya, Uditha, 2015. "Optimal relativities and transition rules of a bonus–malus system," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 255-263.
    16. Angers, Jean-François & Desjardins, Denise & Dionne, Georges & Guertin, François, 2006. "Vehicle and Fleet Random Effects in a Model of Insurance Rating for Fleets of Vehicles," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 25-77, May.
    17. Deprez, Laurens & Antonio, Katrien & Boute, Robert, 2021. "Pricing service maintenance contracts using predictive analytics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(2), pages 530-545.
    18. Martin Branda, 2014. "Optimization Approaches to Multiplicative Tariff of Rates Estimation in Non-Life Insurance," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 31(05), pages 1-17.
    19. Lluís Bermúdez & Dimitris Karlis & Isabel Morillo, 2020. "Modelling Unobserved Heterogeneity in Claim Counts Using Finite Mixture Models," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, January.
    20. Angers, Jean-François & Desjardins, Denise & Dionne, Georges, 2004. "Modèle Bayésien de tarification de l’assurance des flottes de véhicules," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 80(2), pages 253-303, Juin-Sept.

    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:gam:jrisks:v:6:y:2018:i:2:p:34-:d:140625. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.