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


Fill in a brief DW Simpson Registration Form
to be contacted when new jobs meet your criteria.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-08-2019, 09:15 AM
ShundayBloodyShunday's Avatar
ShundayBloodyShunday ShundayBloodyShunday is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskey View Post


Going to be a pain to update the rating plan, but overall, not that big of a deal from a rating perspective once it is all done.

A bigger concern could be the collection of data.
I have not seen this discussed, but if you are not able to even collect gender from California insureds then that could have a larger impact on how many companies perform "countrywide" analysis.
I don't think the laws prohibit collection of that data, just that you cannot use it in rating (or underwriting, IIRC).

But to the extent that a state does not allow you to collect data on a variable of interest, you either exclude that state's data or introduce additional levels for that variable to account for states where it is missing in any "countrywide" analysis.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-08-2019, 09:19 AM
Whiskey's Avatar
Whiskey Whiskey is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Studying for nothing at all
Posts: 39,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShundayBloodyShunday View Post



But to the extent that a state does not allow you to collect data on a variable of interest, you either exclude that state's data or introduce additional levels for that variable to account for states where it is missing in any "countrywide" analysis.
Well, yeah, I know.

But with this being CA, that can be a large portion of many companies' data.

Just thinking about this...
__________________
Whiskey "on tap" - 12/31/15
Spoiler:

Bourbon(16)
Pappy Van Winkle-Family Reserve 15yr & lot "B" 12yr
Baker's 7yr
Blanton's
Knob Creek - 9yr
Basil Hayden
Maker's Mark - 46 & Cask Strength
Woodford Reserve
Jack Daniel's-Gentleman Jack, Single Barrel & Old #7
Four Roses Small Batch
Noah's Mill
Kirkland Bourbon - 7yr

Rye(6)
Angle Envy's - Finished Rye
Ravenswood Rye
Bulleit
High West - Double Rye
Whistle Pig - 10 yr
Old Overholt

Scotch(4)
Glenfiddich - The Distiller's Edition
Tomatin 12yr
The Dimple Pinch - 15 yr
Dewar's White Label

Irish(6)

Middleton Very Rare
Redbreast 12yr
Bushmill - Single Malt 16 yr
Connemarai
Jameson - Caskmates Stout and Regular
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-08-2019, 09:27 AM
ShundayBloodyShunday's Avatar
ShundayBloodyShunday ShundayBloodyShunday is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskey View Post
Well, yeah, I know.

But with this being CA, that can be a large portion of many companies' data.

Just thinking about this...
And that would be reason enough to also develop models that exclude CA from a "countrywide" analysis. to ensure that it's not dominating the model.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-08-2019, 09:50 AM
tommie frazier tommie frazier is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Favorite beer: The kind with 2 e's
Posts: 23,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by llcooljabe View Post
Intuitively speaking, wouldn't 65+ deserve a surcharge? But I've not been in the PPA world in years.
without any real knowledge base in the product - they drive less (lower exposure) and drive slower typically (they recognize their reaction time limitations). If they have more accidents, they are lower severity events.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-08-2019, 10:01 AM
Marcie's Avatar
Marcie Marcie is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 9,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by llcooljabe View Post
curious side question...for those of you in ppa, how are you dealing with gender definitions?
Very carefully (and non-anti-trusty), LL
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-08-2019, 10:04 AM
Marcie's Avatar
Marcie Marcie is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 9,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noonien Soong View Post
Wow, big win for the regulatory establishment, massive blow to auto insurers. Gender, particularly interacting with other variables has strong predictive value. Ouch.



Also, how's the department going to have enough time to review all of these filings? And just because file by 7/7 could have a much further into the future effective date.
The predictive power is diminished somewhat when controlling for other variables. I agree that interactions (such as age) are powerful.

But with CA's existing regulations wasn't gender already restricted in how much weight it could have in rating?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-08-2019, 10:08 AM
Marcie's Avatar
Marcie Marcie is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 9,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppermintPatty View Post
Massachusetts has done this for years:

https://www.mass.gov/service-details...bile-insurance



bolding added.
To be fair, Sir, MA had a primitive, almost Canadian-style bureau rating system until "managed competition" was introduced around 2008. Even then, it has been one of the more tightly regulated states.

There are other examples of states that allow more sophisticated rating structures but prohibit gender (I believe PA is one of these).
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-08-2019, 10:10 AM
Marcie's Avatar
Marcie Marcie is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 9,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskey View Post


Going to be a pain to update the rating plan, but overall, not that big of a deal from a rating perspective once it is all done.

A bigger concern could be the collection of data.
I have not seen this discussed, but if you are not able to even collect gender from California insureds then that could have a larger impact on how many companies perform "countrywide" analysis.
Good points, but California's rating regulation is already so forked that it is often of questionable value in "countrywide" analyses, Boozer.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-08-2019, 10:14 AM
Marcie's Avatar
Marcie Marcie is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 9,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommie frazier View Post
without any real knowledge base in the product - they drive less (lower exposure) and drive slower typically (they recognize their reaction time limitations). If they have more accidents, they are lower severity events.
Yep, I think that's the legislative logic, Thomas, but it's also true that driving skills diminish starting about that age. If one controls for miles driven (required in CA), it's less clear that there should be a "discount" for older drivers.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-08-2019, 10:22 AM
ShundayBloodyShunday's Avatar
ShundayBloodyShunday ShundayBloodyShunday is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcie View Post
To be fair, Sir, MA had a primitive, almost Canadian-style bureau rating system until "managed competition" was introduced around 2008. Even then, it has been one of the more tightly regulated states.

There are other examples of states that allow more sophisticated rating structures but prohibit gender (I believe PA is one of these).
MT is one.
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 02:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 0.44005 seconds with 9 queries