Riskiness Leverage Models
-
Upload
derek-finch -
Category
Documents
-
view
48 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Riskiness Leverage Models
Riskiness Leverage Models
Rodney Kreps’ Stand In (Stewart Gleason)CAS Limited Attendance Seminar on Risk and ReturnSeptember 26, 2005
Riskiness Leverage Models
Paper by Rodney Kreps accepted for the 2005 Proceedings
One criticism of capital “allocation” in the past has been that most implementations are actually superadditive
– If Ck is the capital need for line of business k and C is the total capital need, then
The formulation presented by Kreps provides a natural way to allocate capital to components of the business in a completely additive fashion
CCN
i k 1
Riskiness Leverage Models
Capital can be allocated to any level of detail– Line of business– State– Contract– Contract clauses
Understanding profitability of a business unit is the primary goal of allocation, not necessarily for creating pricing risk loads
Riskiness only needs to be defined on the total, and can be done so intuitively
Many functional forms of risk aversion are possible
All the usual forms can be expressed, allowing comparisons on a common basis
Simple to do in simulation situation
Riskiness Leverage Models
Start with N random variables Xk (think of unpaid losses by line of business at the end of a policy year) and their total X
Denote by the mean of X, C the capital to support X and R then
the risk load
With analogy to the balance sheet, is the carried reserve, R is surplus and C is the total assets
Denote by k the mean of Xk, Ck the capital to support Xk and Rk the risk load for the line of business is
N
i kXX1
RC
kkk RC
Riskiness Leverage Models
Riskiness be expressed as the mean value of a linear function of the total times an arbitrary function depending only on the total
where dF(x) = f(x1,...,xN) dx1...dxN and f(x1,...,xN) is the joint density function of all of the variables
Key to the formulation is that the leverage function L depends only on the sum of the individual random variables
For example, if L(x) = (x – ), then
)( )( xdFxLxR
XVarxdFxR )( 2
Riskiness Leverage Models
Riskiness of each line of business is defined analogously and results in the additive allocation
It follows directly that
regardless of the joint dependence of the Xk
For example, if L(x) = (x – ), then
NNNkk
kkk
dxdxxxfxxLx
xdFxLxR
111 ),...,( )(
)( )(
RRCRR k
N
i k
N
i k 11 and
)(
),(),()(
XVar
XXCovRXXCovxdFxxR k
kkkk
Riskiness Leverage Models
Covariance and higher powers have
Riskiness models for a general function L(x) are referred to as “co-measures”, in analogy with the simple examples of covariance, co-skewness, and so on.
What remains is to find appropriate forms for the riskiness leverage L(x)
A number of familiar concepts can be recreated by choosing the appropriate leverage function
nxxL )()(
TVaR
TVaR or Tail Value at Risk is defined for the random variable X as the expected value given that it is greater than some value b
To reproduce TVaR, choose
q is a management chosen percentage, e.g. 99% xq is the corresponding percentile of the distribution of X (y) is the step function, i.e., (y) = 0 if y ≤ 0 and
(y) = 1 if y >0 In our situation, (x-xq) is the indicator function of the half space
where x1++xN > xq
}bxx :x{ NNN
dxdx )x,...,x(f x}bXPr{
bXXE)b(TVaR
1
11
1
q-1
)xx( L(x) q
TVaR
Here we compute the total capital instead:
]xX|X[E
dxdx )x,...,x(f x}xXPr{
dxdx )x,...,x(f x}xXPr{
dxdx )x,...,x(f}xXPr{
)x(dFq
)xx()x(C
q
}xxx :x{ NNq
}xxx :x{ NNq
}xxx :x{ NNq
q
qN
qN
qN
1
1
1
11
11
11
1
1
1
TVaR
The capital allocation is then:
Ck is the average contribution that Xk makes to the total loss X when the total is at least xq
In simulation, you need to keep track of the total and the component losses by line
– Throw out the trials where the total loss is too small
– For the remaining trials, average the losses within each line
]xX|X[E
dxdx )x,...,x(f x}xXPr{
)x(dFq
)xx()x(C
qk
}xxx :x{ NNkq
kk
qkkkk
qN
111
1
1
VaR
VaR or Value at Risk is simply a given quantile xq of the distribution
– The math is much harder to recover VaR than for TVar!
To reproduce VaR, choose
(y-y0) is the Dirac delta function (which is not a function at all!)
– (y-y0) is really defined by how it acts on other functions
– It “picks out” the value of the function at y0
– May be familiar with it when referred to as a “point mass” in probability readings
is a constant to be determined as we progress
)xx(
L(x) q
The Dirac Delta Function
The Dirac delta function is actually an operator, that is a function whose argument is actually other functions
If g is such a function and b is the Dirac delta operator with a “mass” at y = b,
Formally, we write
– As a Riemann integral, this statement has no meaning– Manipulating () as if it was a function often leads to the
right result
When g is a function of several variables and b is a point in N space, the same thing still applies:
)b(ggb
)b(gdy)y(g)by(gb
)b,...,b(gg Nb 1
The Dirac Delta Function
The following was suggested for the leverage function:
We know what (x-xq) means if both x and xq are points in RN, but xq is a scalar!
In this case, (x-xq) is actually not a point mass but a “hyperplane mass” living on the plane x1++xN = xq
One more thing: in the paper, the constant is given as “f(xq)”
– f(x) is a function of several variables and xq is a scalar!
