Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Browse Open Actuarial Jobs

Life  Health  Casualty  Pension  Entry Level  All Jobs  Salaries


General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-09-2018, 01:44 PM
mattcarp mattcarp is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Studying for Exam 6
College: UC Berkeley
Posts: 320
Default Modeling loss ratio with GLM, fit frequency as Tweedie?

My boss wants to model loss ratio with GLM. I know many sources say that loss cost is best for GLM, but we need loss ratio.

I am thinking of doing a frequency/severity model where frequency = number of claims / premium and severity is as usual. The frequency component (excluding zeros) appears to be gamma distributed, so I'm thinking of modeling the entire frequency component as Tweedie.

What do you all think?
__________________
P FM VEE MFE C S OC1 5 OC2 6 7 8 9
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-09-2018, 04:14 PM
MoralHazard MoralHazard is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Favorite beer: Sam Adams Rebel Rouser
Posts: 94
Default

So the frequency, which you are defining as # claims / premium, seems gamma-distributed. Is this because the claim count (i.e., numerator) is somehow gamma distributed? Or is it something about the distribution of premium (denominator) that is resulting in a gamma-distributed frequency? If the latter, I don't think using the Tweedie in your frequency GLM makes sense here. The distribution is meant to apply to the random element of your outcome -- but the premium is a known quantity. I think you should look at the distribution of claim counts when determining which distribution to use (and probably go with Poisson).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-09-2018, 06:32 PM
PrinceNReserve PrinceNReserve is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 131
Default

Guessing the reason you are using premium in the numerator is because you are predicting loss ratios?

If it were me, I'd try modeling the loss ratio directly instead. There's plenty of GLMs that produce predictions between 0 and 1. (in theory loss ratio's can be > 1, but I'd hope the premium being charged is at least >= losses in aggregate).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-11-2018, 03:10 PM
BassFreq's Avatar
BassFreq BassFreq is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chicago
Studying for all eternity
Favorite beer: Duff
Posts: 1,708
Blog Entries: 2
Default

I would keep it simple and model the loss ratio using premium as weight.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed, you have one data point.
Res ipsa loquitur, sed quid in infernos dicet?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.17058 seconds with 11 queries