Measuring the Variability of

Chain Ladder Reserve Estimates

by Thomas h4ack
 MEASURING THE VARIABILITY
OF CHAIN LADDER RESERVE ESTIMATES

Thomas Mack, Munich Re

Abstract:
The variability of chain ladder reserve estimates is quantified
without assuming any specific claims amount distribution
function. This is done by establishing a formula for the so-
called standard error which is an estimate for the standard
deviation of the outstanding claims reserve. The information
necessary for this purpose is extracted only from the usual
chain ladder formulae. With the standard error as decisive tool
it is shown how a confidence interval for the outstanding claims
reserve and for the ultimate claims amount can be constructed.
Moreover, the analysis of the information extracted and of its
implications shows when it is appropriate to apply the chain
ladder method and when not.

Submitted to the 1993 CAS Prize Paper Competition

on 'Variability of Loss Reserves'
Presented at the May, 1993 meeting of the Casualty Actuarial
Society.
Reproduction in whole or in part without acknowledgement to the
Casualty Actuarial Society is specifically prohibited.

102
1. Introduction and Overview

The chain ladder method is probably the most popular method for
estimating outstanding claims reserves. The main reason for this
is its simplicity and the fact that it is distribution-free,
i.e. that it seems to be based on almost no assumptions. In this

paper, it will be seen that this impression is wrong and that

the chain ladder algorithm rather has far-reaching implications.
These implications also allow it to measure the variability of
chain ladder reserve estimates. With the help of this measure it
is possible to construct a confidence interval for the estimated
ultimate claims amount and for the estimated reserves.

Such a confidence interval is of great interest for the

practitioner because the estimated ultimate claims amount can
never be an exact forecast of the true ultimate claims amount
and therefore a confidence interval is of much greater
information value. A confidence interval also automatically
allows the inclusion of business policy into the claims
reserving process by using a specific confidence probability.
Moreover, there are many other claims reserving procedures and
the results of all these procedures can vary widely. But with
the help of a confidence interval it can be seen whether the
difference between the results of the chain ladder method and
any other method is significant or not.

The paper is organized as follows: In Chapter 2 a first basic

103
assumption underlying the chain ladder method is derived from
the formula used to estimate the ultimate claims amount. In
Chapter 3, the comparison of the age-to-age factor formula used
by the chain ladder method with other possibilities leads to a
second underlying assumption regarding the variance of the
claims amounts. Using both of these derived assumptions and a
third assumption on the independence of the accident years, it
is possible to calculate the so-called standard error of the
estimated ultimate claims amount. This is done in Chapter 4
where it is also shown that this standard error is the
appropriate measure of variability for the construction of a
confidence interval. Chapter 5 illustrates how any given run-off
triangle can be checked using some plots to ascertain whether
the assumptions mentioned can be considered to be met. If these
plots show that the assumptions do not seem to be met, the chain
ladder method should not be applied. In Chapter 6 all formulae
and instruments established including two statistical tests set
out in Appendices G and H are applied to a numerical example.
For the sake of comparison, the reserves and standard errors
according to a well-known claims reserving software package are
also quoted. Complete and detailed proofs of all results and
formulae are given in the Appendices A - F.

The proofs are not very short and take up about one fifth of the
paper. But the resulting formula (7) for the standard error is
very simple and can be applied directly after reading the basic
notations (1) and (2) in the first two paragraphs of the next

104
chapter. In the numerical example, too, we could have applied
formula (7) for the standard error immediately after the
completion of the run-off triangle. But we prefer to first carry
through the analysis of whether the chain ladder assumptions are
met in this particular case as this analysis generally should be
made first. Because this analysis comprises many tables and
plots, the example takes up another two fifths of~the paper
(including the tests in Appendices G and Ii).

2. Notations and First Analvsis of the Chain Ladder Method

Let Cik denote the accumulated total claims amount of accident

year i, ISiSI, either paid or incurred up to development
year k, 1 5 k 6 I. The values of Cik for i+k I I+1 are known to
US (run-off triangle) and we want to estimate the values of Cik
for i+k > I+l, in particular the ultimate claims amount CiI of
each accident year i = 2, . . . . I. Then,

Ri = ci1 - =i,I+l-i
is the outstanding claims reserve of accident year i as Ci I+l-i
,
has already been paid or incurred up to now.

The chain ladder method consists of estimating the ultimate

claims amounts CiI by

(1) CiI = Ci,I+l-i'fr+l-i'...'fy-l I ZlilI,

where

105
 I-k
(2) fk = c 'j,k+l 1 :f: 'jk r 1 2 k 6 I-l,
j=l
are the so-called age-to-age factors.

This manner of projecting the known claims amount Ci,I+1-i to

the ultimate claims amount CII uses for all accident years i 2
1+1-k the same factor fk for the increase of the claims amount
from development year k to development year k+l although the
observed individual development factors Ci,k+l/Cik of the
accident years i I I-k are usually different from one another
and from fk. This means that each increase from Cik to Ci,k+l is
considered a random disturbance of an expected increase from Cik
to Cikfk where fk is an unknown 'true' factor of increase which
is the same for all accident years and which is estimated from
the available data by fk.

Consequently, if we imagine to be at the end of development year

k we have to consider Ci k+l, . . . . CiI as random variables
,
whereas the realizations of Gil, . . . . Cik are known to us and
are therefore no longer random variables but scalars. This means
that for the purposes of analysis every Cik can be a random
variable or a scalar, depending on the development year at the
end of which we imagine to be but independently of whether Cik
belongs to the known part i+k 5 I+1 of the run-off triangle or
not. When taking expected values or variances we therefore must
always also state the development year at the end of which we
imagine to be. This will be done by explicitly indicating those

106
variables Cik whose values are assumed to be known. If nothing
iS indicated all Cik are assumed to be unknown.

What we said above regarding the increase from Cik to Ci k+l can
I
now be formulated in stochastic terms as follows: The chain
ladder method assumes the existence of accident-year-independent
factors fl, . . . . fIel such that, given the development Gil' ....
Cikt the realization of Ci k+l is 'close' to Cikfk, the latter
I
being the expected value of Ci k+l in its mathematical meaning,
,
i.e.

(3) E(Ci,k+llCil,-.-rCik) = Cikfk t ISiSI, 1 I k 2 I-l.

Here to the right of the '1 t those Cik are listed which are
assumed to be known. Mathematically speaking, (3) is a
conditional expected value which is just the exact mathematical
formulation of the fact that we already know Gil, . . . . Cik, but
do not know Ci,k+l* The same notation is also used for variances
since they are specific expectations. The reader who is not
familiar with conditional expectations should not refrain from
further reading because this terminology is easily under-
standable and the usual rules for the calculation with expected
values also apply to conditional expected values. Any special
rule will be indicated wherever it is used.

We want to point out again that the equations (3) constitute an

assumption which is not imposed by us but rather implicitly
underlyies the chain ladder method. This is based on two aspects
of the basic chain ladder equation (1): One is the fact that (1)

107
uses the same age-to-age factor fk for different accident years
i = 1+1-k, . . . , I. Therefore equations (3) also postulate age-
to-age parameters fk which are the same for all accident years.
The other is the fact that (1) uses only the most recent
observed value Ci,I+l-i as basis for the projection to ultimate
ignoring on the one hand all amounts Gil, . . . . Ci,I-i observed
earlier and on the other hand the fact that Ci,I+1-i could
substantially deviate from its expected value. Note that it
would easily be possible to also project to ultimate the amounts

tilt **.I ci,I-i of the earlier development years with the help
of the age-to-age factors fl, . . . . fImZ and to combine all these
projected amounts together with Ci,I+l-ify+l-i'..-'fI-1 into a
common estimator for CiI. Moreover, it would also easily be
possible to use the values Cj,I+1-i of the earlier accident
years j < i as additional estimators for E(Ci,I+I-i) by
translating them into accident year i with the help of a measure
of volume for each accident year. These possibilities are all
ignored by the chain ladder method which uses Ci I+1-i as the
,
only basis for the projection to ultimate. This means that the
chain ladder method implicitly must use an assumption which
states that the information contained in Ci I+1-i cannot be
I
augmented by additionally using Gil, . . . . Ci,I-i or CI I+l-i,
I
. . . , Ci-l,I+l-i. This is very well reflected by the equations

(3).

Having now formulated this first assumption underlying the chain

ladder method we want to emphasize that this is a rather strong

108
assumption which has important consequences 'and which cannot be
taken as met for every run-off triangle. Thus the widespread
impression the chain ladder method would work with almost no

assumptions is not justified. In Chapter 5 we will elaborate on

the linearity constraint contained in assumption (3). But here
we want to point out another consequence of formula (3). We can
rewrite (3) into the form

E(Ci,k+l/CikICil,".,Cik) = fk
because Cik is a scalar under the condition that we know CiI,
. . . . Cik. This form of (3) shows that the expected value of the
individual development factor Ci k+l/Cik equals fk irrespective
I
of the prior development Gil, . . . . Cik and especially of the
foregoing development factor Cik/Ci,k-l. As is shown in Appendix
G, this implies that subsequent development factors Cik/Ci,k-l
and Ci,k+l/Cik are uncorrelated. This means that after a rather
high value of Cik/Ci,k-l the expected size of the next
development factor Ci,k+l/Cik is the same as after a rather low
value Of Cik/Ci,k-1. We therefore should not apply the chain
ladder method to a business where we usually observe a rather
Small increase Ci,k+l/Cik if Cik/Ci,k-1 is higher than in most

other accident years, and vice versa. Appendix G also contains a

test procedure to check this for a given run-off triangle.

109
3. Analysis of the Ase-to-Aoe Factor Formula: the Key to
Measurina the Variability

Because of the randomness of all realizations Cik we can not

infer the true values of the increase factors fI, . . . . fI-I from
the data. They only can be estimated and the chain ladder method
calculates estimators fl, . . . . fIml according to formula (2).
Among the properties which a good estimator should have, one
prominent property is that the estimator should be unbiased,
i.e. that its expected value E(fK) (under the assumption that
the whole run-off triangle is not yet known) is equal to the
true value fk, i.e. that E(fk) = fk. Indeed, this is the case
here as is shown in Appendix A under the additional assumption
that

(4) the variables {Gil, . . . . CiI} and {Cj,, ..*I CjI} of

different accident years i # j are independent.

Because the chain ladder method neither in (1) nor in (2) takes
into account any dependency between the accident years we can
conclude that the independence of the accident years is also an
implicit assumption of the chain ladder method. We will

therefore assume (4) for all further calculations. Assumption

(4), too, cannot be taken as being met for every run-off

triangle because certain calendar year effects (such as a major
change in claims handling or in case reserving or greater
changes in the inflation rate) can affect several accident years

110
in the same way and can thus distort the independence. How such
a situation can be recognized is shown in Appendix H.

