Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Skip to main content
Variance
  • Menu
  • Articles
    • Actuarial
    • Capital Management
    • Claim Management
    • Data Management and Information
    • Financial and Statistical Methods
    • Other
    • Ratemaking and Product Information
    • Reserving
    • Risk Management
    • All
  • For Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • About
  • Issues
  • Archives
  • Variance Prize
  • search

RSS Feed

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

http://localhost:48312/feed
Ratemaking and Product Information
Vol. 9, Issue 1, 2015January 01, 2015 EDT

Risk Classification for Claim Counts and Losses Using Regression Models for Location, Scale and Shape

George Tzougas, Spyridon Vrontos, Nicholas Frangos,
Claim frequencyclaim severityregression models for locationscale and shapea priori risk classificationexpected value premium calculation principlestandard deviation premium calculation principle
Photo by Loic Leray on Unsplash
Variance
Tzougas, George, Spyridon Vrontos, and Nicholas Frangos. 2015. “Risk Classification for Claim Counts and Losses Using Regression Models for Location, Scale and Shape.” Variance 9 (1): 140–57.
Save article as...▾

View more stats

Abstract

This paper presents and compares different risk classification models for the frequency and severity of claims employing regression models for location, scale and shape. The differences between these models are analyzed through the mean and the variance of the annual number of claims and the costs of claims of the insureds who belong to different risk classes, and interesting results about claiming behavior are obtained. Furthermore, the resulting a priori premiums rates are calculated via the expected value and standard deviation principles with independence between the claim frequency and severity components assumed.

1. Introduction

The idea behind a priori risk classification is to split an insurance portfolio into classes that consist of risks with all policyholders belonging to the same class paying the same premium. In view of the economic importance of motor third party liability (MTPL) insurance in developed countries, actuaries have made many attempts to find a probabilistic model for the distribution of the number and costs of claims reported by policyholders.

Recent actuarial literature research assumes that the risks can be rated a priori using generalized linear models, GLM (Nelder and Wedderburn 1972) and generalized additive models, GAM (Hastie and Tibshirani 1990). For motor insurance, typical response variables in these regression models are the number of claims (or claim frequency) and its corresponding severity. References for a priori risk classification include, for example, Dionne and Vanasse (1989, 1992), Dean, Lawless, and Willmot (1989), Denuit and Lang (2004), Yip and Yau (2005), and Boucher, Denuit, and Guillen (2007). Dionne and Vanasse used a negative binomial type I regression model. Dean, Lawless, and Willmot used a Poisson-inverse Gaussian regression model. Denuit and Lang used generalized additive models. Yip and Yau presented several parametric zero-inflated count distributions and Boucher, Denuit, and Guillen presented a comparison of various zero-inflated Mixed Poisson and Hurdle Models. Also, a review of actuarial models for risk classification and insurance ratemaking can be found in Denuit et al. (2007).

The models briefly described above assume that only the mean is modeled as a function of risk factors. However, any model for the mean in terms of a priori rating variables indirectly yields a model for scale and/or shape. Also, even if the mean is the most commonly used measure of the expected claim frequency and of the expected claim severity it does not provide a good description of a distribution’s scale and shape. The scale and shape parameters are not adequately described due to the unobserved heterogeneity changes with explanatory variables. In this study, we extend this setup by assuming that all the parameters of the claim frequency/severity distributions can be modeled as functions of explanatory variables with parametric linear functional forms. Joint modeling of all the parameters in terms of covariates improves rate making and estimation of the scale and shape of the claim frequency/severity distributions. In light of a priori ratemaking there is a substantial benefit in this approach, since by modeling all the parameters jointly, both mean and variance may be assessed by choosing a marginal distribution and building a predictive model using all the available ratemaking factors as independent variables. In this respect, risk heterogeneity is modeled as the distribution of frequency and/or severity of claims changes between classes of policyholders by a function of the level of ratemaking factors underlying the analyzed classes. We model the claim frequency using the Poisson, negative binomial type II, Delaporte, Sichel and zero-inflated Poisson models and the claim severity using the gamma, Weibull, Weibull type III, generalized gamma and generalized Pareto models. Our contribution puts focus on the comparison of these models through their variance values and not only the mean values as usually considered in risk classification literature. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first time that the variance of the claim frequency and severity is modeled in the context of ratemaking. Furthermore, the variance of the claim frequency and severity is an important risk measure of the specific class of policyholders, as it can provide a measure of the uncertainty regarding the mean claim frequency and the mean claim severity of the specific class, and the difference in the premium that it implies can act as a cushion against adverse experience.

The difference between the premium and the mean loss is the premium loading. Estimates of variance values are produced by employing a parametric regression for the scale and/or the shape parameters in addition to the mean parameter. However, the commonly used specification that only the mean claim frequency/severity is modeled in terms of risk factors was widely accepted for ratemaking. In this respect, a priori ratemaking is refined by taking in to account the variance values yielded by modeling jointly all the parameters in terms of risk factors. Furthermore, the differences in the variance values alter significantly the premiums calculated through the standard deviation principle since it is understood that in this case the loading is related to the variability of the loss. Thus, joint modeling of location, scale and shape parameters is justified because it enables us to use all the available information in the estimation of these values through the use of the important explanatory variables for the claim frequency and severity, respectively.

The rest of this paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 introduces the alternative distributions we employ for modeling claim frequency and severity. Section 3 contains an application to a data set concerning car-insurance claims at fault. These classification models are compared on the basis of a sample of the automobile portfolio of a major company operating in Greece employing the generalized Akaike information criterion (GAIC) which is valid for both nested or non-nested model comparisons (as suggested by Rigby and Stasinopoulos 2005, 2009). The differences between these models are analyzed through the mean and the variance of the annual number of claims and the costs of claims of the policyholders who belong to different risk classes, which are formed by dividing the portfolio into clusters defined by the relevant ratemaking factors. Finally, the resulting premium rates are calculated via the expected value and standard deviation principles with independence between the claim frequency and severity components assumed.

