Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Moody's - Climate Risk Insurers series
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • April 2014
04

GI: A moving platform

Open-access content Wednesday 26th March 2014 — updated 5.13pm, Wednesday 29th April 2020

The prospect of changing your modelling platform is seen as a significant task by most capital modellers. Andrew Cox and Cameron Heath show how to have a smooth ride through the process

2

Be it as a result of a merger, acquisition, the software no longer being supported or simply a result of sheer frustration with your current solution, change is sometimes necessary. The thought of what's involved can send even the most seasoned actuary into the kind of spin Strictly's Len Goodman would be purring over. Changing your capital model platform doesn't have to be as daunting as it seems. Let us explain why.

All is not lost

The first point to remember is that changing model doesn't mean you're starting again from scratch. A great deal of the experience, understanding and insight that you gained while building the original model will be retained and used with the new model.

To demonstrate this point, it is worth distinguishing between the model - the mathematical representation of the entity being modelled - and the implementation of that model. The latter is the piece of software used to crunch the numbers. Often changing one of these does not involve changing 

the other.

An example might be turning a spreadsheet into code. However, it is often the case that the change of implementation is made for issues around the flexibility, clarity or speed of modelling. In such cases it is likely that the switch of modelling platform will involve some changes in the underlying mathematical model. In our experience, this is often the case around dependency modelling, which is approached differently in different pieces of software. Although this should not be seen as a bad thing - it forces you to think about the underlying assumptions that may have been made relatively quickly a long time ago. 

Indeed, changing model is also an opportunity to put right all those quick fixes you've learnt to live with but that secretly bug the living daylights out of you. This could also be seen as improving the governance of the model which can help to satisfy Solvency II requirements. 

Whatever the reason for changing the platform, the parameters that you used are still as valid in your new model as they are in the old one. So all the analysis that you did, all those discussions with underwriters, all those (expert judgment) picks that you made where you didn't have enough data can all be used again. As an aside, changing model is a great opportunity to review all those parameters and assumptions to make sure they are still valid (see figure 1).

Likewise, you'll know what the new model should look like - how it should be structured, which classes (and sub-classes) to split the business into, how the reinsurance programme functions, the format of the output reports needed and so on.


A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step

When we - Barnett Waddingham and Guy Carpenter - were asked to look at the feasibility of switching models for a London Market insurer, we started by carrying out a proof of concept on one typical class of business. Our first task was to understand the current model (hopefully, but not certainly, a straightforward task if it's your own). Then we had to choose the class; we picked one that contained attritional, large and cat losses (from a vendor model), which had stand-alone reinsurance and old years. This way we could check underwriting and reserve risk at gross and net levels.

Having built the basic structure in the new platform we then selected the existing distributions and input the parameters. It's worth remembering that many distributions have variations, or different parameterisations, and it's just as well to check you're using the same one as your old model or at least something that is going to give a comparable answer. Likewise, if there are quick fixes or peculiarities of how your old model deals with different situations, you'll either need to replicate them or have an understanding of how you expect the results to change. For example, conversion from underwriting to accident years can be done before or after the losses have been generated; if the parameters are split before modelling the aggregate variability will be lower unless there is a 100% correlation between accident years.

Talking of variability, you'll need to decide which metrics you're interested in comparing, as we did. Clearly, you'll start with the mean, and you'll no doubt be interested in the 99.5%, but you may also want to focus on other points on the curve for internal reporting purposes - we also looked at 1-in-5 or 1-in-10.

Having run our new model and made sure the results were in the same ballpark (made sure we hadn't fundamentally messed something up), we reconciled the differences and understood what was driving them.  This can be any number of reasons - the way the parameters are used, the distribution (many of them have numerous variations), different approaches to inflation and the like. All models will come up with different results but the key is whether the difference is significant. If you have taken the opportunity to change the mathematical model, you will be expecting there to be differences. Indeed, it may be necessary to replicate some of your quick fixes, in order to show that it's these changes - driven by the maths - and not the software that is driving the difference. Whatever you do, it is important to keep in mind that results do not need to be exactly the same to be considered statistically equivalent - all outputs of models are estimators with an associated error.


Buy one get one free

The proof of concept process is similar to another trend we are observing: companies supporting multiple platforms. This can be to leverage the relative strengths of different pieces of software. For example, using one or more platform(s) to analyse catastrophe risk, the results of which are fed into another where other risks are modelled; alternatively, using a second model as a validation of the primary one. Clearly, this is only part of the full validation process, but it can certainly increase users' confidence in the model. 

This validation approach is especially useful when it covers areas that the two platforms approach differently - as mentioned above, dependency modelling is a common example of this. Different platforms approach interactions in different ways - some using correlation matrices and others using underlying drivers. 

So by reconciling the results of multiple classes separately and together you're also able to understand better the impact of hidden assumptions you have been forced to make by your choice of software platform, and which it is impossible to stress from within that modelling paradigm.