A closer look at formula (2) reveals that

I-k
' 'j,k+l
j=l ';"
f k- = -. 'jk 'j,k+I
I-k j=l I-k
jzl % jzlcjk 'jk

is a weighted average of the observed individual development

factors Cj,k+l/Cjkr 1 5 j 5 I-k, where the weights are
proportional to Cjk. Like fk every individual development factor

'j,k+l/'jk/ 1 I j 5 I-k, is also an unbiased estimator of fk

because

E(Cj,k+l/Cjk) = E(E(Cj,k+l/CjklCjlt * - * rcjk)) (a)

= E(E(Cj,k+llCjl,.-*ICjk)/Cjk) (b)

= E(Cjkfk/Cjk) (cl
= E(fk)
= fk . (d)
Here equality (a) holds due to the iterative rule E(X) =
E(E(XIY)) for expectations, (b) holds because, given Cjl to cjk,

Cjk is,a scalar, (c) holds due to assumption (3) and (d) holds
because fk is a scalar. (When applying expectations iteratively,
e.g. E(E(XIY)), one first takes the conditional expectation
E(X(Y) assuming Y being known and then averages over all
possible realizations of Y.)

ill
 Therefore the question arises as to why the chain ladder method
uses just fk as estimator for fk and not the simple average
1 I-k ._
~ ' 'j,k+l/'jk
I-k j=l
of the observed development factors which also would be an
unbiased estimator as is the case with any weighted average
I-k I-k
gk = jz, wjk 'j,k+l/'jk with C Wjk=l
j=l
of the observed development factors. (Here, wjk must be a scalar
if Cjl, . . . . Cjk are known.)

Here we recall one of the principles of the theory of point

estimation which states that among several unbiased estimators
preference should be given to the one with the smallest
variance, a principle which is easy to understand. We therefore
should choose the weights w. in such a way that the variance of
lk
gk is minimal. In Appendix B it is shown that this is the case
if and only if (for fixed k and all j)
Wjk is inversely proportional t0 Var(Cj k+l/CjklCjl,...,Cjk).
I

The fact that the chain ladder estimator fk uses weights which
are proportional to Cjk therefore means that Cjk is assumed to
be inversely proportional to Var(Cj,k+I/CjklCjI,...,Cjk), or
stated the other way around, that

var(Cj,k+l/CjklCjl,.~.,cjk) = ak2/Cjk
with a proportionality constant ak2 which may depend on k but

112
not on j and which must be non-negative because variances are
always non-negative. Since here cjk is a scalar and because
generally Var(X/c) = Var(X)/c2 for any scalar c, we can state
the above proportionality condition also in the form

(5) var(cj,k+llcjl# . ..'Cjk) = CjkQk', 15 j 5 I, 1 < k 5 I-l,

with unknown proportionality constants ek2, 1 ~2 k I I-l.

As it was the case with assumptions (3) and (Q), assumption (5)
also has to be considered a basic condition implicitly
underlying the chain ladder method. Again, condition (5) cannot
a priori be assumed to be met for every run-off triangle. In
Chapter 5 we will show how to check a given triangle to see
whether (5) can be considered met or not. But before we turn to
the most important consequence of (5): Together with (3) and (4)
it namely enables us to quantify the uncertainty in the
estimation of CiI by CiI.

4. Quantifying the Variabilitv of the Ultimate Claims Amount

The aim of the chain ladder method and of every claims reserving
method is the estimation of the ultimate claims amount CiI for
the accident years i = 2, . . . . I. The chain ladder method does
this by formula (l), i.e. by

Cif = ci I I+l-i'fI+l-i'""fI-l f
This formula yields only a point estimate for CiI which will
normally turn out to be more or less wrong, i.e. there is only a

113
very small probability for CiI being equal to CiI. This
probability is even zero if CiI is considered to be a continuous
variable. We therefore want to know in addition if the estimator

CiI is at least on average equal to the mean of CiI and how

large on average the error is. Precisely speaking we first would
like to have the expected values E(CiI) and E(CiI), 2 I i 5 I,
being equal. In Appendix C it is shown that this is indeed the
case as a consequence of assumptions (3) and (4).

The second thing we want to know is the average distance between

the forecast CiI and the future realization CiI. In Mathematical
Statistics it is common to measure such distances by the square
of the ordinary Euclidean distance ('quadratic loss function').
This means that one is interested in the size of the so-called
mean squared error

mse(CiI) = EC (CiI - Ci1) 2 ID)

where D = { Cik I i+k % I+1 } is the set of all data observed so
far. It is important to realize that we have to calculate the
mean squared error on the condition of knowing all data observed
so far because we want to know the error due to future random-
ness only. If we calculated the unconditional error E(CiI-Cir)2,
which due to the iterative rule for expectations is equal to the
mean value E(E((CiI - CII)~/D)) of the conditional mse over all
possible data sets D, we also would include all deviations from
the data observed so far which obviously makes no sense if we
want to establish a confidence interval for CiI on the basis of
the given particular run-off triangle D.

114
The mean squared error is exactly the same concept which also
underlyies the notion of the variance
Var(X) = E(X - E(X))2
of any random variable X. Var(X) measures the average distance
of X from its mean value E(X).

Due to the general rule E(X-c) 3 = Var(X) + (E(X)-c)~ for any

scalar c we have
mse(CiI) = Var(CiIID) + ( E(CiIlD) - CiI )'
because CiT is a scalar under the condition that all data D are
known. This equation shows that the mse is the sum of the pure
future random error Var(CiT[ D) and of the estimation error which
is measured by the squared deviation of the estimate CiI from
its target E(CiIID). On the other hand, the mse does not take
into account any future changes in the underlying model, i.e.
future deviations from the assumptions (3), (4) and (5), an
extreme example of which was the emergence of asbestos.
Modelling such deviations is beyond the scope of this paper.

As is to be expected and can be seen in Appendix D, mse(Cir)

depends on the unknown model parameters fk and ~~2. We therefore
must develop an estimator for mse(CiT) which can be calculated
from the known data D only. The square root of such an estimator
is usually called *standard error' because it is an estimate of
the standard deviation of CiI in cases in which we have to
estimate the mean value, too. The standard error s.e.(CiX) of

115
CiI is at the same time the standard error s.e.(Ri) of the
reserve estimate

% = ciI - ci,I+l-i
of the outstanding claims reserve

Ri = CiI - Ci I 1+1-i
because

mse Pi) = E((Ri - Ri)21D) = E((CiI - CiI)21D) =

= mse(Cir)
and because the equality of the mean squared errors also implies
the equality of the standard errors. This means that

(6) s.e.(Ri) = S.e.(Cir) -

The derivation of a formula for the standard error s.e.(CiI) of

CiI turns out to be the most difficult part of this paper; it is
done in Appendix D. Fortunately, the resulting formula is
simple:
I-l 2 1
(7) (s-e. (Cir) 1 2 = c;, c !%(L+ -1
k=I+l-i fk2 Cik I-k
jzlcjk

where
1 I-k 'j k+l
(8) ok2 = - c cjk ( I_--fk)2, 1 I k 5 I-2.
I-k-l j=l 'jk
is an unbiased estimator of ok2 (the unbiasedness being shown in
Appendix E) and

cik = Ci,I+l-i'fy+l-i'".'fk-~ e k > 1+1-i,

are the amounts which are automatically obtained if the run-off

116
triangle is completed step by step according to the chain ladder
method. In (7), for notational convenience we have also set

%,1+1-i = 'i,I+l-i.

Formula (8) does not yield an estimator for aIel because it is

not possible to estimate the two parameters fI-I and aIel from
the single observation C1,I/CI,I-l between development years I-l
and I. If Q-1 = 1 and if the claims development is believed to
be finished after I-l years we can put aIm1 = 0. If not, we
extrapolate the usually decreasing series al, OR, . . . . aIm3,

aI-2 by one additional member, for instance by means of

loglinear regression (cf. the example in Chapter 6) or more
simply by requiring that

aIm3 1 arw2 = afB2 ! aIwl

holds at least as long as aIw3 > aIs2. This last possibility
leads to

2 2
(9) ax-1 = min ( a~-2/a~-3, min(aIm3, aim21 1 .

We now want to establish a confidence interval for our target

variables CiI and Ri. Because of the equation

(31 = ci,I+l-i + Ri
the ultimate claims amount CiI consists of a known part Ci I+l-i
I
and an unknown part Ri. This means that the probability
distribution function of CiI !given the observations D which
include Ci I I+l-i) is completely determined by that of Ri. We
therefore need to establish a confidence interval for Ri only
and can then simply shift it to a confidence interval for CiI.

117
For this purpose we need to know the distribution function of
Ri. Up to now we only have estimates Ri and s.e.(Ri) for the
mean and the standard deviation of this distribution. If the
volume of the outstanding claims is large enough we can, due to
the central limit theorem, assume that this distribution
function is a Normal distribution with an expected value equal
to the point estimate given by Ri and a standard deviation equal
to the standard error s.e.(Ri). A symmetric 95%-confidence
interval for Ri is then g+ven by

( Ri - a*s.e.(Ri) , Ri + 2.s.e.(Ri) ).

But the symmetric Normal distribution may not be a good

approximation to the true distribution of Ri if this latter
distribution is rather skewed. This will especially be the case
if s.e.(Ri) is greater than 50 % of Ri. This can also be seen at
the above Normal distribution confidence interval whose lower
limit then becomes negative even if a negative reserve is not
possible.

In this case it is recommended to use an approach based on the

Lognormal distribution. For this purpose we approximate the
unknown distribution of Ri by a Lognormal distribution with
parameters pi and Oi2 such that mean values as well as variances
of both distributions are equal, i.e. such that

exP(fii + Ui2/2) = Ri ,

exP(2fii + oi2)(exp(ai2)-1) = (s.e.(Ri))2 .

118
This leads to
Ui2 = ln(1 + (S.e.(Ri))2/Ri2) ,
(10)
Hi = ln(Ri) - Oi2/2 .
Now, if we want to estimate the 90th percentile of Ri, for
example, we proceed as follows. First we take the 90th
percentile of the Standard Normal distribution which is 1.28.
Then eXp(piil.28Ui) with cci and Ui2 according to (10) is the
90th percentile of the Lognormal distribution and therefore also
approximately of the distribution of Ri. For instance, if
s.e.(Ri)/Ri = 1, then oi 2 = ln(2) and the 90th percentile is

exP(Cci + 1.28oi) = Riexp(1.28Ui - Ui2/2) = RieXp(.719) =

2.05.Ri. If we had assumed that Ri has approximately a Normal
distribution, we would have obtained in this case Ri +
1.28*s.e.(Ri) = 2.28.Ri as 90th percentile.

