DRM presentation
Template
Purpose
 CAS Working Party created these sample
slides for presentations involving elements of
Dynamic Risk Modeling (DRM)
 CAS Working Party believes that quality of
the presentation of DRM findings to the
management can be significantly improved
 CAS Working Party carefully selected topics
for slides and for every topic chose the best
suitable chart design
2003 CAS Research working party
2
Instructions
 You can use some or all slides for your presentation
 All slides in this template are “live”:
that is, editable Excel objects inside PowerPoint:




double-click on the chart to access spreadsheet behind it
you can change Chart properties on the “Chart 2” page
you can paste or generate your data on the “Sheet1” page
you can use all Excel formulae, macros and chart options
 All green text comments and arrows are PowerPoint
objects which can be easily edited and/or animated
2003 CAS Research working party
3
Disclaimer
 THIS PRESENTATION AND THE ACCOMPANYING





DOCUMENTS ARE SUPPLIED "AS IS" AND
WITHOUT WARRANTIES AS TO PERFORMANCE
OF MERCHANTABILITY OR ANY
OTHER WARRANTIES WHETHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED.
Because of the various hardware and software
environments into which these slides may be run,
NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE IS OFFERED
If you are still reading this legalese nonsense, you need to get a life. Sorry.
2003 CAS Research working party
4
DRM Presentation.doc
Text
(skeleton)
Foreword
Charts
(muscles)
Anatomy
…
Some
of Text
Presentation
…
Animation
Software
Ranking
Development
(skin)
Logic Flow
Conclusion
Reference
Websites
Uncertainty
Allocation
(brains)
Articles
Appendix
2003 CAS Research working party
5
Uncertainty
Aggregate Distribution
Profit distribution
1
0.28
0.24
0.8
Probability
0.2
0.6
0.16
Stop Loss
0.12
0.4
0.08
0.2
0.04
0
0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
0
20
30
40
Mil
pdf
cdf
2003 CAS Research working party
7
Reinsurance options
99% Range of Outcomes
Option4
Option3
Option2
Less risky
Option1
Less rewarding
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
2003 CAS Research working party
80
100
120
Millions
8
Liability cash flow
Distributions of Liability Cash Flow
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
2006
2005
2003 CAS Research working party
0
200
Millions
400
600
2003
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2004 Years
2,000
2,200
2,400
0
2,600
Probability
0.6
9
Liability cash flow
Distributions of Liability Cash Flow
Distributions of Liability Cash Flow
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
2006
2005
300
900
700
500
Millions
2003
1,100
1,500
1,300
1,900
1,700
2,300
2004 Years
2,100
2,500
2,700
0
2,700
2,500
2,300
2,100
1,900
1,700
1,500
Millions
1,300
1,100
900
700
500
300
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2006
2005
2004
2003
Distributions of Liability Cash Flow
Probability
0.6
0.4
Years
Distributions of Liability Cash Flow
2,700
2,500
2,300
2,100
Probability
Probability
0.6
2,700
2,500
2,300
2,100
1,900
1,700 Millions
1,500
1,300
1,100
900
700
500
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.10
1,900
1,700 Millions
1,500
1,300
1,100
900
700
500
300
2003
2004
2005
300
Probability 0.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0
2006
2003
Years
2004
2005
2006
Years
2003 CAS Research working party
10
Liability cash flow
Billions
Range of Liability Cash Flow Over Time
3.0
Max
90-95%ile
2.5
75-90%ile
50-75%ile
2.0
25-50%ile
10-25%ile
1.5
5-10%ile
0-5%ile
1.0
Min
Avg
0.5
0.0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2003 CAS Research working party
2012
2013
2014
11
Liability cash flow
Billions
Range of Liability Cash Flow Over Time
3.0
Max
90-95%ile
2.5
75-90%ile
50-75%ile
2.0