A final thought

As you can see, there's plenty to do in order to change your modelling platform, but the challenge is not insurmountable and there are additional benefits of going through the process.

We couldn't talk about capital models without mentioning Solvency II. It may have taken a backseat of late, but it will soon be back, 1 January 2016 to be precise. If you are not ready by then, it will be more frightening than a Halloween episode of The Simpsons, repeated on Friday 13th. So it's worth thinking about this thorny issue sooner rather than later.

Table1- A moving platform
This article appeared in our April 2014 issue of The Actuary .
Click here to view this issue

You may also be interested in...

2

ERM: Proxy models

Proxy techniques have grown in popularity in recent years, with insurers increasingly using them to model the full distribution of their balance sheet assets and liabilities to support capital calculations. So why use them?
Wednesday 26th March 2014
Open-access content
2

Regulation: Winds of change

Dr Yulong Zhao talked to Haijing Wang and Wen Li on the background, progress and far-reaching significance of China’s Risk Oriented Solvency System (C-ROSS) on the Chinese insurance industry
Wednesday 26th March 2014
Open-access content
2

Interview: Roelof Botha

Roelof Botha, an actuary and venture capitalist based in Silicon Valley, is driving innovation affecting the public globally. He talks to Marjorie Ngwenya
Wednesday 26th March 2014
Open-access content
2

Social media: The age of me

It’s time for insurance to come out of the dark ages and take advantage of ‘code halos’, the technology trail that each one of us creates around ourselves, writes Ben Pring
Wednesday 26th March 2014
Open-access content
2

Boom and bust - just politics?

What really causes business cycles? Shyam Mehta takes an unconventional view of politics’ effect on the economy
Tuesday 1st April 2014
Open-access content

Pensions US: Dire States

Charles Cowling asks what lessons can be learnt by the UK from problems in the US, following a number of high-profile municipal failures there
Tuesday 1st April 2014
Open-access content

Latest from Risk & ERM

KV

Liability-driven investments: new landscape

What now for liability-driven investments, after last year’s crash in the market? Pensions experts Rakesh Girdharlal and Moiz Khan say it should lead to a more balanced approach
Wednesday 1st February 2023
Open-access content
cj

Natural capital investing

Chris Howells and Andrew Dreaneen discuss how today’s investments in natural capital profit portfolios as well as the planet and humanity
Wednesday 1st February 2023
Open-access content
bl

'Takaful' models of Islamic insurance

Ethical, varied and a growing market – ‘takaful’ Islamic insurance is worth knowing about, wherever you’re from and whatever your beliefs, says Ali Asghar Bhuriwala
Wednesday 1st February 2023
Open-access content

Latest from April 2014

ta filler

Over-55s saving more for retirement, Aviva poll finds

Savings levels for over-55 have vastly improved as they attempt to cushion themselves against the rising cost of living and the fear of not having enough money in retirement, Aviva has claimed today.
Wednesday 7th May 2014
Open-access content

ABI hails 3% fall in car insurance prices

The price of average comprehensive motor insurance fell by 3% in the first quarter of 2014 to £358, compared to the same period last year, according to Association of British Insurers figures
Friday 2nd May 2014
Open-access content
2

Hymans Robertson find cost savings in local government pensions

A review of the Local Government Pension Scheme by actuaries Hymans Robertson has concluded that as much as £660m could be saved through reforms to its asset management regime, including greater use of common investment vehicles
Wednesday 30th April 2014
Open-access content

Latest from inline_image_missing_alt_text

TPR publishes coronavirus guidance

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has published guidance to help UK pension trustees, employers and administrators deal with the financial and regulatory risks posed by coronavirus.
Monday 23rd March 2020
Open-access content
2

Bitcoin: In the vaults

Blockchain technology and the trading of bitcoin were introduced in October 2008 in the famous paper by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Wednesday 4th March 2020
Open-access content
web_p24_cat-and-fish_iStock-483454069.png

Sensitivity analysis: swimming lessons

Silvana Pesenti, Alberto Bettini, Pietro Millossovich and Andreas Tsanakas present their alternative approach to sensitivity analysis
Wednesday 4th March 2020
Open-access content

Latest from 04

2

Towards a three-pillar pensions system in Ghana

The government of Ghana has asked Switzerland to support the country in the strengthening of the pension supervisor, the National Pensions Regulatory Authority (NPRA)
Wednesday 9th April 2014
Open-access content
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Shape the Future of Insurance

London (Central)
£ excellent package
Reference
149090

Senior Pricing Actuary - Life Reinsurance

London (Central)
£ excellent
Reference
149089

Insurance Investment Leadership Opportunities

Flexible / hybrid with 2 days p/w office-based
£ dependent upon experience
Reference
149088
See all jobs »
 
 
 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2023 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