This may come as a surprise since we might have expected that

the 90th percentile of a Lognormal distribution always must be
higher #an that of a Normal distribution with same mean and
variance. But there is no general rule, it depends on the
percentile chosen and on the size of the ratio s.e.(Ri)/Ri. The
Lognormal approximation only prevents a negative lower
confidence limit. In order to set a specific lower confidence
limit we choose a suitable percentile, for instance lo%, and
proceed analogously as with the 90% before. The question of
which confidence probability to choose has to be decided from a
business policy point of view. The value of 80% = 90% - 10%
taken here must be regarded merely as an example.
We have now shown how to establish confidence limits for every
Ri and therefore also for every CiI = Ci,I+1-i + Ri. We may also
be interested in having confidence limits for the overall
reserve
R = R2 + . . . + RI ,
and the question is whether, in order to estimate the variance
of R, we can simply add the squares (s.e.(Ri))2 of the
individual standard errors as would be the case with standard
deviations of independent variables. But unfortunately, whereas
the Ri'S itself are independent, the estimators Ri are not
because they are all influenced by the same age-to-age factors
fk, i.e. the Ri's are positively correlated. In Appendix F it is
shown that the square of the standard error of the overall
reserve estimator
R = R2 + ... +
is given by

(11) (s.e. (R))2 =

I I
= c (s-e. Will2 + Cir( Ii1 2ak2'fk2
i-2 I k=I+l-i I-k
' 'nk
n=l

Formula (11) can be used to establish a confidence interval for

the overall reserve amount R in quite the same way as it was
done before for Ri. Before giving a full example of the
calculation of the standard error, we will deal in the next
chapter with the problem of how to decide for a given run-off

120
triangle whether the chain ladder assumptions (3) and (5) are
met or not.

5. Checkina the Chm Assumations Aaainst the Data

As has been pointed out before, the three basic implicit chain

ladder assumptions

(3) E(Ci,k+llCilr ***#cik) = Cikfk I

(4) Independence of accident years ,

(5) Var(Ci,k+llCil,...,Cik) e Cikak2 I

are not met in every case. In this chapter we will indicate how
these assumptions can be checked for a given run-off triangle.
We have already mentioned in Chapter 3 that Appendix H develops
a test for calendar year influences which may violate (4). We
therefore can concentrate in the following on assumptions (3)
and (5).

First, we look at the equations (3) for an arbitrary but fixed k

and for i = 1, . . . . I. There, the ValUeS of Cik, 1 S i I I, are
to be considered as given non-random values and equations (3)
can be interpreted as an ordinary regression model of the type
Yi = c + xib + "i , lSi<I,
where c and b are the regression coefficients and 'i the error
term with E(Ei) = 0, i.e. E(Yi) = c + Xib. In our special case,
we have c = 0, b = fk and we have observations of the
independent variable Yi = Ci,k+l at the points Xi = Cik for i =

121
1, . . . . I-k. Therefore, we can estimate the regression
coefficient b = fk by the usual least squares method
I-k
' (Ci,k+l - Cikfk)2 ~ minimum .
i=l
If the derivative of the left hand side with respect to fk is
set to 0 we obtain for the minimizing parameter fk the solution
I-k I-k
(12) fkO = ' 'ikCi,k+l / C Cik 2 .
i=l i=l
This is not the same estimator for fk as according to the chain
ladder formula (2). We therefore have used an additional index
'0' at this new estimator for fk. We can rewrite fko as
1-k Cik2 'i,k+l
fkO = c -.
i=l I-k
2 'ik
' 'ik
i=l
which shows that fko is the Cik2-weighted average of the
individual development factors Ci I k+l/Cik, whereas the chain
ladder estimator fk is the Cik-weighted average. In Chapter 3 we
saw that these weights are inversely proportional to the
underlying variances Var(Ci,k+l/CiklCil,...RCik).
Correspondingly, the estimator fkO assumes

Var(Ci,k+l/CiklCilr.'.rCik ) being proportional to l/Cik2,

or equivalently

Var(Ci,k+l Icilteee ,Cik) being proportional to 1

which means that Var(Ci ,Cik) is the same for all
I k+llCil,'..
observations i = 1, . . . , I-k. This is not in agreement with the
chain ladder assumption (5).

122
Here we remember that indeed the least squares method implicit lY
assumes equal variances Var(Yi) = Var(ei) = u2 for all i. If
this assumption is not met, i.e. if the variances Var(Yi) =
Var(ti) depend on i, one should use a weighted least squares
approach which consists of minimizing the weighted sum of

squares

C Wi(Yi - C - Xib)’
i=l
where the weights Wi are in inverse proportion to Var(Yi).

Therefore, in order to be in agreement with the chain ladder

variance assumption (5), we should use regression weights Wi

which are proportional to l/Cik (more precisely to 1/(CikUk2),

but ok2 can be amalgamated with the proportionality constant
because k is fixed). Then minimizing
I-k
' ('i,k+l - Cikfk)2 / Cik
i=l
with respect to fk yields indeed
I-k I-k
f kl = ' 'i,k+l 1 LI,
i=l Cik

which is identical to the usual chain ladder age-to-age factor

‘k-

It is tempting to try another set of weights, namely l/cik2

because then the weighted sum of squares becomes

123
 I-k I-k 'i k+l
' (Ci,k+l - Cikfk)2 / Cik2 = C ( A- fk)2 .
i=l i=l 'ik
Here the minimizing procedure yields
1 1-k Ci k+l
(13) fk2 = - c A ,
I-k i=l 'ik
which is the ordinary unweighted average of the development
factors. The variance assumption corresponding to the weights
used is
Var(Ci,k+llCil,...,Cik ) being proportional to Cik'
or equivalently
Var(Ci,k+l/CiklCilr...,Cik) being proportional to 1.

The benefit of transforming the estimation of the age-to-age

factors into the regression framework is the fact that the usual
regression analysis instruments are now available to check the
underlying assumptions, especially the linearity and the
variance assumption. This check is usually done by carefully
inspecting plots of the data and of the residuals:

First, we plot ci,k+l against Cik, i = 1, . . . . I-k, in order to

see if we really have an approximately linear relationship
around a straight line through the origin with slope fk = fkl.
Second, if linearity seems acceptable, we plot the weighted
residuals

cc.i,k+l - Cikfk) / 4cik t 1 6 i I I-k,

(whose squares have been minimized) against Cik in order to see
if the employed variance assumption really leads to a plot in
which the residuals do not show any specific trend but appear

124
purely random. It is recommended to compare all three residual
plots (for i = 1, . . . . I-k)
Plot 0: ci,k+l - CikfkO against 'ik '
Plot 1: (ci,k+l - Cikfkl)r/Cik against 'ik 1
Plot 2: (ci,k+l - Cikfk2)/Cik against Cik ,
and to find out which one shows the most random behaviour. All
this should be done for every development year k for which we
have sufficient data points, say at least 6, i.e. for k S I-6.

Some experience with least squares residual plots is useful,

especially because in our case we have only very few data
points. Consequently, it is not always easy to decide whether a
pattern in the residuals is systematic or random. However, if
Plot 1 exhibits a nonrandom pattern, and either Plot 0 or Plot 2
does not, and if this holds true for several values of k, we
should seriously consider replacing the chain ladder age-to-age
factors fkl = fk with fko or fk2 respectively. The following
numerical example will clarify the situation a bit more.

6.

The data for the following example are taken from the
'Historical Loss Development Study', 1991 Edition, published by
the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA). There, we find on
page 96 the following run-off triangle of Automatic Facultative

12s
business in General Liability (excluding Asbestos &
Environmental):

i=l 5012 a269 10907 11805 13539 16181 18009 la&u 18442 18834
i=2 1 106 6285 5396 lo646 13782 15599 15196 16169 16704
i=3 1 3410 a992 13873 16141 18735 22214 22863 23466
id 1 5655 11555 15764 21266 23425 26083 27067
i-5 1 1092 9565 1563.6 22169 25955 26180

i-6 1 1513 6.445 11702 12935 15852

i-7 1 557 4020 10946 12314

i=a 1351 6947 13112

i=9 1 3133 5395

i=lO 1 2063

The above figures are cumulative incurred case losses in $ 1000.

We have taken the accident years from 1981 (i=l) to 1990 (i=lO)
which is enough for the sake of example but does not mean that
we believe to have reached the ultimate claims amount after 10
years of development.

We first calculate the age-to-age factors fk = fk,l according to

formula (2). The result is shown in the following table together
with the alternative factors fko according to (12) and fk2
according to (13):

1 k=l k=2 k=3 k=4 k=5 k=6 k=7 k=8 k=9

----I

fkO 1 2.217 1.569 1.261 1.162 1.100 1.041 1.032 1.016 1.009

fkl 1 2.999 1.624 1.271 1.172 1.113 1.042 1.033 1.017 1.009

fk2 ; 8.206 1.696 1.315 1.185 1.127 1.043 1.034 1.011 1.009

126
If one has the run-off triangle on a personal computer it is'
very easy to produce the plots recommended in Chapter 5 because
most spreadsheet programs have the facility of plotting X-Y
graphs. For every k = 1, . . . . 8 we make a plot of the amounts
Ci,k+l (y-axis) of development year k+l against the amOUntS Cik
(x-axis) of development year k for i = 1, . . . . 10-k, and draw a
straight line through the origin with slope fkl. The plots for k
= 1 to 8 are shown in the upper graphs of Figures 1 to 8,
respectively. (All figures are to be found at the end of the
paper after the appendices.) The number above each point mark
indicates the corresponding accident year. (Note that the point
mark at the upper or right hand border line of each graph does
not belong to the plotted points (Cik, Ci,k+l), it has only been

used to draw the regression line.) In the lower graph of each of

the Figures 1 to 8 the corresponding weighted residuals

(C*i,k+l - Cik)Hcik are plotted against Cik for i = l,..., 10-k.

