Solvency Assessment and
Management
2nd Non – Life Underwriting Risk Data
Request 2012 - Qualitative Questionnaire
23 November 2012
2nd Non-life underwriting risk data request
Qualitative Questionnaire
Insurer Name:
<QSP>
<QSP>
Insurer number1:
<QSR>
</QSR>
Please use the Ixxx number which is part of the reference number 10/10/Ixxx/8 in Statement A1 of the annual
statutory return.
1
Natural catastrophe risk
1.
a. Is the business captured correctly allocated to the appropriate zones
based on risk address?
<N1a>
<N1a>
b. If business is not captured by risk address, what steps are being taken to
improve this before SAM Implementation?
<N1b>
<N1b>
c. What difficulties do you foresee with this process?
<N1c>
<N1c>
2. Can you give an approximate indication of how your total business is split
between South Africa and other territories?
<N2>
<N2>
3. Please indicate which of the following reasons, if any, are a cause for incorrect
allocation of business amongst zones:
a) Group Scheme business – brokers capture incorrectly or don’t capture
relevant exposure information
b) Large risks – only the primary location or head office address is
captured
c) Other
<N3>
<N3>
4. If you responded (a) or (b) to Question 3, please can you elaborate on your
plans to remedy this problem going forward?
<N4>
<N4>
5. If you responded (c) to Question 3, please can you provide detail on the
problem in question?
<N5>
<N5>
6. Please indicate for your sources of information an approximate percentage split
between Internal/Broker/UMA in terms of where the information is captured?
<N6>
<N6>
7. Please can you provide us with your definition of corporate business, should you
write this class?
<N7>
<N7>
Premium and reserve risk
1. Segmentation
a. Was segment allocation done on a policy/contract level, on a policy
section level or on a claim type/peril level? If a mixture was used
dependent on the product or line of business, please describe your
approach. Considering Liability as an example, a company’s approach
might have been to allocate any Liability cover provided under an
Engineering policy to Engineering, whilst allocating any Liability cover
provided under a Commercial Property policy to Commercial Liability if
shown as a separate policy section. In the latter case, it may have been
decided to allocate Liability cover to Commercial Property if a separate
Liability policy section is not shown.
<PR1a>
<PR1a>
b. Please describe the quality of your data with regard to the ability to
allocate premiums and claims to the correct segments (regardless of
accessibility issues asked about in questions x). Please refer to historical
information as well as to data currently being captured.
<PR1b>
<PR1b>
c. Are any steps being taken to improve the quality of historical data with
regard to segmentation?
<PR1c>
<PR1c>
d. Are any steps being taken/will steps be taken to improve the future
quality of data with regard to segmentation? What are your main
challenges in achieving this?
<PR1d>
<PR1d>
2. Data
a. Please describe any distorting effects in your data, e.g. resulting from
large events or large single claims. Which segments, origin years and
development years do those relate to? Have any of those effects been
allowed for in the data submitted? Please explain.
<PR2a>
<PR2a>
b. Please describe the quality of your claims data with regard to the
availability of data on claim payments, claim expenses, salvages and
recoveries on an individual claim and transaction level. Are any steps
being taken to improve the quality of data?
<PR2b>
<PR2b>
c. Please describe the quality of your claims data with regard to the
availability of full movement data on reported outstanding claim
estimates, as opposed to storing only initial and current estimates. Are
any steps being taken to improve the quality of data?
<PR2c>
<PR2c>
d. Please describe any issues regarding the accessibility of your claims data?
<PR2d>
<PR2d>
e. Please indicate for your sources of information an approximate percentage
split between Internal/Broker/UMA in terms of where the information is
captured?
<PR2e>
<PR2e>
f. Please describe the quality of your claims data with regard to the ability to
extract/remove data relating to an event, such as a natural catastrophe.
<PR2f>
<PR2f>
g. Please describe the quality of your claims data with regard to the ability to
extract/remove portions of claims relating to specific reinsurance
contracts.
<PR2g>
<PR2g>
3. Calibration methods
a. Do you have comments on the appropriateness of the proposed premium
risk calibration methods, in general and/or for your business? Please
describe.
<PR3a>
<PR3a>
b. Do you have comments on the appropriateness of the proposed reserve
risk calibration methods, in general and/or for your business? Please
describe.
<PR3b>
<PR3b>
c. Please describe any alternative premium risk calibration methods that
might be used.
<PR3c>
<PR3c>
d. Please describe any alternative reserve risk calibration methods that
might be used.
<PR3d>
<PR3d>
e. Please comment on the potential for “double counting” under this and
other components of the non-life underwriting risk module of the standard
formula.
<PR3e>
<PR3e>
4. Confidentiality of data
a. There is a proposal to publish industry triangles per segment based on an
aggregation of data submitted. Do you have any objections against
and/or concerns with this, bearing in mind that summary claims data is
currently available from the statutory returns?
<PR4a>
<PR4a>
b. In terms of confidentiality, do you have any concerns with the FSB
providing the data to the NLUR Working Group as received? If so, please
explain why. The current intention, should confidentiality be deemed an
issue by the industry, is to have the data scaled and made anonymous by
the FSB before providing information to the Working Group.
<PR4b>
<PR4b>
c. If you indicated in b) that you have data confidentiality concerns with the
FSB providing data to the NLUR Working Group, an alternative approach
suggested is that the Working Group has access to the data while in the
offices of the FSB for calibration purposes. Would this adequately address
your concerns?
<PR4c>
<PR4c>
d. Would published industry triangles be beneficial to your company? How
would you potentially make use of this information?
<PR4d>
<PR4d>
e. Are your company’s run-off triangles used internally? Please list current
uses thereof? Are the triangles the same as those submitted? If not, how
are they different? E.g. different segmentation, removal of distorting
factors, different claims definitions?
<PR4e>
<PR4e>
5. Do you have any other comments relevant to the calibration?
<PR5>
<PR5>