2. Regression models for location, scale and shape

This section summarizes the characteristics of the various count and loss models used in this study. As we have mentioned, in the setup we extend the recent a priori risk classification research by assuming that every parameter of the conditional response frequency/severity distribution is modeled in terms of covariates through the use of known monotonic link functions chosen to ensure a valid range for the distribution parameters.[1]

2.1. Frequency component

Consider a policyholder i whose number of claims, denoted as Ki, are independent, for i = 1, . . . , n. The probability that the policyholder i has reported k claims to the insurer, k = 0, 1, 2, . . . , is denoted by P (Ki=k). In this study, besides the traditional Poisson regression model, we model the claim frequency using a negative binomial type II, Delaporte, Sichel and zero-inflated mixed Poisson regression model for location scale and shape.

  • The probability density function (pdf) of the Poisson distribution is given by[2]

    \[ P\left(K_{i}=k\right)=\frac{e^{-\mu} \mu^{k}}{k!} \tag{1}. \]

We allow the μ parameter to vary from one individual to another. Let \(\mu_i=e_i \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_1\right)\), where ei denotes the exposure of policy i and where \(\beta_1^T\left(\beta_{1,1}, \ldots, \beta_{1, J_1^{\prime}}\right)\) is the 1 \(\times\) J1 vector of the coefficients. The mean and the variance of Ki are given by[3]

\[ E\left(K_{i}\right)=\operatorname{Var}\left(k_{i}\right)=\mu_{i}=e_{i} \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_{1}\right) . \tag{2} \]

  • The pdf of negative binomial type II (NBII) distribution is given by[4]

    \[ P\left(K_{i}=k\right)=\frac{\Gamma\left(k+\frac{\mu}{\sigma}\right) \sigma^{k}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{\mu}{\sigma}\right) \Gamma(k+1)[1+\sigma]^{k+\frac{\mu}{\sigma}}}, \tag{3} \]

for μ > 0 and σ > 0. Following Rigby and Stasinopoulos (2005, 2009), we assume that \(\mu_i=e_i \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_1\right)\) and \(\sigma_i=\exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_2\right)\), where \(c_{j i}\left(c_{j i, 1}, \ldots, c_{j i, J_1^{\prime}}\right)\) and \(\beta_j^T\left(\beta_{j, 1}, \ldots, \beta_{j, J_1}\right)\) are the 1 \(\times\) J’1 vectors of the a priori rating variables and the coefficients respectively, for j = 1, 2. The mean and the variance of Ki are given by

\[ E\left(K_{i}\right)=e_{i} \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_{1}\right) \tag{4} \]

and

\[ \operatorname{Var}\left(K_{i}\right)=e_{i} \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_{1}\right)\left[1+\exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_{2}\right)\right]. \tag{5} \]

  • The pdf of the Delaporte distribution is given by[5]

    \[ P\left(K_{i}=k\right)=\frac{e^{-\mu \nu}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{\sigma}\right)}[1+\mu \sigma(1-v)]^{-\frac{1}{\sigma}} S \tag{6} \]

where σi > 0 and 0 ≤ ν < 1 and where

\[ S=\sum_{m=0}^{k}\binom{k}{m} \frac{\mu^{k} v^{k-m}}{k!}\left[\mu+\frac{1}{\sigma(1-k)}\right]^{-m} \Gamma\left(\frac{1}{\sigma}+m\right). \tag{7} \]

Following Rigby, Stasinopoulos, and Akantziliotou (2008; Rigby and Stasinopoulos 2009), we assume that \(\mu_i=e_i \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_1\right), \sigma_i=\exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_2\right)\) and \(v_{i}=\frac{\exp \left(c_{3 i} \beta_{3}\right)}{1+\exp \left(c_{3 i} \beta_{3}\right)}\), where \(c_{j i}\left(c_{j i, 1}, \ldots, c_{j i, J_j^{\prime}}\right)\) and \(\beta_j^T\left(\beta_{j, 1}, \ldots, \beta_{j, J'_j}\right)\) are the 1 \(\times\) J’j vectors of the a priori rating variables and the coefficients respectively, for j = 1, 2, 3. The mean and variance of Ki are given by

\[ E\left(K_{i}\right)=e_{i} \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_{1}\right) \tag{8} \]

and

\[ \begin{array}{l} \operatorname{Var}\left(K_{i}\right)=e_{i} \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_{1}\right)+\left[e_{i} \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_{1}\right)\right]^{2} \\ \quad \exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_{2}\right)\left[1-\frac{\exp \left(c_{3 i} \beta_{3}\right)}{1+\exp \left(c_{3 i} \beta_{3}\right)}\right]^{2}. \end{array} \tag{9} \]

  • The pdf of the Sichel distribution is given by[6]

    \[ P\left(K_{i}=k\right)=\frac{\left(\frac{\mu}{c}\right)^{k} K_{k+\nu}(a)}{k!(a \sigma)^{k+v} K_{\nu}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma}\right)}, \tag{10} \]

where σ > 0 and \(-\infty<V<\infty\) and where \(c=\frac{K_{\nu+1}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma}\right)}{K_{\nu}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma}\right)},\)where

\[ K_{\nu}(z)=\frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{\infty} x^{\nu-1} \exp \left[-\frac{1}{2} z\left(x+\frac{1}{x}\right)\right] d x, \tag{11} \]

is the modified Bessel function of the third kind of order ν with argument z and where a2σ−2 2μ(cσ)−1. Following Rigby, Stasinopoulos, and Akantziliotou (2008) and Rigby and Stasinopoulos (2009), we assume that \(\mu_i=e_i \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_1\right), \sigma_i=\exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_2\right)\) and \(\nu_i=c_3 \beta_3\), where \(c_{j i}\left(c_{j i, 1}, \ldots, c_{j i, J_j^{\prime}}\right)\) and \(\beta_j^T\left(\beta_{j, 1}, \ldots, \beta_{j, J'_j}\right)\) are the 1 \(\times\) J’j vectors of the a priori rating variables and the coefficients respectively, for j = 1, 2, 3. The mean and variance of Ki are given by

\[ E\left(K_{i}\right)=e_{i} \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_{1}\right) \tag{12} \]

and

\[ \begin{aligned} \operatorname{Var}\left(K_{i}\right)= & e_{i} \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_{1}\right)+\left[e_{i} \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_{1}\right)\right]^{2} \\ & \left\{\frac{2 \exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_{2}\right)\left[c_{3 i} \beta_{3}+1\right]}{c_{i}}+\frac{1}{c_{i}^{2}}-1\right\}, \end{aligned} \tag{13} \]

where \(c_{i}=\frac{K_{c_{3 i} \beta_{3}+1}\left(\frac{1}{\exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_{2}\right)}\right)}{K_{c_{3} \beta_{3}}\left(\frac{1}{\exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_{2}\right)}\right)}\).