The two plots for k = 1 (Figure 1) clearly show that the

regression line does not capture the direction of the datd
points very well. The line should preferably have a positive
intercept on the y-axis and a flatter slope. However, even then
we would have a high dispersion. Using the line through the
origin we will probably underestimate any future Ci2 if Gil is
less than 2000 and will overestimate it if Gil is more than
4000. Fortunately, in the one relevant case i = 10 we have Cl0 1
I
= 2063 which means that the resulting forecast C10,2 = C10,1f2 =

127
2063.2.999 = 6187 is within the bulk of the data points plotted.
In any case, Figure 1 shows that any forecast of Cl0 2 is
,
associated with a high uncertainty of about k3000 or almost
*50% of an average-sized Ci,2 which subsequently is even
enlarged when extrapolating to ultimate. If in a future accident
year we have a value Gil outside the interval (2000, 4000) it is
reasonable to introduce an additional parameter by fitting a
regression line with positive intercept to the data and using it
for the projection to Ci2. Such a procedure of employing an
additional parameter is acceptable between the first two
development years in which we have the highest number of data
points of all years.

The two plots for k = 2 (Figure 2) are more satisfactory. The

data show a clear trend along the regression line and quite
random residuals. The same holds for the two plots for k = 4
(Figure 4). In addition, for both k = 2 and k = 4 a weighted
linear regression including a parameter for intercept would
yield a value of the intercept which is not significantly
different from zero. The plots for k = 3 (Figure 3) seem to show
a curvature to the left but because of the few data points we
can hope that this is incidental. Moreover, the plots for k = 5
have a certain curvature to the right such that we can hope that
the two curvatures offset each other. The plots for k = 6, 7 and
8 are quite satisfactory. The trends in the residuals for k = 7
and 8 have no significance in view of the very few data points.

128
We need not to look at the regression lines with slopes fko or
fk2 as these slopes are very close to fk (except for k=l). But
we should look at the corresponding plots of weighted residuals
in order to see whether they appear more satisfactory than the
previous ones. (Note that due to the different weights the
residuals will be different even if the slopes are equal.) The
residual plots for fkO and k = 1 to 4 are shown in Figures 9 and
10. Those for fk2 and k = 1 to 4 are shown in Figures 11 and 12.
In the residual plot for fl,O (Figure 9, upper graph) the point
furthest to the left is not an outlier as it is in the plots for
fl,l = ft (Figur 1, lower graph) and f1,2 (Figure 11, upper

graph) . But with all three residual plots for k=l the main
problem is the missing intercept of the regression line which
leads to a decreasing trend in the residuals. Therefore the
improvement of the outlier is of secondary importance. For k = 2
the three residuals plots do not show any major differences
between each other. The same holds for k = 3 and 4. The residual
plots for k = 5 to 8 are not important because of the small
number of data points. Altogether, we decide to keep the usual
chain ladder method, i.e. the age-to-age factors fk = fk
1,
,
because the alternatives fk,O or fk,2 do not lead to a clear
improvement.

Next, we can carry through the tests for calendar year

influences (see Appendix H) and for correlations between
aubsequent development factors (see Appendix G). For our example

129
neither test leads to a rejection of the underlying assumption
as is shown in the appendices mentioned.

Having now finished all preliminary analyses we calculate the

estimated ultimate claims amounts CiI according to formula (l),
the reserves Ri = CiI - Ci,I+l-i and its standard errors (7).
For the standard errors we need the estimated values of uk2
which according to formula (8) are given by

k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ok2 27883 1109 691 61.2 119 40.8 1.34 7.88

A plot of ln(ak2) against k is given in Figure 13 and shows that

there indeed seems to be a linear relationship which can be used
to extrapolate ln(a92). This yields a92 = exp(-.44) = .64. But
we use formula (9) which is more easily programmable and in the
present case is a bit more on the safe side: it leads to a92 =
1.34. Using formula (11) for s.e.(R) as well we finally obtain

Ci,lO Ri s-e(ci,lO) = s.e.(Ri) s-e. (Ri) /Ri

i=2 16858 154 206 134 %

i=3 24083 617 623 101 %
i=4 28703 1636 747 46 %
i=5 28927 2747 1469 53 %
i=6 19501 3649 2002 55 %
i=7 17749 5435 2209 41 %
i=8 24019 10907 5358 49 %
i=9 16045 10650 6333 59 %
i=10 18402 16339 24566 150 %

Overall 52135 26909 52 %

130
(The numbers in the 'Overall'-row are R, s-e.(R) and s.e.(R)/R.)
For i = 2, 3 and 10 the percentage standard error (last column)
is more than 100% of the estimated reserve Ri. For i = 2 and 3
this is due to the small amount of the corresponding reserve and
is not important because the absolute amounts of the standard
errors are rather small. But the standard error of 150 % for the
most recent accident year i = 10 might lead to some concern in
practice. The main reason for this high standard error is the
high uncertainty of forecasting next year's value C10,2 as was
seen when examining the plot of Ci2 against Gil. Thus, one year
later we will very likely be able to give a much more precise
forecast of C1o,lo.

Because all standard errors are close to or above 50 % we use

the Lognormal distribution in all years for the calculation of
confidence intervals. We first calculate the upper 90%-
confidence limit (or with any other chosen percentage) for the
overall outstanding claims reserve R. Denoting by /.b and u2 the
parameters of the Lognormal distribution approximating the
distribution of R and using s.e.(R)/R = .52 we have 02 = .236
(cf. (10)) and, in the same way as in Chapter 4, the 90th
percentile is exp(p + 1.28~) = R*exp(1.28u-u2/2) = 1.655-R =
86298. Now we allocate this overall amount to the accident years
i=2 ,...I 10 in such a way that we reach the same level of
confidence for every accident year. Each level of confidence
corresponds to a certain percentile t of the Standard Normal
distribution and - according to Chapter 4 - the corresponding
percentile of the distribution of Ri is RieXp(tUi - Ui2/2) with
Ui2 = ln(1 + (s.e.(Ri))2/Ri2). We therefore only have to choose
t in such a way that
I
~7 Ri*exp(tai - Ui2/2) = 86298 .
i=2
This can easily be solved with the help of spreadsheet software
(e.g. by trial and error) and yields t = 1.13208 which
corresponds to the 87th percentile per accident year and leads
to the following distribution of the overall amount 66298:

upper confidence limit

s.e.(Ri) /Ri 2 RieXp(toi-Ui2/2)
Ri 'i

i-2 154 1.34 1.028 290

i=3 617 1.01 -703 1122
i=4 1636 .46 . 189 2436
i=5 2747 .53 . 252 4274
i=6 3649 . 55 . 263 5718
i=7 5435 -41 . 153 7839
i=8 10907 .49 . 216 16571
i=9 10650 . 59 . 303 17066
i=lO 16339 1.50 1.182 30981

Total 52135 86298

In order to arrive at the lower confidence limits we proceed

completely analogously. The 10th percentile, for instance, of
the total outstanding claims amount is R*exp(-1.28u-u2/2) =
,477-R = 24871. The distribution of this amount over the
individual accident years is made as before and leads to a value

132
of t = -.8211 which corresponds to the 21st percentile. This
means that a 87% - 21% = 66% confidence interval for each
accident year leads to a 90% - 10% = 80% confidence interval for
the overall reserve amount. In the following table, the
confidence intervals thus obtained for Ri are already shifted
(by adding Ci,I+l-i) to confidence intervals for the ultimate
claims amounts CiI (for instance, the upper limit 16994 for i=2
has been obtained by adding C2,g = 16704 and 290 from the
preceding table):

confidence intervals
=i, 10 for 80% prob. overall empirical limits

i=2 16858 ( 16744 , 16994 ) ( 16858 , 16858 )

i=3 24083 ( 23684 , 24588 ) ( 23751 , 24466 )
i=4 28703 ( 28108 ‘ 29503 ) ( 28118 , 29446 )
i=5 28927 ( 27784 , 30454 ) ( 27017 , 31699 )
i=6 19501 ( 17952 , 21570 ) ( 16501 , 22939 )
i=7 17749 ( 15966 , 20153 ) ( 14119 , 23025 )
i=8 24019 ( 19795 , 29683 ) ( 16272 , 48462 )
i-9 16045 ( 11221 , 22461 ) ( 8431 , 54294 )
i=lO 18402 ( 5769 , 33044 ) ( 5319 , 839271 )

The column "empirical limitsH contains the minimum and maximum

size of the ultimate claims amount resulting if in formula (1)
each age-to-age factor fk is replaced with the minimum (or
maximum) individual development factor observed so far. These
factors are defined by

'k,min = min { ci,k+l/cik 1 1 < i 5 1-k 1

'k,max = max { Ci,k+l/Cik I 1 < i I I-k 1

and can be taken from the table of all development factors which

133
can be found in Appendices G and Ii. They are

1 k=l k=Z k=3 k=4 k=5 k=6 k=7 kd k=9

-I

fk,nin 1 1.650 1.259 1.082 1.102 1.009 .W3 1.026 1.003 1.009

fk,max i 40.425 2.723 1.977 1.292 1.195 1.113 1.043 1.033 1.009

In comparison with the confidence intervals, these empirical

limits are narrower in the earlier accident years i 2 4 and
wider in the more recent accident years i t 5. This was to be
expected because the small number of development factors
observed between the late development years only leads to a
rather small variation between the minimum and maximum factors.
Therefore these empirical limits correspond to a confidence
probability which is rather small in the early accident years
and becomes larger and larger towards the recent accident years.
Thus, this empirical approach to establishing confidence limits
does not seem to be reasonable.

If we used the Normal distribution instead of the Lognormal we

had obtained a 90th percentile of R + l.ZI*R*(s.e.(R)/R) =
1.661-R (which is almost the same as the 1.655-R with the
Lognormal) and a 10th percentile of R - 1.28.R*(s.e.(R)/R) =
.34-R (which is lower than the . 477-R with the Lognormal). Also,
the allocation to the accident years would be different.

Finally, we compare the standard errors obtained to the output

of the claims reserving software package ICRFS by Ben Zehnwirth.

134
This package is a modelling framework in which the user can
specify his own model within a large class of models. But it
also contains some predefined models, inter alia also a 'chain
ladder model'. But this is not the usual chain ladder method,
instead, it is a loglinearized approximation of it. Therefore,
the estimates of the oustanding claims amounts differ from those
obtained here with the usual chain ladder method. Moreover, it
works with the logarithms of the incremental amounts
Ci k+l-Cik
I
and one must therefore eliminate the negative increment C2 7-
,
'2,6* In addition, C2 I was identified as an outlier and was
I
eliminated. Then the ICRFS results were quite similar to the
chain ladder results as can be seen in the following table:

est. outst. claims amount Ri standard error

chain ladder ICRFS chain ladder ICRFS

i=2 154 394 206 572

i=3 617 825 623 786
i=4 1636 2211 747 1523
i=5 2747 2743 1469 1724
i=6 3649 4092 2002 2383
i=7 543s 5071 2209 2972
i=8 10907 11899 5358 6892
i=9 10650 14569 6333 9689
i=lO 16339 25424 24566 23160

Overall 52135 67228 26909 28414

Even though the reserves Ri for i=9 and i=lO as well as the
overall reserve R differ considerably they are all within one
standard error and therefore not significantly different. But it
should be remarked that this manner of using ICRFS is not

135
intended by Zehnwirth because any initial model should be
further adjusted according to the indications and plots given by
the program. In this particular case there were strong
indications for developing the model further but then one would
have to give up the 'chain ladder model'.