We will walk through the calculation in two variables to see how to interpret these quantities
)xx(
L(x) q
Back To VaR
We compute the total capital again with x = (x1,x2)
22222222
21212121
212121
1
1
dx)x,xx(f)xxx(dx)x,xx(f
dxdx )x,x(f))xx(x()xx(
dxdx )x,x(f))xx(x(
)x(dF)xx(
)x(C
qqq
q
q
q
Back To VaR
Now we see what “f(xq)” actually means – the right choice for is
We also recognize that
is just the conditional probability density above the line
t = xq - s
222 dx)x,xx(f q
du )u,ux(f
)s,sx(f)s(*f
q
q
Back To VaR
With this choice of we get:
The comeasure is
For C2, we integrate with respect to x1 first (and vice versa):
qq x)xxx(C 22
212121
1dxdx )x,x(f)xxx(x
)x(dF)xx(
)x(C
qk
qkkkk
ds )s(*f s
dx )x,xx(fx
dxdx )x,x(f))xx(x(xC
q
q
2222
21212122
1
1
VaR In Simulations
When running simulations, calculating the contributions becomes problematic
Ideally, we would select all of the trials for which X is exactly xq and then average the component losses to get the “co VaR”
In practice, we are likely to have exactly one trial in which X = xq
The solution is to take all of the trials for which X is in a small range around xq, e.g. xq ± 1%
Expected Policyholder Deficit
Expected Policyholder Deficit (EPD) has
This is very similar to TVaR but without the normalizing constant
It becomes expected loss given that loss exceeds b times the probability of exceeding b
The riskiness functional becomes (R, not C)
)bx()x(L
}bXPr{ ]bX|X[ER
Mean Downside Deviation
Mean downside deviation has
This is actually a special case of TVaR with xq = It assigns capital to outcomes that are worse than the mean in
proportion to how much greater than the mean they are
Until this point we have been thinking in terms of calibrating our leverage function so that total capital equals actual capital and performing an allocation
What is the right total capital?– Interesting argument in the paper suggests 2 for this
(very simplistic) leverage function
}XPr{
)x()x(L
Semi Variance
Semi Variance has
Similar to the variance leverage function but only includes outcomes that are greater than the mean
Similar to mean downside deviation but increases quadratically instead of linearly with the severity of the outcome
)x()x()x(L
Considerations in Selecting a Leverage Function
Should be a down side measure (the accountant’s point of view)
Should be more or less constant for excess that is small compared to capital (risk of not making plan, but also not a disaster);
Should become much larger for excess significantly impacting capital; and
Should go to zero (or at least not increase) for excess significantly exceeding capital
– “once you are buried it doesn’t matter how much dirt is on top”
Considerations in Selecting a Leverage Function
Regulator’s criteria for instance might be
– Riskiness leverage is zero until capital is seriously impacted
– Leverage should not decrease for large outcomes due to risk to the guaranty fund
TVaR could be used as the regulator’s choice with the quantile chosen as an appropriate multiple of surplus
S}Pr{X
)Sx( (x)Lregulator
Considerations in Selecting a Leverage Function
A possibility for a leverage function that satisfies management criteria is
This function– Recognizes downside risk only– Is close to constant when x is close to , i.e., when x – is
small– Takes on more linear characteristics as the loss deviates from
the mean– Fails to flatten out or diminish for extreme outcomes much
greater than capital
Testing shows that allocations are almost independent of
x if S
)x(
x if
(x)Lmanagement 1
0
Implementation Example
ABC Mini-DFA.xls is a spreadsheet representation of a company with two lines of business– X1: Net Underwriting Income for Line of Business A– X2: Net Underwriting Income for Line of Business B– X3: Investment Income on beginning Surplus
Lines of Business A and B are simulated in aggregate and are correlated
B is much more volatile than A The first goal is to test the adequacy of capital in total
Implementation Example
“We want our surplus to be a prudent multiple of the average net loss for those losses that are worse than the 98th
percentile.” Prudent multiple in this case is 1.5
– Even in the worst 2% of outcomes, you would expect to retain 1/3 of your surplus
– Prudent multiple might mean having enough surplus remaining to service renewal book
Summary of results from simulation– 98th percentile of net income is a loss of $4.7 million– TVaR at the 98th percentile is $6.2 million– Beginning surplus is $9.0 million – almost (but not quite) the
prudent multiple required
Implementation Example
Allocation – Line B is a capital hog– Line A: 13.6%– Line B: 84.3%– Investment Risk: 2.1%
Returns on allocated capital– Line A: 40.9%– Line B: 5.3%– Investments: 190.6%– Overall: 14.0%
Misleading perhaps: Line B needs so much capital, other returns are inflated
Implementation Example
Could shift mix of business away from Line B but also could buy reinsurance on Line B– X4: Net Ceded Premium and Recoveries for a Stop Loss
contract on Line of Business B Summary of results from simulation with reinsurance
– 98th percentile of net income is a loss of $2.9 million– TVaR at the 98th percentile is reduced to $3.6 million
Capital could be released and still satisfy the prudent multiple rule
Allocation – Line A: 36.3%– Line B: 73.9%– Investment Risk: 14.2%– Reinsurance: -24.4%
Implementation Example
Reinsurance is a supplier of capital– In the worst 2% of outcomes, Line B contributes significant loss– In those scenarios, there is a net benefit from reinsurance– The values of X4 averaged to compute the co measure have
the opposite sign of the values for Line B (X2) Returns on allocated capital including reinsurance
– Line A: 15.3%– Line B: 6.0% (5.1% if Line B and Reinsurance are combined)– Investments: 28.3%– Reinsurance: 7.9%– Overall: 12.1%
Overall return reduced because of the expected cost of reinsurance
Releasing $1.2 million in capital would restore overall return to 14% and still leave surplus at more than 2 times TVaR