Abstract

Abstract Under the European Union’s Solvency II regulations, insurance firms are required to use a one-year VaR (Value at Risk) approach. This involves a one-year projection of the balance sheet and requires sufficient capital to be solvent in 99.5% of outcomes. The Solvency II Internal Model risk calibrations require annual changes in market indices/term structure for the estimation of risk distribution for each of the Internal Model risk drivers. This presents a significant challenge for calibrators in terms of: Robustness of the calibration that is relevant to the current market regimes and at the same time able to represent the historically observed worst crisis; Stability of the calibration model year on year with arrival of new information. The above points need careful consideration to avoid credibility issues with the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR) calculation, in that the results are subject to high levels of uncertainty. For market risks, common industry practice to compensate for the limited number of historic annual data points is to use overlapping annual changes. Overlapping changes are dependent on each other, and this dependence can cause issues in estimation, statistical testing, and communication of uncertainty levels around risk calibrations. This paper discusses the issues with the use of overlapping data when producing risk calibrations for an Internal Model. A comparison of the overlapping data approach with the alternative non-overlapping data approach is presented. A comparison is made of the bias and mean squared error of the first four cumulants under four different statistical models. For some statistical models it is found that overlapping data can be used with bias corrections to obtain similarly unbiased results as non-overlapping data, but with significantly lower mean squared errors. For more complex statistical models (e.g. GARCH) it is found that published bias corrections for non-overlapping and overlapping datasets do not result in unbiased cumulant estimates and/or lead to increased variance of the process. In order to test the goodness of fit of probability distributions to the datasets, it is common to use statistical tests. Most of these tests do not function when using overlapping data, as overlapping data breach the independence assumption underlying most statistical tests. We present and test an adjustment to one of the statistical tests (the Kolmogorov Smirnov goodness-of-fit test) to allow for overlapping data. Finally, we explore the methods of converting “high”-frequency (e.g. monthly data) to “low”-frequency data (e.g. annual data). This is an alternative methodology to using overlapping data, and the approach of fitting a statistical model to monthly data and then using the monthly model aggregated over 12 time steps to model annual returns is explored. There are a number of methods available for this approach. We explore two of the widely used approaches for aggregating the time series.

Highlights

  • The results from a simulation study of the bias and mean squared error (MSE) present in cumulant estimation using annual overlapping and non-overlapping data are presented

  • There is a constant struggle between finding relevant data for risk calibration and sufficient data for robust calibration

  • There are some credible alternatives to using overlapping data such as temporal aggregation and annualisation; these alternatives bring their own limitations, and understanding of these limitations is key to using these alternatives

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The results from a simulation study of the bias and MSE present in cumulant estimation using annual overlapping and non-overlapping data are presented. Cumulants are similar to moments (the first three cumulants are the mean, variance, and skewness and are exactly the same for moments); further information about cumulants is given in Appendix A. Using a methodology outlined in Jarvis et al (2017), monthly time series data are simulated from a known distribution (reference model) for a given number of years. The first four cumulants based on annual data are calculated by considering both non-overlapping annual returns as well as overlapping annual returns (overlapping by 11 out of 12 months). By comparing the results of these with known cumulant values of the reference model and averaging across 1000 simulations, the bias and MSE of the estimates can be compared. This study is carried out using four different reference models:

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.