7. Final Remark

This paper develops a rather complete methodology of how to

attack the claims reserving task in a statistically sound manner
on the basis of the well-known and simple chain ladder method.
However, the well-known weak points of the chain ladder method
should not be concealed: These are the fact that the estimators
of the last two or three factors fI, fIml, fIW2 rely on very few
observations and the fact that the known claims amount CI1 of
the last accident year (sometimes Cl.-I,2, too) forms a very
uncertain basis for the projection to ultimate. This is most
clearly seen if CI1 happens to be 0: Then we have CiI = 0, RI =
0 and s.e.(RI) = 0 which obiously makes no sense. (Note that
this weakness often can be overcome by translating and mixing
the amounts Gil of earlier accident years i < I into accident
year I with the help of a measure of volume for each accident
year.)

Thus, even if the statistical instruments developed do not

reject the applicability of the chain ladder method, the result

136
must be judged by an actuary and/or underwriter who knows the
business under consideration. Even then, unexpected future

changes can make all estimations obsolete. But for the many
normal cases it is good to have a sound and simple method.
Simple methods have the disadvantage of not capturing all
aspects of reality but have the advantage that the user is in a
position to know exactly how the method works and where its
weaknesses are. Moreover, a simple method can be explained to
non-actuaries in more detail. These are invaluable advantages of
simple models over more sophisticated ones.

137
Apoendix A: Unbiasedness of Acre-to-Acre Factors

Provosition: Under the assumptions

(3) There are unknown constants fl, . . . . fI-1 with

E(ci,k+l[cil,--.,cik) = Cikfkr l<iSI, 1 s k 2 I-l.

(4) The variables {Gil, . . . . CiI} and {Cjl, . . . . CjI) of
different accident years i # j are independent.
the age-to-age factors fl, . . . . fI-1 defined by
I-k I-k
(2) fk = x cj,k+l / c cjk I 1 s k < I-l,
j=l j=l
are unbiased, i.e. we have E(fk) = fk, 1 5 k S I-l.

Proof: Because of the iterative rule for expectations we have

(Al) E(fk) = E(E(fklBk))

for any set Bk of variables Cij assumed to be known. We take
Bk = ( Cij / i+j 5 I+l, j < k ) , 1 5 k s I-l.
According to the definition (2) of fk and because cjkr 1 5 j I
I-k, is contained in Bk and therefore has to be treated as
scalar, we have
I-k I-k
(AZ) E(fklBk) = x E(Cj,k+llBk) / c Cjk *
j=l j=l
Because of the independence assumption (4) conditions relating
to accident years other than that of cj,k+l can be omitted, i.e.
we get

(A3) E(Cj,k+llBk) = E(Cj,k+llCjl,..*,Cjk) = Cjkfk

using assumption (3) as well. Inserting (A3) into (A2) yields

138
 I-k I-k
(A4) E(fklBk) = c cjkfk / c cjk = fk .
j=l j=l

Finally, (Al) and (A4) yield

E(fk) = E(fk) = fk
because fk is a scalar.

139
Avvendix B: Minimizina the Variance of Indevendent Estimators

provosition: Let Tl, . . . . TI be independent unbiased estimators

of a parameter t, i.e. with
E(Ti) = t , l<i<I,
then the variance of a linear combination
I
T= CWiTi
i=l
under the constraint

(Bl) iWi= 1
i-l
(which guarantees E(T) = t) is minimal iff the coefficients Wi
are inversely proportional to Var(Ti), i.e. iff

wi = c/Var(Ti) , lSi.51.

Proof: We have to minimize

I
Var(T) = E wi2Var(Ti)
i=l
(due to the independence of Tl, . . . . TI) with respect to Wi
under the constraint (Bl). A necessary condition for an extremum
is that the derivatives of the Lagrangian are zero, i.e. that
I
(82) $ ( ", wi'Var(Ti) + A(1 - HWi)) '0, lSi< I,
i i=l i-l
with a constant multiplier A whose value can be determined by
additionally using (Bl). (B2) yields
ZwiVar(Ti) - x = 0
or

140
 wi = X / (2*Var(Ti)) .
These weights Wi indeed lead to a minimum as can be seen by
calculating the extremal value of Var(T) and applying Schwarz's
inequality.

Corro11BTy: In the chain ladder case we have estimators Ti =

ci,k+lfcikr 1 5 i I I-k, for fk where the variables of the set

I-k
Ak= u { tilt .--I Cik )
i-l
of the corresponding accident years i = 1, . . . . I-k up to
development year k are considered to be given. We therefore want
to minimize the conditional variance
I-k
Var( X WiTilAk) .
i=l
From the above proof it is clear that the minimizing weights
should be inversely proportional to Var(TilAk). Because of the
independence (4) of the accident years, conditions relating to
accident years other than that of Ti = Ci,k+I/Cik can be
omitted. We therefore have

Var(TilAk) = Var(Ci,k+I/CikjCiIt...,Cik)
and arrive at the result that
the minimizing weights should be
inversely proportional t0 Var(Ci,k+I/CiklCiI,...,Cik).

141
Avvendix C: Unbiasedness of the Estimated Ultimate Claims Amount

prooositioq: Under the assumptions

(3) There are unknown constants fl, . . . . fI-1 with

E(Ci,k+llCilr..-rCik) = Cikfkr 1 s i 5 I, 1 s k 5 I-l.

(4) The variables {Gil, ,.., CiI) and (Cjl, . . . . CjI) of
different accident years i # j are independent.
the expected values of the estimator
(1) CiI = Ci,I+l-ifi+l-i'...'fI-1
for the ultimate claims amount and of the true ultimate claims
amount CiI are equal, i.e. we have E(CiI) = E(CiI), 2 I i 5 I.

Proof: We first show that the age-to-age factors fk are

uncorrelated. With the same set
Bk = { Cij ( i+j 5 I+l, j S k } , 1 2 k I I-l,
of variables assumed to be known as in Appendix A we have for j
<k

E(fjfk) = B(B(fjfklBk)) (a)

= E(fjE(fklBk)) (b)
= E(fjfk) (cl
= E(fj)fk (d)
= fjfk + (e)
Here (a) holds because of the iterative rule for expectations,
(b) holds because fj is a scalar for Bk given and for j < k, (c)
holds due to (A4), (d) holds because fk is a scalar and (e) was
shown in Appendix A.

142
This result can easily be extended to arbitrary products of
different fk’S, i.e. we have

(Cl) E(fI+l-ia... ‘ff-1) = fi+l-i'*ss'fI-l a

This yields

E(CII) = E(E(CiIlCil,...rCi,I+l-i)) (4

= E(E(Ci,I+l-ifI+l-i..-..fI-1ICilt...~Ci,I+l-i)) (b)

= E(Ci,I+1-iElfI+l-i'...'fI-lICil~..-,Ci,I+l-i)) (C)
= E(Ci,I+l-iE(fI+l-i'...'fI-l)) Cd)
= E(Ci,I+r-i)*E(fI+l,i..-..fI-l) (e)
= E(Ci,I+1-i)'fI+1-i'...*fI-l - (f)
Here (a) holds because of the iterative rule for expectations,
(b) holds because of the definition (1) of CiT, (c) holds
because Ci,I+l-i is a scalar under the stated condition, (d)
holds because conditions which are independent from the
conditioned variable fI+l-i*e..*fI-l can be omitted (observe

assumption (4) and the fact that fI+l-i, . . . . fT-1 only depend
on variables of accident years < i), (e) holds because E( fI+l-
i’... *fI-1) is a scalar and (f) holds because of (Cl).

Finally, repeated application of the iterative rule for

expectations and of assumption (3) yields for the expected value
of the true reserve CiI

E(Cir) = E(E(CiIlCil,...,Ci,I-1))

p E(Ci, I-1fI-l)

= E(Ci,I-1) Q-1

143
= E(CilI-2fI-2)fI-1
= E(Ci,I-2) fI-2fI-1
= etc.

= E(Ci,I+l-i)fI+1-i'....fI-l

= E(CiI) *
 . culation of the Standard Error of Ci1

. *
ProDosltloll : Under the assumptions

(3) There are unknown constants fl, . . . . fIml with

B(Ci,k+llCillB..rCik) E Cikfkr 15 i 5 I, 1 s k 5 I-l.

(4) The variables {Gil, . . . . CiI) and {Cjl, .,., CjI} of

different accident years i # j are independent.

(5) There are unknown constants 01, . . . . ax-1 with

Var(Ci,k+llCil,...,Cik) it Cil@Jc2r 1Si 5 I, 1 5 k 5 I-l.

the standard error s.e.(Ci~) of the estimated ultimate claims
amount Ci1 = Ci,I+l-ifI+l,i’...‘fI*l is given by the formula
I-1 4k2 1 1
(S.e.(CiI))2 = $1 C - ( - + -1
k=I+l-i fk2 Cik I-k
c cjk
j=l
where Cik = Ci,I+l-ifI+l-i"'fk-1 , k > 1+1-i, are the estimated
values of the future Cik and Ci,~+l-i = Ci,I+l-is

prooc: As stated in Chapter 4, the standard error is the square

root of an estimator of mse(CiI) and we have also seen that

(Dl) mse(CiI) = Var(CiI/D) + (E(CiI(D) - Cix)' .

In the following, we use the abbreviations

Ei 0) = E(XICilr *--I Ci,I+l-i) r

VariW = Var(XlCil, . . ., Ci,I+l-i) -
Because of the independence of the accident years we can omit in
(Dl) that part of the condition D = { Cik I i+k ~5 I+1 ) which is
independent from CiI, i.e. we can write

(D2) mse(Ci~) = Vari(CiI) + (Ei(CiI) - Ci1)' .

145
We first consider Vari(CiI). Because of the general rule Var(X)
= E(X2) - (E(X))2 we have

(D3) Vari(CiI) = Ei(Ci12) - (Ei(CiI))2 .