  • The pdf of the zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) distribution is given by[7]

    \[ P\left(K_{i}=k\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{l} \pi+(1-\pi) e^{-\mu}, \text { if } k=0 \\ (1-\pi) \frac{e^{-\mu} \mu^{k}}{k!}, \text { if } k=1,2,3, \ldots \end{array}\right. \tag{14} \]

Following Rigby and Stasinopoulos (2005, 2009), we assume that \(\mu_i=e_i \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_1\right)\) and \(\pi=\frac{\exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_{2}\right)}{1+\exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_{2}\right)}\) where \(c_{j i}\left(c_{j i, 1}, \ldots, c_{j i, J_j}\right)\) and βTj \(\left(\beta_{j, 1}, \ldots, \beta_{j, J'_j}\right)\) are the 1 × J′j vectors of the a priori rating variables and the coefficients respectively, for j = 1, 2. The mean and the variance of Ki are given by

\[ E\left(K_{i}\right)=e_{i} \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_{1}\right)\left[1-\exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_{2}\right)\right] \tag{15} \]

and

\[ \begin{array}{l} \operatorname{Var}\left(K_{i}\right)=e_{i} \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_{1}\right)\left[1-\exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_{2}\right)\right] \\ \qquad {\left[1+e_{i} \exp \left(c_{1 i} \beta_{1}\right) \exp \left(c_{2 i} \beta_{2}\right)\right] .} \end{array} \tag{16} \]

2.2. Severity component

In this section, we need to consider the claim severities. Let Xi,k be the cost of the kth claim reported by policyholder i, i = 1, . . . , n and assume that the individual claim costs \(X_{i, 1}, X_{i, 2}, \ldots\) are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d). Different models are used to describe the behavior of the costs of claims as a function of the explanatory variables including gamma, Weibull, Weibull type III, generalized gamma, and generalized Pareto regression models for location, scale and shape.

  • The pdf of the gamma distribution is given by[8]

    \[ f(x)=\frac{1}{\left(s^{2} m\right)^{\frac{1}{s^{2}}}} \frac{x^{\frac{1}{s^{2}}-1} \exp \left(-\frac{x}{s^{2} m}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{s^{2}}\right)} ,\tag{17} \]

for Xi,k > 0, where m > 0 and s > 0. Following Rigby and Stasinopoulos (2009), we assume that mi = \(\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_1\right)\) and \(s_i=\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_2\right)\), where \(d_{j i}\left(d_{j i, 1}, \ldots, d_{j, J'_j}\right)\) and \(\gamma_j^T\left(\gamma_{j, 1}, \ldots, \gamma_{j, J_j}\right)\) are the 1 \(\times\) J’j vectors of the exogenous variables and the coefficients respectively for j = 1, 2. The mean and variance of Xi,k are given by

\[ E\left(X_{i, k}\right)=\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_{1}\right) \tag{18} \]

and

\[ \operatorname{Var}\left(X_{i, k}\right)=\left[\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_{2}\right)\right]^{2}\left[\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_{1}\right)\right]^{2}. \tag{19} \]

  • The pdf of the Weibull distribution is given by[9]

    \[ f(x)=\frac{s x^{s-1}}{m^{s}} \exp \left[-\left(\frac{x}{m}\right)^{s}\right], \tag{20} \]

where m > 0 and s > 0. Following Rigby and Stasinopoulos (2009), we assume that \(m_i=\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_1\right)\) and \(s_i=\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_2\right)\), where \(d_{j i}\left(d_{j i, 1}, \ldots, d_{j i, J'_j}\right)\) and \(\gamma_j^T\left(\gamma_{j, 1}, \ldots, \gamma_{j, J'_j}\right)\) are the 1 \(\times\) J’j vectors of the exogenous variables and coefficients respectively, for j = 1, 2. The mean and the variance of Xi,k are given by

\[ E\left(X_{i, k}\right)=\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_{1}\right) \Gamma\left(\frac{1}{\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_{2}\right)}+1\right) \tag{21} \]

and

\[ \begin{array}{l} \operatorname{Var}\left(X_{i, k}\right)=\left[\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_{1}\right)\right]^{2} \\ \left\{\Gamma\left(\frac{2}{\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_{2}\right)}+1\right)-\left[\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_{2}\right)}+1\right)\right]^{2}\right\} . \end{array} \tag{22} \]

  • The pdf of the Weibull type III (WEI3) distribution is given by[10]

    \[ \begin{aligned} f(x)=\frac{s}{m} \Gamma\left(\frac{1}{s}+1\right) & {\left[\frac{x}{m} \Gamma\left(\frac{1}{s}+1\right)\right]^{s-1} } \\ & \exp \left\{-\left[\frac{x}{m} \Gamma\left(\frac{1}{s}+1\right)\right]^{s}\right\}, \end{aligned} \tag{23} \]

where m > 0 and s > 0. Following Rigby and Stasinopoulos (2009), we assume that \(m_i=\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_1\right)\) and \(s_i=\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_2\right)\), where \(d_{j i}\left(d_{j i, 1}, \ldots, d_{i j, J'_j}\right)\) and \(\gamma_j^T\left(\gamma_{j, 1}, \ldots, \gamma_{j, J_j^{\prime}}\right)\) are the 1 \(\times\) J’j vectors of the exogenous variables and the coefficients respectively, for j = 1, 2. The mean and the variance of Xi,k are given by

\[ E\left(X_{i, k}\right)=\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_{1}\right) \tag{24} \]

and

\[ \begin{array}{l} \operatorname{Var}\left(X_{i, k}\right)=\left[\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_{1}\right)\right]^{2} \\ \left\{\Gamma\left(\frac{2}{\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_{2}\right)}+1\right)\left[\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_{2}\right)}+1\right)\right]^{-2}-1\right\} . \end{array} \tag{25} \]

