IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v6y2018i2p36-d141009.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Operational Choices for Risk Aggregation in Insurance: PSDization and SCR Sensitivity

Author

Listed:
  • Xavier Milhaud

    (Universite de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Institut de Science Financiere et d’Assurances, Laboratoire de Sciences Actuarielle et Financiere, F-69007 Lyon, France
    The views expressed herein reflect solely those of their authors.)

  • Victorien Poncelet

    (Banque de France, 61 rue Taitbout, 75009 Paris, France
    The views expressed herein reflect solely those of their authors.)

  • Clement Saillard

    (BNP Paribas Cardif, RISK, 10 rue du Port, 92000 Nanterre, France
    The views expressed herein reflect solely those of their authors.)

Abstract

This work addresses crucial questions about the robustness of the PSDization process for applications in insurance. PSDization refers to the process that forces a matrix to become positive semidefinite. For companies using copulas to aggregate risks in their internal model, PSDization occurs when working with correlation matrices to compute the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR). We examine how classical operational choices concerning the modelling of risk dependence impacts the SCR during PSDization . These operations refer to the permutations of risks (or business lines) in the correlation matrix, the addition of a new risk, and the introduction of confidence weights given to the correlation coefficients. The use of genetic algorithms shows that theoretically neutral transformations of the correlation matrix can surprisingly lead to significant sensitivities of the SCR (up to 6%). This highlights the need for a very strong internal control around the PSDization step.

Suggested Citation

  • Xavier Milhaud & Victorien Poncelet & Clement Saillard, 2018. "Operational Choices for Risk Aggregation in Insurance: PSDization and SCR Sensitivity," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:6:y:2018:i:2:p:36-:d:141009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/6/2/36/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/6/2/36/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laurent Devineau & Stéphane Loisel, 2009. "Risk aggregation in Solvency II: How to converge the approaches of the internal models and those of the standard formula?," Post-Print hal-00403662, HAL.
    2. Denuit, M. & Genest, C. & Marceau, E., 1999. "Stochastic bounds on sums of dependent risks," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 85-104, September.
    3. Embrechts, Paul & Puccetti, Giovanni & Rüschendorf, Ludger, 2013. "Model uncertainty and VaR aggregation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2750-2764.
    4. Stefan Cutajar & Helena Smigoc & Adrian O’Hagan, 2017. "Actuarial Risk Matrices: The Nearest Positive Semidefinite Matrix Problem," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 552-564, October.
    5. Bernard, Carole & Jiang, Xiao & Wang, Ruodu, 2014. "Risk aggregation with dependence uncertainty," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 93-108.
    6. Filipović, Damir, 2009. "Multi-Level Risk Aggregation," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 565-575, November.
    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. Corrado De Vecchi & Max Nendel & Jan Streicher, 2024. "Upper Comonotonicity and Risk Aggregation under Dependence Uncertainty," Papers 2406.19242, arXiv.org.
    2. Lux, Thibaut & Papapantoleon, Antonis, 2019. "Model-free bounds on Value-at-Risk using extreme value information and statistical distances," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 73-83.
    3. Bernard, Carole & Vanduffel, Steven, 2015. "A new approach to assessing model risk in high dimensions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 166-178.
    4. Bignozzi, Valeria & Puccetti, Giovanni & Rüschendorf, Ludger, 2015. "Reducing model risk via positive and negative dependence assumptions," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 17-26.
    5. Carole Bernard & Ludger Rüschendorf & Steven Vanduffel, 2017. "Value-at-Risk Bounds With Variance Constraints," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 84(3), pages 923-959, September.
    6. Rüschendorf, L., 2019. "Analysis of risk bounds in partially specified additive factor models," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 115-121.
    7. Thibaut Lux & Antonis Papapantoleon, 2016. "Model-free bounds on Value-at-Risk using extreme value information and statistical distances," Papers 1610.09734, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2018.
    8. Carole Bernard & Ludger Rüschendorf & Steven Vanduffel & Ruodu Wang, 2017. "Risk bounds for factor models," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 631-659, July.
    9. Hofert Marius & Memartoluie Amir & Saunders David & Wirjanto Tony, 2017. "Improved algorithms for computing worst Value-at-Risk," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 34(1-2), pages 13-31, June.
    10. Carole Bernard & Ludger Rüschendorf & Steven Vanduffel & Jing Yao, 2017. "How robust is the value-at-risk of credit risk portfolios?," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(6), pages 507-534, May.
    11. Giovanni Puccetti & Pietro Rigo & Bin Wang & Ruodu Wang, 2019. "Centers of probability measures without the mean," Journal of Theoretical Probability, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 1482-1501, September.
    12. Kim, Sojung & Weber, Stefan, 2022. "Simulation methods for robust risk assessment and the distorted mix approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(1), pages 380-398.
    13. Cosimo Munari & Stefan Weber & Lutz Wilhelmy, 2023. "Capital requirements and claims recovery: A new perspective on solvency regulation," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 90(2), pages 329-380, June.
    14. Liu, Peng & Wang, Ruodu & Wei, Linxiao, 2020. "Is the inf-convolution of law-invariant preferences law-invariant?," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 144-154.
    15. Edgars Jakobsons & Steven Vanduffel, 2015. "Dependence Uncertainty Bounds for the Expectile of a Portfolio," Risks, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-25, December.
    16. Stephan Eckstein & Michael Kupper, 2018. "Computation of optimal transport and related hedging problems via penalization and neural networks," Papers 1802.08539, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2019.
    17. Wang, Bin & Wang, Ruodu, 2015. "Extreme negative dependence and risk aggregation," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 12-25.
    18. Christian Genest & Johanna G. Nešlehová, 2020. "A Conversation With Paul Embrechts," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 88(3), pages 521-547, December.
    19. Eling, Martin & Jung, Kwangmin, 2020. "Risk aggregation in non-life insurance: Standard models vs. internal models," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 183-198.
    20. Asimit, Alexandru V. & Gerrard, Russell, 2016. "On the worst and least possible asymptotic dependence," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 218-234.

    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:36-:d:141009. 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.