For the calculation of Ei(CiI) we use the fact that
for k 2 1+1-i

(D4) Ei(Ci,k+l) = Ei(E(Ci,k+llCj.lr -*-r Cik))

= Ei (Cikfk)
= Ei(Cik)fk s
Here, we have used the iterative rule for expectations in its
general form E(XIZ) = E(E(XIY)IZ) for {Y} > {Z} (mostly we have
(2) = 0). By successively applying (D4) we obtain for k 2 1+1-i

(D5) Ei(Ci,k+l) = Ei(Ci,I+l-i)fI+l-i'****fk

= Ci,I+l-ifI+l-i'...'fk

because Ci,I+l-i is a scalar under the condition 'i's

For the calculation of the first term Ei(Ci12) of (D3) we use

the fact that for k 1 1+1-i

(DC) Ei(Ci,k+12) = Ei(E(Ci,k+121Cil, ***I Cik) (4

= Ei( Var(Ci,k+ilCil, ..., Cik) + (b)
+ (E(Ci,k+llCilr --*I cik))2 )
= Ei( CikQk2 + (cikfk)2 ) (cl
= Ei(Cik)Uk2 + Ei(Cik2)fk2 .
Here, (a) holds due to the iterative rule for expectations, (b)
due to the rule E(X2) = Var(X) + (E(X))2 and (c) holds due to
(3) and (5).

146
Now, we apply (D6) and (D5) successively to get

(D7) Ei(Ci12) = Ei(Ci,I-l)QI-l2 + Ei(Ci,I-12)fI,12

= Ci,I+l-lfI+l-l"'fI-2QI-1 2,

+ Ei(Ci,I-2)QI-22fI-12 +

+ Ei(Ci,I-22)fI-22fI-12
= Ci,I+l-lfr+l-l***fI-201-l 2+
+ Ci,I+l-lfI+l-l"'fI-301~22fI-12 +

+ Ei(Ci,r-3f~I-32fr-z2fI-12 +
+ Ei(Ci,I-32)fI-32fI-22fI-12
= etc.
I-l
= Ci,I+l-i D fI+l-i"'fk-lek2fk+12"'fI-l2
k=I+l-i

+ Ci,I+l-i 2f I+l-i2'*..*fI-12
where in the last step we have used Ei(Ci,I+l-if = Ci,I+l-i and

Ei(Ci,I+l-i2) = Ci,I+1-i2 because under the condition 'i'

Ci,I+l-i is a scalar.

Due to (D5) we have

(Da) (Ei(CiI))2'x Ci,I+l-i2fI+l-i2'..**fI-12 *

Inserting (D7) and (Da) into (D3) yields

I-l
(D9) Vari(Cir) = Ci,I+l-i C fI+l-i "~fk,l~k2fk+12~~*fI-12
k=I+l-i
We estimate this first summand of mse(CiI) by replacing the
unknown parameters fk, Ok2 with their unbiased estimators fk and
Ok', i.e. by
I-l
(DlOl Ci,I+l-i D f1+1-i"' fk-l'=,f~f,f+l-*fI2,1 =
k=I+l-i

147
 2 I-l ak2/fk2
z Ci,*+l-ifl+l-l"'f~-l C
k=I+l-i Ci,I+l-ifI+l-i"'fk-1
I-l ak2/fk2
= c"i, c
k=I+l-i Cik
where we have used the notation Cik introduced in the
proposition for the estimated amounts of the future Cik, k >
1+1-i, including Ci,I+l-i = Ci,I+l-is

We now turn to the second summand of the expression (D2) for

mse (CiI) . Because of (D5) we have

Ei (CiI) = Ci,I+l-ifI+I-i'.*.'fI-I
and therefore

(D11) (Ei(CiI) - CiI12 =

= Ci,I+l-i2(fI+l-i'*..'fI-I - f*+l-i'-.s' fI-1)2 *
This expression cannot simply be estimated by replacing fk with
fk because this would yield 0 which is not a good estimator
because fI+l-is... .fI,1 generally will be different from
fI+I-i'... *fI-I and therefore the squared difference will be
positive. We therefore must take a different approach. We use
the algebraic identity
F = fI+l-i*...*fI-I - fI+l-i*,..*fI-l
= S*+l-j, + S-S + S*-1
with

Sk = fI+l-i'...'fk-ffkfk+l.....fI-1 -
- fI+l-i'...'fk-lfkfk+I*...*fI-I
= f*+1-is... 'fk-l(fk-fk)fk+l'...'fI-1 .
This yields

148
 F2 = (SI+l-i + ea. + ~S1-1)~

I-l
x c Sk2 + 2 c sjsk s
k=I+l-i -f<k
where in the last summation j and k run from 1+1-i to I-l. Now
we replace Sk2 with E(Sk2/Bk) and sjsk, j < k, with S(SjSklBk).
This means that we approximate Sk2 and sjsk by varying and
averaging as little data as possible so that as many ValUSS Cik

as possible from data observed are kept fixed. Due to (A4) we

have E(fk-fklBk) = 0 and therefore E(sjsklBk) = 0 for j < k
because all frr r < k, are scalars under Dk. Because of

(D12) E((fk-fk)‘jBk) = --(fk/Bk)

I-k
= C Var
j=l
I-k I-k
= ' var(Cj,k+l/cjl#~..PCjk)/( c cjk)2
j=l j-1
I-k
a c cjkak' / (1xkcjk)2
j=l j=l

= ek2 / fs:cjk

we obtain
I-k
E(sk2 1%) = fi+1-i ...f:,l":f:+l".f;-l / c cjk e
j=l

Taken together, we have replaced F2 * ( I: Sk)2 with SkE(Sk21Bk)

and because all terms of this sum are positive we can replace
all unknown parameters fk, Ok2 with their unbiased estimators

149
fkr ak2. Altogether, we estimate F2 = (fI+l-i'...*fI-1 -
fI+l-~-...*f~-~)2 by

I-l 2 2 2
c ( f1+1-i". &‘ak’fk+l ’ " fi-1 / >=Ibjk ) =
k=I+l-i

2 2 I-l Ok2 /fk2

= fI+l-i'...'fI-1 c
k=I+l-i I-k *
x cjk
j=l
Using (Dll), this means that we estimate (Ei(CiI) - C~I)~ by

2 2 2 I-l ak2/fk2
(D13) Ci,I+l-ifI+l-i'.**'fI-1 c =
k=I+l-i I-k
c cjk
j=l
I-l ak2/ fk2
= c:, c
k=I+l-i I-k '
c cjk
j=l
From (D2), (DlO) and (D13) we finally obtain the estimator

(s-e. (Cir) I2 for mse(CiI) as stated in the proposition.

150
5 ak2

pronositioq: Under the assumptions

(3) There are unknown constants fl, . ..! fI-1 with

E(Ci,k+llCilr - * * rcik) = Cikfkr l<isI, 1 s k s I-l.

(4) The variables {till . . . . CiI} and {Cjl, . . . . CjI) of

different accident years i # j are independent.

(5) There are unknown constants al, . . . . aIwl with

Var(Ci,k+llCilr..-,Cik) = Cikak2, lSil1, 1 5 k s I-l.

estimators
1 I-k cj,k+l
ak2 = - z cjk ( - - fk j2 t 1 I k I I-2,
I-k-l j=l cjk
Of ak2 are unbiased, i.e. we have
E((rk2) = &k2 , 15 k 5 I-2.

Proof: In this proof all summations are over the index j from
j=l to j=I-k. The definition of Ok2 can be rewritten as

(El) (I-k-l)ek2 = I ( Cj,k+12/Cjk - 2'Cj,k+lfk + Cjkfk2 )

= I ( Cj,k+12/Cjk ) - I ( Cjkfk2 )
using zcj,k+l = fkxcjk according t0 the definition Of fk. USi.rK$

again the set

Dk = ( Cij 1 i+j 5 I+l, j 5 k }

of variables Cij assumed to be known, (El) yields

fE2) E((I-k-l)ak2)Bk) = E E(cj,k+121Bk)/cjk - c CjkE(fk2/Bk)

because cjk is a scalar under the condition of Bk being known.

Due to the independence (4) of the accident years, conditions
which are independent from the conditioned variable can be

151
omitted in E(Cj,k+l'IBk), i.e.

(E3) E(Cj,k+l'lBk) = E(cj,k+121cjl,...,cjk)

= var(cj,k+l)cjl,...,cjk) + (E(cj,k+llcjl,.-.,Cjk))2

= cjkak2 + (cjkfk12

where the rule E(X2) = Var(X) + (E(X))2 and the assumptions (5)
and (3) have also been used.

From (D12) and (A4) we gather

(E4) E(fk'IBk) = Var(fklBk) + (E(fklBk))2

= ak2 / Ccjk + fk2 .
Inserting (E3) and (E4) into (E2) we obtain
E((I-k-1)ek2[Bk) =
I-k I-k I-k
= 2 ( ok2 + cjkfk2 ) - c ( cjkak2/ c cjk + cjkfk2 )
j=l j=l j=l
= (I-k)ak2 - ok2
= (I-k-l)ok2 .
From this we immediately obtain E(ak21Bk) = Ok2 .
Finally, the iterative rule for expectations yields
E(ak2) = E(E(ak'lBk)) = E(ak2) = Ok2 .

152
Awwendix F: The Standard Error of the Overall Reserve Estimate

PrODositiqD: Under the assumptions

(3) There are unknown constants fl, . . . . fI-1 with

E(Ci,k+lfCilr...rCik) p Cikfkr l<i<I, 1 5 k 5 I-l.

(4) The variables {Gil, . . . . CiI) and (Cjl, . . . . CjI) of
different accident years i # j are independent.
(5) There are unknown constants al, . . . . aI- with

Var(Ci,k+ilCii, sssrcik) = Cikak', lsi51, 1 5 k 5 I-l.

the standard error s.e.(R) of the overall reserve estimate
R = Rp + . . . + Rx
is given by
I I-l 2ak2/fk2
(s.e.(R))2 = C (s.e.(Ri)2 + CiI( I CjI)
i=2 i j=i+l k=Itl-i I-k
= cnk
n=l

proop: This proof is analogous to that in Appendix D. The

comments will therefore be brief.
We first must determine the mean squared error mse(R) of R.
Using again D = { Cik 1 i+k I I+1 } we have
I I I
(Fl) mS9( C Ri) - E(( I: Ri - C Ri)2 1")
i-2 1==2 i=2
I I
- E(( C QI - 2 Ci1 )'lD)
i.02 ia2
I
= Var(ii2CiIlD) + ( E( E CiIID)
i=2
The independence of the accident years yields

153
 I
(=I Var( i CiIlD) = z Var(CiIICil, ---, Ci,I+l-i) ,
i=2 i=2
whose summands have been calculated in Appendix D, see (D9).
Furthermore
I
(F3) ( E( g CiIID) - cciI)2= ( i ( E(CiIlD) -Ci1) )2=
i=2 i=2 i=2
= c (E(CiIID) - CiI)‘(E(CjI(D) - Cj1)
Zli,jSI
= c Ci,I+I-iCj,I+I-jFiFj
Zli,jSI
I
= C (Ci,I+1-iFi12 + 2 C Ci,I+l-i.Cj,I+l-jFiFj
i=2 icj
with (like in (Dll))
Fi = fI+I-i"'fI-1 - fI+l-i"'fI-1
which is identical to F of Appendix D but here we have to carry
the index i, too. In Appendix D we have shown (cf. (D2) and
(Dll)) that
mse(Ri) = Var(CiIlCiI,...,Ci,I+I-i) + (Ci,I+I-iFi)' .
Comparing this with (Fl), (F2) and (F3) we see that
I I
(F4) mse( C Ri) = D mse(Ri) + C 2'Ci,I+l-iCj,I+I-jFiFj.
i-2 i=2 2Si<j51
We therefore need only develop an estimator for FiFj. A
procedure completely analogous to that for F2 in the proof of
Appendix D yields for FiFj, i-zj, the estimator
I-l 2 I-k
c f1+1-j ...f~-la:f~+l...fr-l, E C* ,
k=I+l-i n=l
which immediately leads to the result stated in the proposition.