  • The pdf of the generalized gamma (GG) distribution is given by[11]

    \[ f(x)=\frac{|n| \theta^{\theta}\left(\frac{x}{m}\right)^{n \theta} \exp \left[-\theta\left(\frac{x}{m}\right)^{n}\right]}{\Gamma(\theta) x}, \tag{26} \]

where \(m>0, s>0,-\infty<n<\infty\) and \(\theta=\frac{1}{s^{2} n^{2}}\) Following Rigby, Stasinopoulos, and Akantziliotou (2008), we assume that \(m_i=\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_1\right), s_i=\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_2\right)\) and \(n_i=d_{3 i} \gamma_3\), where \(d_{j i}\left(d_{j i, 1}, \ldots, d_{j i, J'_j}\right)\) and \(\gamma_j^T\left(\gamma_{j, 1}, \ldots, \gamma_{j, J'_j}\right)\) are the 1 \(\times\) J’j vectors of the exogenous variable and the coefficients respectively, for j = 1, 2, 3. The mean and the variance of Xi,k are given by

\[ E\left(X_{i, k}\right)=\frac{\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_{1}\right) \Gamma\left(\theta_{i}+\frac{1}{d_{3 i} \gamma_{3}}\right)}{\theta_{i}^{\frac{1}{d_{3 i} \gamma_{3}}} \Gamma\left(\theta_{i}\right)} \tag{27} \]

and

\[ \begin{array}{l} \operatorname{Var}\left(X_{i, k}\right) \\ =\frac{\left[\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_{1}\right)\right]^{2}\left\{\begin{array}{l} \Gamma\left(\theta_{i}\right) \Gamma\left(\theta_{i}+\frac{2}{d_{3 i} \gamma_{3}}\right) \\ -\left[\Gamma\left(\theta_{i}+\frac{1}{d_{3 i} \gamma_{3}}\right)\right]^{2} \end{array}\right\}}{\theta_{i}^{\frac{2}{d_{3} \gamma_{3}}}\left[\Gamma\left(\theta_{i}\right)\right]^{2}}, \\ \end{array} \tag{28} \]

where \(\theta_{i}=\frac{1}{s_{i}^{2} n_{i}^{2}}=\frac{1}{\left(\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_{2}\right)\right)^{2}\left(d_{3 i} \gamma_{3}\right)^{2}} .\)

  • The pdf of the generalized Pareto distribution is given by[12]

    \[ f(x)=\frac{\Gamma(n+t)}{\Gamma(n) \Gamma(t)} \frac{m^{t} x^{n-1}}{(x+m)^{n+t}}, \tag{29} \]

where m > 0, n > 0 and t > 0. Following Rigby, Stasinopoulos, and Akantziliotou (2008), we assume that \(m_i=\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_1\right), n_i=\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_2\right)\) and \(t_i=\exp \left(d_{3 i} \gamma_3\right)\), where \(d_{j i}\left(d_{j i, 1}, \ldots, d_{j i, J'_j}\right)\) and \(\gamma_j^T\left(\gamma_{j, 1}, \ldots, \gamma_{j, J'_j}\right)\) are the 1 \(\times\) J’j vectors of the exogenous variables and the coefficients respectively for j = 1, 2, 3. The mean and variance of Xi,k are given by

\[ E\left(X_{i, k}\right)=\frac{\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_{1}\right) \exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_{2}\right)}{\exp \left(d_{3 i} \gamma_{3}\right)-1} \tag{30} \]

and

\[ \begin{aligned} \operatorname{Var}\left(X_{i, k}\right) & =\frac{\left[\exp \left(d_{1 i} \gamma_{1}\right)\right]^{2} \exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_{2}\right)}{\exp \left(d_{3 i} \gamma_{3}\right)-1} \\ & \left\{\frac{\exp \left(d_{2 i} \gamma_{2}\right)+\exp \left(d_{3 i} \gamma_{3}\right)-1}{\left[\exp \left(d_{3 i} \gamma_{3}\right)-1\right]\left[\exp \left(d_{3 i} \gamma_{3}\right)-2\right]}\right\} . \end{aligned} \tag{31} \]