25-50%ile
10-25%ile
1.5
5-10%ile
0-5%ile
1.0
Min
Avg
0.5
0.0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2003 CAS Research working party
2012
2013
2014
12
Liability cash flow
Billions
Range of Liability Cash Flow Over Time
3.0
Max
90-95%ile
2.5
75-90%ile
50-75%ile
2.0
25-50%ile
1.5
10-25%ile
5-10%ile
1.0
0-5%ile
Min
0.5
0.0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2003 CAS Research working party
2012
2013
2014
13
Liability cash flow
Billions
Range of Liability Cash Flow Over Time
3.0
Max
90-95%ile
2.5
75-90%ile
50-75%ile
2.0
25-50%ile
1.5
10-25%ile
5-10%ile
1.0
0-5%ile
Min
0.5
0.0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2003 CAS Research working party
2012
2013
2014
14
Liability cash flow
Range of Liability Cash Flow Over Time
Billions
Max
2.5
90-95%ile
75-90%ile
2.0
50-75%ile
1.5
25-50%ile
10-25%ile
1.0
5-10%ile
0-5%ile
0.5
0.0
2003
Min
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2003 CAS Research working party
2012
2013
2014
15
Use of Capital by LOB
LOBs Performance
5.00%
4.50%
4.00%
LOB4
3.50%
RoE
3.00%
LOB3
2.50%
2.00%
LOB1
1.50%
1.00%
LOB2
0.50%
0.00%
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
10.00%
Capital Consumption
2003 CAS Research working party
16
Dare to compare
LOBs Performance
10.00%
9.00%
Capital Consumption
8.00%
LOB4
7.00%
6.00%
LOB1
5.00%
4.00%
LOB3
3.00%
LOB2
2.00%
Which one is Better?
1.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
ROE
2003 CAS Research working party
17
Uncertainties pile up
Calculating changes in NPV
Investment Return
Uncertainty
Discount
Uncertainty
Payout Uncertainty
Reserve
Uncertainty
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
2003 CAS Research working party
150
200
250
300
Millions
18
Uncertainties pile up
Calculating changes in NPV
Probability
0.2
0.1
+Investment Unceratinty
+Discount Uncertainty
0
+Payout Uncertainty
-200 -160
-120 -80
-40
Mil
0
40
Reserve Uncertainty
80
120
160
200
2003 CAS Research working party
19
Ranking
Value of Reinsurance
Projected Combined Ratios with and without reinsurance
3.4
2.9
current
reinsurance
Projected Likelihood
2.4
1.9
no
reinsurance
1.4
0.9
what you get back
0.4
what you give up
-0.1
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
2003 CAS Research working party
1.6
1.8
2
21
Dare to compare
LOBs Performance
10.00%
9.00%
Capital Consumption
8.00%
LOB4
7.00%
6.00%
LOB1
5.00%
4.00%
LOB3
3.00%
LOB2
2.00%
Which one is Better?
1.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
ROE
2003 CAS Research working party
22
Reinsurance options
Risk-Reward
0.58
Millions
26
25
0.49
Std. Deviation
24
40.74, 23.6
23
0.46
46.99, 22.97
22
48.66, 22.15
44.04, 21.57
21
20
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Millions
Underw riting Result
2003 CAS Research working party
23
Reinsurance options
Risk-Reward
Millions
26
25
Std. Deviation
24
40.74, 23.6
23
46.99, 22.97
22
48.66, 22.15
21
44.04, 21.57
20
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Millions
Underw riting Results
2003 CAS Research working party
24
Different criteria
Max ROE per Capital
Max ROE per Capital 2
LOBs Performance
LOBs Performance
10.00%
10.00%
9.00%
9.00%
8.00%
LOB4
7.00%
Capital Consumption
Capital Consumption
8.00%
6.00%
LOB1
5.00%
4.00%
LOB3
3.00%
LOB2
2.00%
6.00%
LOB1
5.00%
4.00%
LOB3
3.00%
LOB2
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0.00%
LOB4
7.00%
1.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.50%
ROE
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
ROE
Still the best
2003 CAS Research working party
25
Development & Trends
Cash Flow over time
Billions
Run-Off Payout
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2003 CAS Research working party
2002
2003
2004
27
Cash Flow over time
Billions
Range of Liability Cash Flow Over Time