154
ADDendiX G: Testins for Correlations between Subsequent
DeveloDment Factors

In this appendix we first prove that the basic assumption (3) of

the chain ladder method implies that subsequent development
factors Cik/Ci,k-I and Ci,k+I/Cik are not correlated. Then We
show how we can test if this uncorrelatedness is met for a given
run-off triangle. Finally, we apply this test procedure to the
numerical example of Chapter 6.

prooosition: Under the assumption

(3) There are unknown constants fl, . . . . fI-I with

E(Ci,k+l/Cilr . - - rcik) = Cikfkr 16i61, 1 5 k 6 I-l.

subsequent development factors Cik/Ci,k-1 and Ci,k+l/Cik are
uncorrelated, i.e. we have (for 1 S i I I, 2 I k .S I-l)

Cik ci,k+l Cik ci,k+l

E(-.----- 1 = E( - )*E( - ) '
Ci,k-l Cik Ci,k-1 =ik

Proof: For j S k we have

(Gl) E(Ci,k+l/Cij) = E(E(Ci,k+l/CijlCil,...,cik)) (4

= E(E(Ci,k+llCil,...,Cik)/Cij) (,b)
= E(Cikfk/Cij) (cl
* E(Cik/Cij)fk . (d)
Here equation (a) holds due to the iterative rule E(X) =
E(E(X/Y)) for expectations, (b) holds because, given Gil, ....
Cik, Cij is a Scalar for j S k, (c) holds due to (3) and (d)
holds because fk is a scalar.

155
From (Gl) we obtain through the specialization j = k

(=I E(Gi,k+I/Cik) = E(Cik/Gik)fk = fk

and through j = k-l

Cik Ci,k+l Ci,k+l (Gl) cik

(G3) E( -*- 1 =E(- 1 = EC - )fk .
Ci,k-1 cik Ci,k-l Ci,k-1
Inserting (G2) into (G3) completes the proof.

pesisnins the test Drocedure:

The usual test for uncorrelatedness requires that we have
identically distributed pairs of observations which come from a
Normal distribution. Both conditions are usually not fulfilled
for adjacent columns of development factors. (Note that due to
(G2) the development factors Ci,k+l/Gikr 1 5 i I I-k, have the
same expectation but assumption (5) implies that they have
different variances.) We therefore use the test with Spearman's
rank correlation coefficient because this test is distribution-
free and because by using ranks the differences in the variances

of Ci,k+l/Cikr 1 I i 5 I-k, become less important. Even if these

differences are negligeable the test will only be of an
approximate nature because, strictly speaking, it is a test for
independence rather than for uncorrelatedness. But we will take
this into account when fixing the critical value of the test
statistic.

For the application of Spearman's test we consider a fixed

development year k and rank the development factors Ci,k+I/Gik
observed so far according to their size starting with the

156
smallest one on rank one and so on. Let rik, 1 I i < I-k, denote
the rank of ci,k+l/cik obtained in this way, 1 I rik 5 I-k. Then
we do the same with the preceding development factors

CikiCi,k-lr 1 I i 2 I-k, leaving out CI+I-k,k/CI+l-k,k-1 for

which the subsequent development factor has not yet been
observed. Let sikt 1 5 i < I-k, be the ranks obtained in this

way, 1 5 sik 5 I-k. Now, SpeaIIIIan’S rank correlation COeffiCient

Tk is defined to be

(G4) Tk = 1 - 6 fzr (rik - Sik)l / ((I-k)3-I+k) .

From a textbook of Mathematical Statistics it can be seen that

-1 S Tk S +l ,
and, under the null-hypothesis,

E(Q) = 0 ,
Var(Tk) = 1/(1-k-l) .
A value Of Tk close to 0 indicates that the development factors
between development years k-l and k and those between years k
and k+l are not correlated. Any other value of Tk indicates that
the factors are (positively or negatively) correlated.

For a formal test we do not want to consider every pair of

columns of adjacent development years separately in order to
avoid an accumulation of the error probabilities. We therefore
consider the triangle as a whole. This also is preferable from a
practical point of view because it is more important to know
whether correlations globally prevail than to find a small part
of the triangle with correlations. We therefore combine all

157
values T2, T3, . . . . TI-2 obtained in the same way like Tk.
(There is no Tl because there are no development factors before
development year k=l and similarly there is also no TI; even
TX-1 is not included because there is only one rank and
therefore no randomness.) According to Appendix B we should not
form an unweighted average of T2, .,., TI-2 but rather use
weights which are inversely proportional to Var(Tk) = 1/(1-k-l).
This leads to weights which are just equal to one less than the
number of pairs (rik, sik) taken into account by Tk which seems
very reasonable.

We thus calculate
I-2
(G5) T = 'X2 (I-k-l)Tk / C (I-k-l)
k=2 k=2
I-2 I-k-l
= c Tk I
k=2 (I-2)(1-3)/2
I-2
E(T) = C E(Tk) = o ,
k=2
I-2
c-1 Var(T) = '.X2 (I-k-l)2 Var(Tk) / ( C (I-k-l) )2
k=2 k=2
I-2
= c (I-k-l) / ( 'X2 (I-k-l) )2
k=2 k=2
A.
=

(I-2)(1-3)/2
where for the calculation of Var(T) we used the fact that under
the null-hypothesis subsequent development factors and therefore
also different Tk's are uncorrelated.

158
Because the distribution of a single Tk with I-k 2 10 is Normal
in good approximation and because T is the aggregation of
several uncorrelated Tk's (which all are symmetrically
distributed around their mean 0) we can assume that T has
approximately a Normal distribution and use this to design a
significance test. Usually, when applying a significance test
one rejects the null-hypothesis if it is very unlikely to hold,
e.g. if the value of the test statistic is outside its 95%
confidence interval. But in our case we propose to use only a
50% confidence interval because the test is only of an
approximate nature and because we want to detect correlations
already in a substantial part of the run-off triangle.
Therefore, as the probability for a Standard Normal variate
lying in the interval (-.67, . 67) is 50% we do not reject the
null-hypothesis of having uncorrelated development factors if
.67 .67
S T I +
d((~-2) (I-3)/2) d((I-2)(1-3)/2) '
If T is outside this interval we should be reluctant with the
application of the chain ladder method and analyze the
correlations in more detail.

c anter 6:
We start with the table of all development factors:

159
 FI F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9

i=l 1.6 1.32 1.08 1.15 1.20 1.11 1.033 1.00 1.01
i=2 40.4 1.26 1.98 1.29 1.13 0.99 1.043 1.03
i=3 2.6 1.54 1.16 1.16 1.19 1.03 1.026
i=4 2.0 1.36 1.35 1.10 1.11 1.04
i-5 8.8 1.66 1.40 1.17 1.01
i=6 4.3 1.82 1.11 1.23
i=7 7.2 2.72 1.12
i=8 5.1 1.89
i=9 1.7

As described above we first rank column Fl according to the size

of the factors, then leave out the last element and rank the
column again. Then we do the same with columns F2 to F8. This
yields the following table:

ril si2 ri2 si3 ri3 si4 ri4 si.5 ri5 si6 ri6 si7 ri7 si8 ri8

112 2 112 2 5 4 4 3 2 11
9 8 117 6 6 5 3 2 113 2 2
4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 1
3 2 3 3 5 4 112 13
8 7 5 5 6 5 4 41
5 4 6 6 2 2 5
7 6 8 7 3
6 5 7
2

We now add the squared differences between adjacent rank columns

of equal length, i.e. we add (Sik - rik)2 over i for every k, 2
<k68. This yields 68, 74, 20, 24, 6, 6 and 0. (Remember that
we have to leave out k = 1 because there is no sil, and k = 9
because there is only one pair of ranks and therefore no

160
randomness.) From these figures we obtain Spearman's rank
correlation coefficients Tk according to formula (G4):

k 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tk 4121 -9/28 3/7 -l/5 215 -l/2 1

I-k-l 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

The (I-k-1)-weighted average of the Tk's is T = .070 (see

formula (GS)). Because of Var(T) = l/28 (see (G6)) the 50%
confidence limits for T are f.67H28 = f.127. Thus, T is within
its 50%-interval and the hypothesis of having uncorrelated
development factors is not rejected.

161
ADDendiX H: Testina for Calendar Year Effects

One of the three basic assumptions underlying the chain ladder

method was seen to be assumption (4) of the independence of the
accident years. The main reason why this independence can be
violated in practice is the fact that we can have certain
calendar year effects such as major changes in claims handling
or in case reserving or external influences such as substantial
changes in court decisions or inflation. Note that a constant
rate of inflation which has not been removed from the data is
extrapolated into the future by the chain ladder method. In the
following, we first generally describe a procedure to test for
such calendar year influences and then apply it to our example.

Desianina the test DrOCedUre:

A calendar year influence affects one of the diagonals

D-j = { Cjlt Cj-l,2, -*-r Cz,j-lt Clj 1 t 1 .s j 5 I,

and therefore also influences the adjacent development factors

A-j = 1 Cj2lCjlr Cj-1,3/Cj-l,2r -*-I Cl,j+l/Clj 1

and

Aj-1 = { Cj-l,Z/Cj-l,lr Cj-2,3/Cj-2,2# ---I Clj/Cl,j-1 )

where the elements of Dj form either the denominator or the
numerator. Thus, if due to a calendar year influence the
elements of Dj are larger (smaller) than usual, then the
elements of Aj-1 are also larger (smaller) than usual and the
elements of Aj are smaller (larger) than usual.