3. Application

The data were kindly provided by a Greek insurance company and concern a motor third party liability insurance portfolio observed during 3.5 years. The data set comprises 15641 policies. Both private cars and fleet vehicles have been considered in this sample.[13] The available a priori rating variables we employ are the Bonus Malus (BM) class,[14] the horsepower (HP) of the car and gender of the driver. Only policyholders with complete records, i.e., with availability of all the variables under consideration were considered. Records for fleet data were not available for the case of the claim frequency. Furthermore, in light of the heterogeneity which exists within the portfolio, consideration was given to grouping the levels of each explanatory variable with respect to risk profiles with similar number and costs of claims at fault reported to the company over the 3.5 years of observation. This was done in order to achieve ratemaking accuracy and homogeneity within rating cells, for the claim frequency and severity component respectively. Also, by balancing homogeneity and sufficiency of the volume of data in each cell credible patterns were provided. As a result of the aforementioned methodology, Bonus-Malus and horsepower variables were segmented into different categories for claim frequency and claim severity component. This will affect the a priori ratemaking, since the claim frequency and severity component will contain a different number of homogeneous classes, generating a ratemaking structure that is fair to the policyholders. Claim counts are modeled for all 15641 policies. The Bonus-Malus class consists of four categories: A, B, C and D, where: A = “drivers who belong to BM classes 1 and 2,” B = “drivers who belong to BM classes 3–5,” C = “drivers who belong to BM classes 6–9 & 11–20” and D = “drivers who belong to BM class 10.” The horsepower of the car consists of three categories: A, B and C, where: A = “drivers who had a car with a HP between 0–33 & 100–132,” B = “drivers who had a car with a HP between 34–66” and C = “drivers who had a car with a HP between 67–99.” The gender consists of two categories: M = “male” and F = “female” drivers. Regarding the amount paid for each claim, there were 5590 observations that met our criteria. The Bonus-Malus class consists of three categories: A, B and C, where: A = “drivers who belong to BM classes 1 and 2,” B = “drivers who belong to BM classes 3–5 & 6–9 & 11–20” and C = “drivers who belong to BM class 10.” The horsepower of the car consists of four categories A, B, C and D, where: A = “drivers who had a car with a HP between 100–110 & 111–121 & 122–132,” B = “drivers who had a car with a HP between 0–33 & 34–44 & 45–55 & 56–66,” C = “drivers who had a car with a HP between 67–74” and D = “drivers who had a car with a HP between 75–82 & 83–90 & 91–99.” Finally, the gender consists of three categories: M = “male,” F = “female” and B = “both,” since in this case, data for fleet vehicles used by either male or female drivers were also available, i.e., shared use.

The claim frequency and severity models presented in Sections 2 and 3 were estimated using the GAMLSS package in software R.[15] The ratio of Bessel functions of the third kind whose orders are different was calculated using the HyperbolicDist package in software R.

3.1. Modeling results

This subsection describes the modeling results of the Poisson, negative binomial type II (NBII), Delaporte (DEL), Sichel and zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP), and gamma (GA), Weibull (WEI), Weibull type III (WEI3), generalized gamma (GG) and generalized Pareto (GP) regression models for location scale and shape that have been applied to model claim frequency and claim severity respectively.

Claim frequency and severity models have been calibrated with respect to GAIC goodness of fit index as suggested by Rigby and Stasinopoulos (2005, 2009). We followed a model selection technique similar to the one presented in Heller et al. (2007).[16] Specifically, our variable selection started with the examination of the mean parameter of each frequency and severity model. This was achieved by adding all available explanatory variables and testing whether the exclusion of each one lowered the Global Deviance, AIC and SBC values. After having selected the best predictor for the mean parameter, we continued in determining the remaining predictors by testing which rating variable between those used in the mean parameter would lead to a further decrease of the GAIC when inserted in the scale and shape parameters of the claim frequency and severity models respectively. Furthermore, if between the same frequency/severity distributions with different parameter specifications several models have similar AIC and SBC values, we preferred the simpler model in order to avoid overfitting. Therefore, the scale and shape parameters of the models have fewer predictors than the mean parameter (see Tables 1 and 2). In the above respect, the final claim frequency and severity models we selected are those that yield the lowest Global deviance (DEV), Akaike information criterion (AIC), and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) values. Also, every explanatory variable they contain is statistically significant at a 5% threshold.

