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
  • May 2017
05

Appetite for selection

Open-access content Tuesday 9th May 2017 — updated 5.50pm, Wednesday 29th April 2020

Pradip Tapadar and Guy Thomas argue that some adverse selection can be a good thing in insurance

2

Regulatory restrictions on risk classification are a common feature of personal insurance markets. Gender classification is now banned in the European Union, and many countries limit the use of genetic tests. Although such restrictions seem popular with policymakers, they can also lead to adverse selection. Actuaries usually argue that this is a bad thing.

This article gives a partial counter-argument. We suggest that from a social perspective, a degree of adverse selection can be a good thing.

To provide context, it may help to think of life insurance, where we typically observe a majority of 'standard' lives and a small number of much higher risk lives, say with a genetic predisposition. Our argument can be then be illustrated by the following example. The numbers are simplified and exaggerated for clarity, but the underlying argument is quite general.

Consider a population of just 10 risks (say lives), with two alternative scenarios for risk classification. In the first scenario, risk-differentiated prices are charged, and a sub-set of the population buys insurance. In the second scenario, risk classification is banned, leading to adverse selection; a different (smaller) sub-set of the population buys insurance. 

We shall assume that all losses and insurance cover are for unit amounts (this simplifies the discussion, but it is not necessary). The two scenarios are represented in the upper and lower parts of Figure 1. Here, each 'H' represents one high risk and each 'L' represents one low risk. The population has the typical predominance of lower risks; eight lower risks each with probability of loss 0.01, and two higher risks each with probability of loss 0.04. In each scenario, the lives in the orange-shaded areas denote those covered by insurance. 

In Scenario 1, risk-differentiated premiums are charged. Higher and lower risk-groups each face a price equivalent to their probability of loss (an actuarially fair price). We assume that the demand response of each risk group to an actuarially fair price is the same: exactly half the members of each risk group buy insurance. The shading shows that a total of five risks are covered. Note that the equal areas of shading over the one 'H' and four 'L' represent equal expected losses. 

The weighted average of the premiums paid in Scenario 1 is (4 x 0.01 +1 x 0.04)/5 = 0.016. Since higher and lower risks are insured in the same proportions as they exist in the population, there is no adverse selection. The expected losses compensated by insurance for the whole population, which we call the 'loss coverage', can be indexed by 


(4x0.01 + 1x0.04) = 50%

(8x0.01 + 2x0.04)


In Scenario 2, risk classification has been banned, and so insurers have to charge a common 'pooled' premium to both higher and lower risks. Higher risks buy more insurance, and lower risks buy less. The shading shows that three risks (compared with five previously) are now covered. The pooled premium is set as the weighted average of the true risks, so that expected profits on low risks exactly offset expected losses on high risks. This weighted average premium is (1 x 0.01 +2 x 0.04)/3 = 0.03.

Note that the weighted average premium is higher in Scenario 2, and the number of risks insured is lower. These are the essential features of adverse selection, which Scenario 2 accurately and completely represents. But there is a surprise: despite the adverse selection in Scenario 2, the expected losses compensated by insurance for the whole population are now higher. Graphically, this is represented by the larger area of shading in Scenario 2. Arithmetically, the loss coverage under this scenario is:


(1x0.01 + 2x0.04) = 56%

(8x0.01 + 2x0.04)


We suggest that Scenario 2, with a higher expected fraction of the population's losses compensated by insurance, is superior from a social viewpoint to Scenario 1. The superiority of Scenario 2 arises, not despite adverse selection, but because of adverse selection.

The argument illustrated by the example applies broadly. It does not depend on the specific context of life insurance, nor on any unusual choice of numbers for the example. The key idea is that loss coverage - expected losses compensated by insurance for the whole population - is increased by a degree of adverse selection. 

We suggest that for a public policymaker or regulator, loss coverage is a reasonable metric for the social efficacy of insurance. We say this because compensation of the population's losses is the main social purpose of insurance, which policymakers often seek to promote by public education, by exhortation and sometimes by incentives such as tax relief on premiums. Policymakers may therefore prefer risk classification regimes that lead to higher loss coverage. This typically means regimes that produce a non-zero level of adverse selection, and somewhat lower numbers insured than if adverse selection were eliminated.

Figure 1
Figure 2


No need for a trade-off

Our argument contrasts with orthodox economic and actuarial arguments that public policymakers should either seek to minimise adverse selection, or make a trade-off against other policy preferences such as dislike of discrimination. The orthodox arguments highlight that adverse selection leads to a rise in the average price of insurance and fall in numbers insured. What these arguments overlook is that adverse selection also leads to a shift in coverage towards higher risks (those who need insurance most). If this shift in coverage is large enough, it can more than outweigh the fall in numbers insured, so that loss coverage is increased.