(10 - 90 percentiles)
3.0
2.5
Theoretically possible ranges
2.0
More realistic outcomes
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2003 CAS Research working party
2011
2012
2013
2014
28
Cash Flow over time
Billions
Range of Liability Cash Flow Over Time
(5-95 percentiles)
3.0
Max
90-95%ile
2.5
75-90%ile
These “bumps” are dividend payments
50-75%ile
2.0
25-50%ile
10-25%ile
1.5
5-10%ile
0-5%ile
1.0
Min
Avg
0.5
0.0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2003 CAS Research working party
2012
2013
2014
29
RoE development
GAAP RoE
25.00%
20.00%
5 %ile
15.00%
20 %ile
10.00%
50 %ile
5.00%
80 %ile
0.00%
95 %ile
-5.00%
Stable and slightly increasing
-10.00%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2003 CAS Research working party
2004
2005
30
RoE comparison
GAAP RoE (no-Reinsurance vs. Reinsurance)
30.00%
Curr 5%ile
25.00%
Curr 20%ile
20.00%
Curr 50%ile
Curr 80%ile
15.00%
Curr 95%ile
10.00%
Alt 5%ile
5.00%
Alt 20%ile
0.00%
Alt 50%ile
-5.00%
Alt 80%ile
Alt 95%ile
-10.00%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2003 CAS Research working party
2004
2005
31
Asset – Liability Matching
Asset - Liability Matching
8
7
6
Billions
5
4
Losses
Assets
3
2
Not enough
1
0
-1
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2003 CAS Research working party
2004
2005
32
Asset – Liability Matching
Asset - Liability Matching
8
7
6
Billions
5
Losses
Assets
4
Poly. (Assets)
3
Poly. (Losses)
2
Not enough
and getting worse
1
0
-1
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2003 CAS Research working party
2005
2006
33
Cash Flow Forecast
Billions
Cash Flow Over Time
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2003 CAS Research working party
2005
2006
2007
2008
34
Simulations
Hedging
Increase in Capital & Surplus
10.00%
8.00%
Increase With Hedge
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
-2.00%
-4.00%
-6.00%
-8.00%
-10.00%
-10.00%
-8.00%
-6.00%
-4.00%
-2.00%
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
Increase Without Hedge
2003 CAS Research working party
36
Allocations
Change in Allocation
11.0%
7.0%
51.0%
Bonds
31.0%
Equity
Cash
7.0%
Other
11.0%
11.0%
71.0%
Less Equity
More bonds
2003 CAS Research working party
38
Change in Allocation
Investment Strategies
Alt
7.0%
Alt
11.0%
Bonds
7.0%
11.0%
Equity
Alt
11.0%
Cash
51.0%
31.0%
Less Equity
Other
Alt
71.0%
More bonds
2003 CAS Research working party
39
Change in Allocation
Investment Strategies
More bonds
Less Equity
71.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
51.0%
40.0%
Curr
30.0%
Alt
31.0%
20.0%
11.0%
11.0%
10.0%
11.0%
0.0%
7.0%
7.0%
Bonds
Equity
Alt
Cash
Other
2003 CAS Research working party
Curr
40
Change in Allocation
Investment Strategies
80.0%
More bonds Less Equity
71.0%
70.0%
60.0%
51.0%
50.0%
Curr
Alt
40.0%
31.0%
30.0%
20.0%
11.0%
11.0% 11.0%
7.0%
10.0%
7.0%
0.0%
Bonds
Equity
Cash
2003 CAS Research working party
Other
41
Change in Allocation
Investment Strategies
80.0%
More bonds Less Equity
71.0%
70.0%
60.0%
51.0%
50.0%
Curr
Alt
40.0%
31.0%
30.0%
20.0%
11.0%
11.0% 11.0%
7.0%
10.0%
7.0%
0.0%
Bonds
Equity
Cash
2003 CAS Research working party
Other
42
Change in Allocation
Investment Strategies
80.0%
More bonds Less Equity
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Bonds
Equity
Cash
Other
Curr
51.0%
31.0%
11.0%
7.0%
Alt
71.0%
11.0%
11.0%
7.0%
2003 CAS Research working party
43
Change in Allocation
Investment Strategies
Less Equity
100%
80%
More bonds
51.0%
71.0%
60%
40%
31.0%
11.0%
20%
0%
11.0%
7.0%
11.0%
7.0%
Curr
Alt
Bonds
51.0%
71.0%
Equity
31.0%
11.0%
Cash
11.0%
11.0%
Other
7.0%
7.0%
2003 CAS Research working party
44
Change in Allocation
Portfolio structure
100%
7.0%
11.0%
80%
7.0%
11.0%
11.0%
5.0%
12.0%
6.0%
12.0%
25.0%
10.0%
5.0%
31.0%
60%
26.0%
12.0%
40%
71.0%