Table 1.Results of the fitted claim frequency models
Poisson NBII DEL Sichel ZIP
Variable μ Estimate Variable μ Estimate Variable μ Estimate Variable μ Estimate Variable μ Estimate
Intercept −0.8150 (0.0000) Intercept −0.8131 (0.0000) Intercept −0.8221 (0.0000) Intercept −0.8201 (0.0000) Intercept −0.2210 (0.0000)
BM Cat. BM Cat. BM Cat. BM Cat. BM Cat.
B 0.6078 (0.0000) B 0.6328 (0.0000) B 0.6429 (0.0000) B 0.6387 (0.0000) B 0.1571 (0.0000)
C 0.8834 (0.0000) C 0.8388 (0.0000) C 0.8679 (0.0000) C 0.8694 (0.0000) C 0.7160 (0.0000)
D −0.9423 (0.0000) D −0.9736 (0.0000) D −0.9561 (0.0000) D −0.9804 (0.0000) D −0.2085 (0.0021)
HP Cat. HP Cat. HP Cat. HP Cat. HP Cat.
B −02371 (0.0000) B −0.2351 (0.0000) B −0.2434 (0.0000) B −0.2458 (0.0000) B −0.2492 (0.0000)
C −0.0725 (0.0120) C −0.0730 (0.0318) C −0.0742 (0.0403) C −0.0759 (0.0357) C −0.0939 (0.0005)
Gender Gender Gender Gender Gender
F 0.0683 (0.0044) F 0.0687 (0.0107) F 0.0880 (0.0010) F 0.0908 (0.0013) F −0.1010 (0.0000)
— — Variable σ Estimate Variable σ Estimate Variable σ Estimate Variable σ Estimate
— — Intercept −0.3728 (0.0000) Intercept 1.5821 (0.0000) Intercept 1.2100 (0.0158) Intercept −0.2036 (0.0000)
— — HP Cat. HP Cat. HP Cat. BM Cat.
— — B −0.7777 (0.0000) B −0.9700 (0.0000) B −1.664 (0.0024) B −2.8671 (0.0000)
— — C −0.6716 (0.0000) C −0.8971 (0.0000) C −1.598 (0.0018) C −0.4926 (0.0000)
— — Gender Parameter ν Estimate Parameter ν Estimate D 1.2694 (0.0000)
— — F −0.4313 (0.0005) Intercept −0.2013 (0.0021) Intercept −2.1040 (0.0000) Gender −0.5648 (0.0000)
— — — — — — — — F —
Table 2.Results of the fitted claim severity models
GA WEI WEI3 GG GP
Variable m Estimate Variable m Estimate Variable m Estimate Variable m Estimate Variable m Estimate
Intercept 6.3699 (0.0000) Intercept 6.4939 (0.0000) Intercept 6.3880 (0.0000) Intercept 6.3277 (0.0000) Intercept 7.2849 (0.0000)
BM Cat. BM Cat. BM Cat. BM Cat. BM Cat.
B −0.6786 (0.0000) B −0.7118 (0.0000) B −0.6649 (0.0000) B −1.2020 (0.0000) B −1.8305 (0.0000)
C 0.0294 (0.0103) C 0.0307 (0.0203) C 0.0312 (0.0192) C 0.0548 (0.0000) C 0.0734 (0.0000)
HP Cat. HP Cat. HP Cat. HP Cat. HP Cat.
B −0.6833 (0.0000) B −0.6838 (0.0000) B −0.6968 (0.0000) B −0.6223 (0.0000) B −0.3370 (0.0000)
C −0.5807 (0.0000) C −0.5851 (0.0000) C −0.5978 (0.0000) C −0.5142 (0.0000) C −0.2263 (0.0000)
D −0.4082 (0.0000) D −0.4066 (0.0000) D −0.4208 (0.0000) D −0.3608 (0.0000) D −0.1463 (0.0000)
Gender Gender Gender Gender Gender
M −0.1127 (0.0002) M −0.1166 (0.0005) M −0.1184 (0.0003) M −0.1839 (0.0000) M −0.4307 (0.0000)
F −0.0711 (0.0206) F −0.0790 (0.0202) F −0.0798 (0.0174) F −0.1602 (0.0006) F −0.4227 (0.0006)
Variable s Estimate Variable s Estimate Variable s Estimate Variable s Estimate Variable n Estimate
Intercept −0.4621 (0.0000) Intercept 0.3899 (0.0000) Intercept 0.3883 (0.0000) Intercept −0.4366 (0.0000) Intercept 1.3215 (0.0000)
BM Cat. BM Cat. BM Cat. BM Cat. BM Cat.
B 0.5946 (0.0000) B −0.5492 (0.0000) B −0.5498 (0.0000) B 0.5872 (0.0000) B −0.7347 (0.0000)
C −0.0443 (0.0308) C 0.0455 (0.0216) C 0.0442 (0.0261) C −0.0520 (0.0224) C 0.0445 (0.0024)
HP Cat. HP Cat. HP Cat. HP Cat. HP Cat.
B −0.3130 (0.0000) B 0.4145 (0.0000) B 0.4139 (0.0000) B −0.2622 (0.0000) B 0.2362 (0.0000)
C −0.3797 (0.0000) C 0.4199 (0.0000) C 0.4197 (0.0000) C −0.3410 (0.0000) C 0.2984 (0.0000)
D −0.2535 (0.0000) D 0.2806 (0.0000) D 0.2799 (0.0000) D −0.2311 (0.0000) D 0.2250 (0.0000)
Gender Gender Gender Gender Gender
M −0.1589 (0.0000) M 0.0962 (0.0135) M 0.0975 (0.0123) M −0.2133 (0.0000) M 0.3062 (0.0000)
F −0.1788 (0.0000) F 0.0967 (0.0153) F 0.1016 (0.0109) F −0.2423 (0.0000) F 0.3400 (0.0000)
— — — — — — Variable n Estimate Variable t Estimate
— — — — — — Intercept 0.7189 (0.0001) Intercept 2.3395 (0.0000)
— — — — — — BM Cat. BM Cat.
— — — — — — B −0.9809 (0.0014) B −1.5622 (0.0000)
— — — — — — C 0.2763 (0.0056) C 0.0537 (0.0000)
— — — — — — Gender HP Cat.
— — — — — — M −0.3272 (0.0246) B 0.5190 (0.0000)
— — — — — — F −0.3516 (0.0321) C 0.5859 (0.0000)
— — — — — — — — D 0.4332 (0.0000)

Tables 1 and 2 summarize our findings with respect to the aforementioned claim frequency and severity models respectively.[17]

From Table 1 we observe, for all frequency models, that BM category A, HP category A and male drivers are the reference categories of μ. HP category A and male drivers are the reference categories for σ in the case of the NBII model. HP category A is the reference category for σ in the case of the Delaporte and Sichel models. BM category A and male drivers are the reference categories for σ in the case of the ZIP model. Furthermore, we see that HP category appears in model equations for both μ and σ in the case of the NBII, Delaporte and Sichel models. Gender appears in model equations for both μ and σ in the case of the NBII and ZIP models. BM category appears in the models equation for both μ and σ in the case of the ZIP model. These a priori rating variables do not always have a similar effect (positive and/or negative) on μ and σ.

The results summarized in Table 2 show that BM category A, HP category A and fleet vehicles used by both male or female drivers are the reference categories for m and s in the case of gamma, Weibull, Weibull type III and generalized gamma models. BM category A, HP category A and fleet vehicles are the reference categories for m and n, and BM category A and HP category A are the reference categories for t in the case of the generalized Pareto model. Note also that BM category, HP category, and gender appear in the model equations for both m and s in the case of the gamma, Weibull and Weibull type III and generalized gamma models. Furthermore, in the case of the generalized gamma model, BM category and gender are also in the model equations for n. Finally, in the case of the generalized Pareto model we observe that BM category, HP category and gender appear in the model equations for both m and n, and BM category and HP category are in the model equations for t. These explanatory variables do not always have the same effect (positive and/or negative) on the parameters m, s, n and t.

Most of the models presented in Tables 1 and 2, their reparameterizations and special cases have already been employed for modeling claim frequency/severity data. However, as we have already mentioned, the commonly used specification that only the mean claim frequency/severity is modeled in terms of risk factors was widely accepted for ratemaking. Also, the results for the location parameter of the claim frequency/severity models are in line with the existing results, based on the examination of the relative data sets, in recent actuarial literature research. Specifically, as expected, the values of the estimated regression coefficients of the explanatory variables for this parameter will lead to mean claim frequency/severity values which will not differ much under different distributional assumptions. Within the framework we adopted, the systematic part of these models was expanded to allow modeling of all the parameters of the claim frequency/severity distribution as functions of a priori rating variables. This approach is especially suited to modeling insurance response data which often exhibit heterogeneity, i.e., a situation where the scale or shape of the distribution of the response variable changes with explanatory variables. Furthermore, joint modeling of all the parameters in an a priori ratemaking scheme breaks the nexus between the mean and variance implied by the standard procedure using GLM models, leading to a more complete comparison of these models through their variance values. Finally, in this way we will be able to use all the available information in the estimation of the claim frequency/severity distribution in order to group risks with similar risk characteristics and to establish fair premium rates. Furthermore, our analysis shows that the employment of more advanced models that capture the stylized characteristics of the data is beneficial for the insurance company.