One way to maximise loss coverage is to make insurance compulsory. Policymakers sometimes adopt this solution (for example, third-party liability insurance for motorists and employers in the UK). In other markets, such as life insurance, loss coverage is socially important, but arguably not enough to justify the infringement of freedom which compulsory insurance implies. In these markets, policymakers may seek to raise loss coverage to the maximum level consistent with individual freedom of choice in insurance decisions. This can be achieved by limiting risk classification to the degree necessary to induce the 'right' level of adverse selection - the level which maximises loss coverage. Limiting risk classification however would affect the ongoing ability to understand the underlying risks.

Some readers may have noticed that if the adverse selection in Scenario 2 of the example progresses further to its logical extreme, so that only a single higher risk remains insured, loss coverage will then be lower than with no adverse selection. This point is considered further in Guy's recent book: Loss Coverage: Why Insurance Works Better with Some Adverse Selection. For now, we merely reiterate that our message is one of moderation: we say insurance works better with some adverse selection, not with any amount of adverse selection.

Guy Thomas and Pradip Tapadar wish to thank their research collaborators, Angus Macdonald and MingJie Hao. The views expressed in this article are the authors'. 


Pradip Tapadar is senior lecturer at the University of Kent 

 

Guy Thomas is honorary lecturer at the University of Kent 


This article appeared in our May 2017 issue of The Actuary .
Click here to view this issue

You may also be interested in...

2

Walk the walk on climate change

Climate risk will alter both the geographical and financial landscapes, but leading insurers are divesting from fossil fuels, says Peter Bosshard
Tuesday 9th May 2017
Open-access content
2

Sell in May and go away

Cormac Gleeson and Paul O’Dwyer ask whether managers should incorporate the well-known trading adage into their portfolio strategies
Wednesday 3rd May 2017
Open-access content
2

Good questions with no good answers

In the third of a series of articles, Paul Harwood says experts should persevere in a post-truth world
Tuesday 9th May 2017
Open-access content
2

How much is enough in retirement?

The living standards replacementrate (LSRR) is a more accurate alternative measure for evaluating retirement income adequacy, explains Bonnie-Jeanne MacDonald
Tuesday 9th May 2017
Open-access content
2

Clued up on DB pension obligations and risks

Additional disclosure is needed in company accounts, says Matthew Harrison, to reveal the full extent of defined benefit pension obligations and risks
Wednesday 10th May 2017
Open-access content
2

Adapt to change and take back control

There is no need be paralysed by uncertainty as the business environment evolves, say Colin Price and Sharon Toye. Instead they suggest a fast, but low-risk way of adapting to change
Wednesday 10th May 2017
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 May 2017

2

Calls for social care fees to be capped at £60,000

Nine in ten people aged over 50 in the UK believe there should be a social care fee cap after PM Theresa May proposed to continue to charge anyone with more than £100,000.
Tuesday 6th June 2017
Open-access content
2

Service sector growth stalls but UK economy 'gains momentum'

The UK service sector experienced a slowdown in growth last month after hitting a four-month peak in April, according to the IHS Markit/CIPS UK Services PMI survey.
Tuesday 6th June 2017
Open-access content
2

Employees leaving UK businesses at risk of cyber attacks

Almost half of UK employees had just 30 minutes or less of cyber security training last year, and the same amount believe opening any email on their work computer is safe.
Tuesday 6th June 2017
Open-access content

Latest from small_opening_image

2

COVID-19 forum for actuaries launched

A forum for actuaries has been launched to help the profession come together and learn how best to respond to the deadly coronavirus sweeping the world.
Wednesday 25th March 2020
Open-access content
2

Travel insurers expect record payouts this year

UK travel insurers expect to pay a record £275m to customers this year as coronavirus grounds flights across the world, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) has revealed.
Wednesday 25th March 2020
Open-access content
2

Grim economic forecasts made as countries lockdown

A sharp recession is imminent in the vast majority of developed and emerging economies as the deadly coronavirus forces businesses to shut down across the world.
Tuesday 24th March 2020
Open-access content

Latest from 05

2

Filling the void after exams

With another exam session over, guest contributor Richard Quintian reflects on life after your final set
Wednesday 10th May 2017
Open-access content
risk

Stress testing: Finding a flaw in the ointment

Dr Quintin Rayer looks at how putting portfolios through stress testing can ensure that trustees are actively working to protect their assets from extreme market events
Wednesday 3rd May 2017
Open-access content
2

Paul Sweeting: Fact & Fiction

Jeremy Lee and Richard Purcell talk to Paul Sweeting about research, becoming a novelist, and the importance of cheerleaders for the profession
Wednesday 3rd May 2017
Open-access content
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Investment Consultant

Scotland / Scotland, Edinburgh / London, England
Up to £70000.00 per annum
Reference
148689

Market Risk Capital Actuary/Quant

London (Central)
£65,000 - £115,000 plus bonus and package
Reference
148688

Experience Analysis Contractor

England
Negotiable
Reference
148687
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