77.0%
60.0%
51.0%
50.0%
20%
0%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Other
7.0%
7.0%
5.0%
25.0%
12.0%
AL
11.0%
11.0%
12.0%
10.0%
26.0%
GL
31.0%
11.0%
6.0%
5.0%
12.0%
WC
51.0%
71.0%
77.0%
60.0%
50.0%
2003 CAS Research working party
It was a VERY bad idea
45
Change in Allocation
Portfolio structure
It was a VERY bad idea
100%
90%
80%
70%
51.0%
60.0%
71.0%
60%
50.0%
77.0%
50%
12.0%
40%
30%
5.0%
10.0%
31.0%
11.0%
20%
11.0%
11.0%
7.0%
7.0%
6.0%
26.0%
25.0%
1998
1999
12.0%
5.0%
2000
WC
51.0%
71.0%
77.0%
60.0%
50.0%
GL
31.0%
11.0%
6.0%
5.0%
12.0%
AL
11.0%
11.0%
12.0%
10.0%
26.0%
Other
7.0%
7.0%
5.0%
25.0%
12.0%
10%
0%
2003 CAS Research working party
12.0%
2001
2002
46
Visual Selections
Visual Selections
Payout Pattern
102.0%
100.0%
98.0%
96.0%
Avg
Slow
94.0%
Fast
92.0%
Industry
Can edit – right on the chart!
Selected
90.0%
88.0%
86.0%
84.0%
0
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
2003 CAS Research working party
96
108
120
48
Conventions
Lines, Colors, Shapes
Probability Density Function
0.28
“connect the dots” curve
0.24
Probability
0.20
0.16
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.00
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
0
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Outcomes ($Mil)
2003 CAS Research working party
50
Lines, Colors, Shapes
expected
2003 CAS Research working party
51
Lines, Colors, Shapes
GAAP RoE
25.00%
20.00%
5 %ile
15.00%
20 %ile
10.00%
50 %ile
5.00%
80 %ile
0.00%
95 %ile
-5.00%
-10.00%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2003 CAS Research working party
2004
2005
52
Lines, Colors, Shapes
Std. deviation
Millions
Risk vs. Reward
30
25
Good
20
Better
15
Better yet
10
5
0
$-
The best
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
Millions
Return
2003 CAS Research working party
53
Not to Do
Too Much Info
50%
40%
Expected Return
L
30%
J
I
H
20%
G
N
R
Q
O
P
F
K
C
D
E
B
A
M
10%
0%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
Level of Risk
2003 CAS Research working party
55
Too Much Info
2003 CAS Research working party
56
Missing Info
Risk Return Tradeoff Chart
Return - Expected SAP Net Income (after-tax)
40,000
35,000
NO REIN
30,000
STOP LOSS
EXCESS
25,000
20,000
PRO RATA
15,000
10,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
Risk - Standard Deviation of Net Income (after-tax)
2003 CAS Research working party
57
Missing Info
Risk Return Tradeoff Chart
W
or
se
Be
tte
r
Ju
st
O
K
$40,000
Return - Expected SAP Net Income (after-tax)
$35,000
No Rein
$30,000
Stop Loss
Excess
$25,000
$20,000
Pro Rata
$15,000
$10,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
$55,000
$60,000
$65,000
$70,000
Risk - Standard Deviation of Net Income (after-tax)
2003 CAS Research working party
58
Presentation Flow
Old version
Line of Business A
Corporate Elements
•Business volume
•Business characteristics
•Pricing
Starting Balance
Sheet
Reinsurance
Program*
Investment
Strategy
Capital
Structure
Tax
Calculator
Non-Insurance
Income
Affiliate
Results
•Claims
• Paid and Reserved
•Expenses
•Cash flow pattern
•Reserving patterns
•Policyholder dividends
Line of Business B
Financial
Calculator
Year 1
Financial Results
Line of Business C
•Balance Sheet
...
Line of Business Z
•Income Statement
GAAP
Statutory
Economic
Analyzer
Measures of
•Risk
•Return
2003 CAS Research working party
•Capital Requirements
60
DRM flow
LOB 1
Business characteristics
and patterns
Starting
Balance Sheet
Corporate Elements
LOB 2
Business characteristics
and patterns
LOB 3
Reinsurance
Investment
Capital Mix
Taxes
Financial
Calculator
Business characteristics
and patterns
Year 1
Financial Results
Analyzer
•Balance Sheet
•Income Statement
2003 CAS Research working party
Measures of
•Risk
•Return
Capital
Requirement
61
DRM flow
Assumptions/Model
 