162
Therefore, in order to check for such calendar year influences
we only have to subdivide all development factors into 'smaller'
and *larger* ones and then to examine whether there are
diagonals where the small development factors or the large ones
clearly prevail. For this purpose, we order for every k, 1 5 k 5
I-l, the elements of the set

Fk = f ci,k+l/cik 1 1 S i 5 1-k ) I
i.e. of the column of all development factors observed between
development years k and k+l, according to their size and
subdivide them into one part LFk of larger factors being greater
than the median of Fk and into a second part SFk of smaller
factors below the median of Fk. (The median of a set of real

numbers is defined to be a number which divides the set into two

parts with the same number of elements.) If the number I-k of
elements of Fk is odd there is one element of Fk which is equal

to the median and therefore assigned to neither of the sets LFk

and SFk; this element is eliminated from all further
considerations.

Having done this procedure for each set Fk, 1 I k I I-l, every

development factor observed is

- either eliminated (like e.g. the only element of FI-1)
- or assigned to the set L = LFI + . . . + LFI-2 of larger factors
- or assigned to the set S = SF1 + . . . + SFI-2 of smaller
factors. In this way, every development factor which is not
eliminated has a 50% chance of belonging to either L or S.

163
Now we count for every diagonal Aj, 1 I j 5 I-l, of development
factors the number Lj of large factors, i.e. elements of L, and
the number Sj of small factors, i.e. elements of S. Intuitively,
if there is no specific change from calendar year j to calendar
year j+l, Aj should have about the same number of small factors
as of large factors, i.e. Lj and Sj should be of approximately
the same size apart from pure random fluctuations. But if Lj is
significantly larger or smaller than Sj or, equivalently, if

zj = min(Lj, Sj) ,

i.e. the smaller of the two figures, is significantly smaller

than (Lj+Sj)/Z, then there is some reason for a specific
calendar year influence.

In order to design a formal test we need the first two moments

of the probability distribution of Zj under the hypothesis that
each development factor has a 50 % probability of belonging to
either L or S. This distribution can easily be established. We
give an example for the case where Lj+Sj = 5, i.e. where the set
Aj contains 5 development factors without counting any
eliminated factor. Then the number Lj has a Binomial
distribution with n = 5 and p = ,5, i.e.
1
prob(Lj = m) = (t) = (1) f I m = 0, 1, . . . . 5.
F
Therefore
prob(Sj = 5) = prob(Lj = 0) = l/32 ,
prob(Sj = 4) = prob(Lj = 1) = 5/32 ,
 prob(Sj = 3) = prob(Lj = 2) = lo/32 ,
prob(Sj = 2) = prob(Lj = 3) = lo/32 ,
prob(Sj = 1) f prob(Lj = 4) = 5/32 ,
prob(Sj = 0) = prob(Lj = 5) = l/32 .
This yields
prob(Zj = 0) = prob(Lj = 0) + prob(Sj = 0) = 2/32 ,
prob(Zj = 1) = prob(Lj = 1) + prob(Sj = 1) = lo/32 ,

prob (z j = 2) = prob(Lj = 2) + prob(Sj = 2) = 20/32 ,

E(Zj) = (0.2 + 1.10 + 2*20)/32 = 50132 ,

E(Zj') = (0.2 + 1.10 + 4*20)/32 = 90/32 ,

Var(Zj) = E(Zj2) - (E(Zj))2 = 95/256 ,

The derivation of the general formula is straightforward but

tedious. We therefore give only its result. If n = Lj+Sj and m =
[(n-1)/2] denotes the largest integer $ (n-l)/2 then

n(n-1) n-l n(n-1)

(HZ) Var(Zj) = - - - + E(Zj) - (E(Zj)12 *
4 (m) 2"
It is not advisable to test each Zj separately in order to avoid
an accumulation of the error probabilities. Instead, we consider
z = z2 + . . . + ZI-1
where we have left out Z1 because Al contains at most one
element which is not eliminated and therefore Z1 is not a random
variable but always = 0. Similarly, we have to leave out any
other Zj if Lj+Sj 5 1. Because under the null-hypothesis
different Zj's are (almost) uncorrelated we have

165
 E(Z) = E(Z2) + . . . + E(ZT-1) ,
Var(Z) = Var(Z2) + . . . + Var(ZT-1)
and we can assume that Z approximately has a Normal
distribution. This means that we reject (with an error
probability of 5 %) the hypothesis of having no significant
calendar year effects only if not
E(Z) - 2*+ar(Z) 5 Z 5 E(Z) + 2&ar(Z) .

ADDliCatiOn to the examnle of Chaoter 6:

We start with the triangle of all development factors observed:

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9

i=l 1.6 1.32 1.08 1.15 1.20 1.11 1.033 1.00 1.01
i=2 40.4 1.26 1.98 1.29 1.13 0.99 1.043 1.03
i=3 2.6 1.54 1.16 1.16 1.19 1.03 1.026
i=4 2.0 1.36 1.35 1.10 1.11 1.04
i=5 8.8 1.66 1.40 1.17 1.01
i=6 4.3 1.82 1.11 1.23
i=7 7.2 2.72 1.12
i=8 5.1 1.89
i=9 1.7

We have to subdivide each column Fk into the subset SFk of

'smaller' factors below the median of Fk and into the subset LFk
of 'larger' factors above the median. This can be done very
easily with the help of the rank columns rik established in
Appendix G: The half of factors with small ranks belongs to SFk,
those with large ranks to LFk and if the total number is odd we
have to eliminate the mean rank. Replacing a small rank with

166
‘S’, a large rank with 'L' and a mean rank with *** we obtain
the following picture:

j-1 j-2 j-3 j-4 je5 j=6 j-7 j=8 jag

I- - - -

j=l s s s s L L * s *
j=2 L s L L * s L L
j=3 s s l s L s s
j ~‘4 s s L s s L
j==5 L L L L s
j=6 * L s L
j=7 L L s
j=8 L L
j=9 S

We now count for every diagonal Aj, 2 I j 5 9, the number Lj of

L's and the number Sj of S's. With the notations Zj = min(Lj,

Sj) I n = S-3 + Ljt m = [(n-1)/2] as above and using the formulae

(Hl), (H2) for E(Zj) and Var(Zj) we obtain the following table:

j S*3 L*3 Zj n m E(Zj) Var(Zj)

1 1 2 0 .5 .25
0 0 3 1 .75 .1875
1 1 4 1 1.25 .4375
3 1 4 1 1.25 .4375
3 1 4 1 1.25 .4375
4 2 6 2 2.0625 .6211
4 4 8 3 2.90625 .8037
4 4 8 3 2.90625 .8037

Total 14 12.875 3.9785 = (1.9946)2

The test statistic Z = CZj = 14 is not outside its 95%-range

(12.875 - 2B1.9946, 12.875 + 2e1.9946) = (8.886, 16.864) and

167
therefore the null-hypothesis of not having significant calendar
year influences is not rejected so that we can continue to apply
the chain ladder method.

168
 Figure 1 : Regression and Residuals
CL2 against Gil
12000
a

9000 81
0

6000

3000

0 f
C 2000 4000 6000

Gil

480

cI

240

0
a
0
---_-----___________-------------------------------
0
a 0
0

-480 1-
0 2000 4ocm 6000
Cil
 Figure 2: Regression and Residuals
Ci3 against Ci2
2oow

15000

10000

5000

Ci2

0 4000 8000 12000

Ci2

170
 Figure 3: Regression and Residuals
Ci4 against Ci3
24000

180oc

12000

6000

0
0 6000 12000 180 100
Ci3

60
q

30

5
-5
'i?
Q,
L 0

B
2
.-p1

g -30

-60 -I
0 6Oba 12000 113Ctoo

Ci3
 Figure 3: Regression and Residuals
Ci4 against Ci3
24000
85

12000

6000

0 4 I
0 6000 12000 16000
Ci3

60

30

.-s

? 0

B
q
z
or 000
‘G
?= -30

-80 -I- I I

0 6000 12000 1E 00
Ci3

172
 Figure 4: Regression and Residuals
Ci5 against Ci4
30000

0 SOW 16000 24000

Ci4

16

Ci4

173
 Figure 5: Regression and Residuals
Ci6 against Ci5
32000

24000

16000

27000
Ci5

0 0

0
---------------------------------------------~------

-20 I /
0 9000 18000 27000
Ci5

174
 Figure 6: Regression and Residuals
Ci7 against Ci6

Ci6

10

0 ____________________--------------------------------
0
0

-5
0

-10 r 1 ,
0 10000 20000 30000

Ci6

175
 Figure 7: Regression and Residuals
Ci8 against Ci7
32000

24000

16000

8000

0 10000 20000 30000

Ci7

.--ii
-33
_________________- -------------~--------------------.
i? 0
TJ
3
c
.-or
g -, q

-2
a 10000 20000 3QOOO

Ci7

176
 Figure 8: Regression and Residuals
Ci9 against Ci8
28uw

21000

14000

7000

0 8000 16000 24000

Ci8

_-_---____-____---__---------------------------------

Cl

r i I

8000 16oaO 2’ 100

138

177
 Figure 9: Residual Plots for fk0
8000 T-
X

+ooo-> X
X
X

____-_____-______-______________________------

X
x

-8000 r
a 2000 4000 6000
Cil

5000
X

2500
X

0 x

s X
'Z
2 0 ------------------_-------------------------------
X
a
3
-c X
,-m
X
x
g -2500

-5000
0 4000 8000 120 100
Ci2

178
 Figure 7 0: Residual Plots for fkO
5000

2500
X

0 x

.-G

% 0 -____--__--_--_------------------------------ _---
-u
3
s x x
a-cn
x x
g -2500

-5000
6000 72000
Ci3

1500
X

X
750

0
-0
3

‘63
p1 01
X
------------------------------------------
I
X

-1500 f r / 1
cl 8000 16ODO 2 +c 100
Ci4

179
 Figure 1 1 : Residual Plots for fk2

-6---~-----------------------------------------‘
"V
v v V V

0 2000 4000 6' 30

Gil

1.2
V

.6

V
V
0 _____________-------____________________-----------~
V

4000 aooo 12000

CA2

180
 Figure 12: Residual Plots for fk2

-.8

Ci3

.li
V

.06
V
5
2
'Z
L
@ 0 ____________________-------------------------------
-0 v
a, V
z v
al
'5
F -.06

-.12 , - 1 I

0 BOO0 16000 2u 100

ci4

181
 Figure 13: Plot of In(wk2) against k
I Ln co
0

182