3.2. Models comparison

So far, we have several competing models for the claim frequency and severity components. The differences between models produce different premiums. Consequently, to distinguish between these models, this section compares them so as to select the best for each case. As suggested by Rigby and Stasinopoulos (2005, 2009) the models have been calibrated with respect to generalized Akaike information criterion (GAIC) which is valid for both nested or non-nested model comparisons. The generalized Akaike information criterion (GAIC) is defined as

\[ G A I C=\hat{D}+\kappa \times d f , \tag{32} \]

where D̂ = −2l̂ is the fitted (global) deviance, l̂ is the fitted log-likelihood, df is the degrees of freedom used in the model (i.e., the sum of the degrees of freedom used for the location, scale and shape parameters) and κ is a constant. The Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Schwartz Bayesian criterion (SBC) are special cases of the GAIC. Specifically, if we let κ = 2 we have the AIC, while if we let κ = log (n) we have the SBC.

The resulting Global Deviance, AIC and SBC are given in Table 3 for the different claim frequency (Panel A) and claim severity (Panel B) fitted models.

Table 3.Models comparison
Panel A: Claim Frequency Models
Model df Global Deviance AIC SBC
Poisson 7 29115.29 29129.29 29182.90
NBII 11 28323.32 28345.32 28429.55
Delaporte 11 28357.99 28379.99 28464.23
Sichel 11 28348.97 28370.97 28455.20
ZIP 12 28503.22 28527.22 28619.11
Panel B: Claim Severity Models
Gamma 16 69665.05 69697.05 69803.11
WEI 16 70794.96 70826.96 70933.02
WEI3 16 70793.02 70825.02 70931.08
GG 21 69427.16 69469.16 69608.37
GP 22 69582.12 69526.12 69771.96

Overall, with respect to the Global Deviance, AIC and SBC indices, from Panel A we observe the best fitted claim frequency model is the negative binomial type II model, followed closely by the Sichel and Delaporte models. From the claim severity models in Panel B we see that the best fitting performances are provided by the generalized gamma model followed by the generalized Pareto and gamma models. Negative binomial type II and generalized gamma capture more efficiently the stylized characteristics of the data, such as overdispersion of the number of claims and the tail behavior of losses and performed better than the other distributions.

3.3. A priori risk classification

In this subsection differences between the claim frequency and severity models, presented in Sections 2 and 3 respectively, are analyzed through the mean and the variance of the number and costs of claims of the policyholders who belong to different risk classes, which are determined by the availability of the relevant a priori characteristics.

The final a priori ratemaking for the claim frequency models contains 24 classes. The estimated expected annual claim frequency and the variance for each risk class are obtained by Eqs (2, 4, 8, 12 and 15) and the Eqs (2, 5, 9, 13 and 16) for the case of the Poisson, negative binomial type II (NBII), Delaporte (DEL), Sichel and zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) model respectively. The results are summarized in Table 4. As expected, the variance of the NBII, Delaporte, Sichel and ZIP model exceeds the mean and these models allow for overdispersion. Furthermore, we observe that the biggest differences lie in the variance values of these models. For example, the variance of the expected number of claims for a man who belongs to BM category A and has a car that belongs to HP category A, i.e., for the reference class, is equal to 0.1264, 0.2140, 0.1868, 0.1884 and 0.1391 while the variance of the expected number of claims for a woman who shares common characteristics is equal to 0.1354, 0.1964, 0.2100, 0.2128 and 0.1507 in the case of the Poisson, NBII, Delaporte, Sichel and ZIP model, respectively.