 ( x) 
( x   ) 1
Assumptions
Test
Parameters
  1.892
  219,300
H 0 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
H1 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
Profit distribution
0.28
E (NPVcompany )  $25.5M
1
0.24
Probability
Option 2: Buy Reinsurance
0.8
0.2
0.16
0.6
0.12
0.4
0.08
0.2
0.04
0
0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10
Results
0
10 20 30 40
Simulations
2003 CAS Research working party
62
Model / Assumptions
 
 ( x) 
( x   ) 1
  1.892
  219,300
H 0 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
H1 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
Profit distribution
0.28
E (NPVcompany )  $25.5M
1
0.24
Probability
Option 2: Buy Reinsurance
0.8
0.2
0.16
0.6
0.12
0.4
0.08
0.2
0.04
0
0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10
2003 CAS Research working party
0
10 20 30 40
63
Model / Assumptions
 ( x) 
Adequate complexity


( x   ) 1
• enough parameters
Not overwhelmingly convoluted
• not too many parameters
Accurately represents processes and relationships
• enough equations
2003 CAS Research working party
64
Parameters
 
 ( x) 
( x   ) 1
  1.892
  219,300
H 0 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
H1 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
Profit distribution
0.28
E (NPVcompany )  $25.5M
1
0.24
Probability
Option 2: Buy Reinsurance
0.8
0.2
0.16
0.6
0.12
0.4
0.08
0.2
0.04
0
0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10
2003 CAS Research working party
0
10 20 30 40
65
Parameters
Industry Statistics
  1.892
  219,300
• LDF, inflation
Fit
• maximum likelihood, minimum squares
Guess
• actuarial judgment
2003 CAS Research working party
66
Simulations
 
 ( x) 
( x   ) 1
  1.892
  219,300
H 0 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
H1 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
Profit distribution
0.28
E (NPVcompany )  $25.5M
1
0.24
Probability
Option 2: Buy Reinsurance
0.8
0.2
0.16
0.6
0.12
0.4
0.08
0.2
0.04
0
0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10
2003 CAS Research working party
0
10 20 30 40
67
Simulations
Fast
Profit distribution
0.28
1
Probability
0.24
0.8
• not too many
0.2
0.16
0.6
0.12
0.4
0.08
0.2
0.04
0
0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10
0
10 20 30 40
Adequate precision
• not too few
The best way to model uncertainty
• believe me – I’ve tried
2003 CAS Research working party
68
Results
 
 ( x) 
( x   ) 1
  1.892
  219,300
H 0 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
H1 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
Profit distribution
0.28
E (NPVcompany )  $25.5M
1
0.24
Probability
Option 2: Buy Reinsurance
0.8
0.2
0.16
0.6
0.12
0.4
0.08
0.2
0.04
0
0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10
2003 CAS Research working party
0
10 20 30 40
69
Results
Usually a distribution
• to represent multiple possible outcomes
Option 2: Buy Reinsurance
E (NPVcompany )  $25.5M
Require interpretation
• that what are actuaries for
Attuned for decision making
• that’s the whole idea, isn’t it
2003 CAS Research working party
70
Assumptions Testing
 
 ( x) 
( x   ) 1
  1.892
  219,300
H 0 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
H1 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
Profit distribution
0.28
E (NPVcompany )  $25.5M
1
0.24
Probability
Option 2: Buy Reinsurance
0.8
0.2
0.16
0.6
0.12
0.4
0.08
0.2
0.04
0
0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10
2003 CAS Research working party
0
10 20 30 40
71
Assumptions Testing
Feedback
H 0 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
• impossible results trigger review of assumptions
H1 : FX ( x)  F ( x; , )
Parameters testing
• checking acceptability hypothesis
Bayesian corrections
• new data allow to adjust parameters a posteriori
2003 CAS Research working party
72
Liquidity
Liquidity Management
5%
750%
4%
640.00%
3%
600%
450%
2%
300%
2.00%
1%
1.50%
200.00%
150%
0%
0%
Policy Requirement
Actual
Operating Liquidity
Policy Requirement
Actual
Event Liquidity
2003 CAS Research working party
73
License
 Can use – can’t sell
© 2003. CAS “Executive Decision Making Using DRM” Research Working Party
© 2003. Design. Aleksey Popelyukhin
2003 CAS Research working party
74
References









http://www.dfa.com/flash.html
http://www.casact.com/coneduc/dfa/2000/handouts/leibowitz.ppt
http://www.casact.com/coneduc/rcm/2003/RCMHandouts/bohra1.ppt
http://www.casact.com/coneduc/rcm/2003/RCMHandouts/isaac2.ppt
http://www.casact.com/coneduc/dfa/2001/handouts/stricker1.ppt
http://www.casact.com/coneduc/dfa/2001/handouts/schwartz1.pdf
http://www.casact.com/coneduc/dfa/99dfa/handouts/newman.ppt
http://www.casact.com/coneduc/dfa/99dfa/handouts/conger.ppt
http://www.casact.com/coneduc/reinsure/2001/handouts/venter1.ppt
2003 CAS Research working party
75
Charting Software
 Power Plugs for Power Point: Chart

(http://www.crystalgraphics.com/presentations/charts.m
ain.asp)
 Tecplot

(http://www.tecplot.com)
 NetCharts

(http://www.visualmining.com/examples/graphs.html)
 Mathematica

(http://www.wolfram.com/solutions/statistics/packages.
html)
2003 CAS Research working party
76
Use of Capital by LOB
LOBs Performance
10.00%
9.00%
Capital Consumption
8.00%
LOB4
7.00%
6.00%
LOB1
5.00%
4.00%
LOB3
3.00%
LOB2
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
ROE
2003 CAS Research working party
77