Table 4.A priori risk classification using claim frequency models
Risk Class Poisson NBII DEL Sichel ZIP
Mean Var Mean Var Mean Var Mean Var Mean Var
1 BMA, HP A, M 0.1264 0.1264 0.1267 0.2140 0.1255 0.1868 0.1258 0.1884 0.1261 0.1391
2 BMA, HP A, W 0.1354 0.1354 0.1357 0.1964 0.1371 0.2100 0.1377 0.2128 0.1414 0.1507
3 BMA, HP B, M 0.0997 0.0997 0.1001 0.1318 0.0984 0.1127 0.0984 0.1046 0.0983 0.1062
4 BMA, HP B, W 0.1068 0.1068 0.1072 0.1293 0.1075 0.1245 0.1078 0.1152 0.1102 0.1158
5 BMA, HP C, M 0.1176 0.1176 0.1178 0.1592 0.1165 0.1381 0.1166 0.1260 0.1148 0.1256
6 BMA, HP C, W 0.1259 0.1259 0.1261 0.1550 0.1273 0.1529 0.1277 0.1390 0.1288 0.1365
7 BMB, HP A, M 0.2323 0.2323 0.2385 0.4029 0.2388 0.4602 0.2383 0.4629 0.2742 0.2777
8 BMB, HP A, W 0.2486 0.2486 0.2555 0.3699 0.2608 0.5247 0.2610 0.5302 0.2527 0.2543
9 BMB, HP B, M 0.1832 0.1832 0.1885 0.2483 0.1872 0.2388 0.1863 0.2089 0.2136 0.2158
10 BMB, HP B, W 0.1961 0.1961 0.2020 0.2435 0.2044 0.2659 0.2040 0.2311 0.1969 0.1980
11 BMB, HP C, M 0.2160 0.2160 0.2217 0.2998 0.2217 0.2995 0.2208 0.2548 0.2496 0.2524
12 BMB, HP C, W 0.2312 0.2312 0.2375 0.2918 0.2422 0.3349 0.2418 0.2825 0.2300 0.2314
13 BMC, HP A, M 0.3059 0.3059 0.2931 0.4950 0.2991 0.6462 0.3001 0.6564 0.3127 0.3616
14 BMC, HP A, W 0.3276 0.3276 0.3140 0.4545 0.3266 0.7406 0.3286 0.7559 0.3301 0.3610
15 BMC, HP B, M 0.2413 0.2413 0.2317 0.3050 0.2344 0.3153 0.2347 0.2705 0.2438 0.2734
16 BMC, HP B, W 0.2584 0.2584 0.2482 0.2992 0.2560 0.3525 0.2571 0.2999 0.2573 0.2761
17 BMC, HP C, M 0.2845 0.2845 0.2725 0.3684 0.2777 0.3997 0.2782 0.3320 0.2847 0.3252
18 BMC, HP C, W 0.3047 0.3047 0.2919 0.3586 0.3032 0.4487 0.3047 0.3692 0.3005 0.3261
19 BMD, HP A, M 0.0493 0.0493 0.0478 0.0808 0.0482 0.0573 0.0486 0.0579 0.0476 0.0542
20 BMD, HP A, W 0.0527 0.0527 0.0512 0.0742 0.0527 0.0634 0.0532 0.0645 0.0634 0.0701
21 BMD, HP B, M 0.0388 0.0388 0.0378 0.0498 0.0378 0.0399 0.0380 0.0389 0.0371 0.0411
22 BMD, HP B, W 0.0416 0.0416 0.0405 0.0489 0.0413 0.0438 0.0417 0.0427 0.0494 0.0534
23 BMD, HP C, M 0.0458 0.0458 0.0444 0.0601 0.0448 0.0480 0.0450 0.0465 0.0433 0.0488
24 BMD, HP C, W 0.0490 0.0490 0.0476 0.0585 0.0489 0.0527 0.0493 0.0510 0.0577 0.0632

The final a priori ratemaking for the claim severity models contains 36 classes. Table 5 gives the estimated expected claim severity and the variance for each risk class obtained from the gamma (GA), Weibull (WEI), Weibull type III (WEI3), generalized gamma (GG) and generalized Pareto (GP) model according to the Eqs (18, 21, 24, 27 and 30) and the Eqs (19, 22, 25, 28 and 31) respectively. As expected, similarly to the case of the claim frequency models, we see that the biggest differences between the claim severity models lie in their variance values. For instance, the variance of the expected claim costs for a fleet vehicle that belongs to HP category A, used by both a man and a woman, and belongs to BM category A, i.e., for the reference class, is equal to 135347.30, 169637.36, 168267.90, 148196.45 and 142078.20, while the variance of the expected claim costs for a private car that belongs to HP category A and is used by a man who belongs to BM category A is equal to 78621.46, 110315.30, 111018.27, 72875.39 and 89891.64 in the case of the gamma, WEI, WEI3, generalized gamma and generalized Pareto model.

Table 5.A priori risk classification using claim severity models
Risk Class GA WEI WEI3 GG GP
Mean Var Mean Var Mean Var Mean Var Mean Var
1 BMA, HP A, B 584.00 135347.30 597.96 169637.36 594.66 168267.90 591.62 148196.45 583.03 142078.20
2 BMA, HP A, M 521.75 78621.46 526.73 110315.30 528.26 111018.27 504.93 72875.39 514.78 89891.64
3 BMA, HP A, W 543.92 82108.76 546.89 118812.19 549.06 119033.67 516.38 72022.76 536.75 95624.76
4 BMA, HP B, B 294.89 18453.33 295.51 19539.26 296.25 19714.32 310.72 24073.97 300.72 26138.91
5 BMA, HP B, M 263.46 10719.29 263.36 13061.64 263.17 13063.90 262.37 11431.24 265.51 16207.29
6 BMA, HP B, W 274.65 11194.75 273.45 14069.47 273.53 14009.16 268.44 11300.70 276.84 17199.88
7 BMA, HP C, B 326.75 19827.00 326.18 23575.68 327.07 23782.38 344.55 25257.37 333.03 29934.69
8 BMA, HP C, M 291.93 11517.24 290.72 15762.85 290.55 15759.88 290.30 11905.58 294.05 18551.62
9 BMA, HP C, W 304.32 12028.09 301.85 16979.11 301.99 16900.22 297.05 11770.71 306.59 19686.62
10 BMA, HP D, B 388.27 36033.34 390.33 43363.58 390.41 43561.39 404.41 43421.71 394.23 46566.35
11 BMA, HP D, M 346.88 20931.28 346.96 28820.08 346.82 28847.75 341.83 20685.10 348.08 29009.46
12 BMA, HP D, W 361.62 21859.70 360.26 31043.01 360.47 30934.51 349.72 20448.12 362.94 30803.37
13 BMB, HP A, B 296.28 114416.43 352.27 172055.65 305.85 130297.57 265.02 129671.66 250.44 178704.02
14 BMB, HP A, M 264.70 66462.96 297.20 100325.75 271.70 84002.18 164.63 25281.89 221.13 121573.35
15 BMB, HP A, W 275.95 69410.96 308.51 107997.62 282.39 89988.87 165.62 23924.98 230.56 130384.50
16 BMB, HP B, B 149.60 15599.59 151.45 13989.85 152.36 14234.31 119.36 13878.38 108.56 11957.62
17 BMB, HP B, M 133.66 9061.59 132.51 8946.20 135.36 9359.92 83.06 3737.71 95.85 7832.20
18 BMB, HP B, W 139.34 9463.52 137.58 9634.51 140.68 10034.46 84.12 3595.64 99.94 8364.86
19 BMB, HP C, B 165.77 16760.83 166.98 16833.12 168.23 17162.40 127.92 13265.26 118.52 12850.63
20 BMB, HP C, M 148.10 9736.14 146.14 10772.70 149.44 11287.22 91.28 3837.95 104.64 8402.63
21 BMB, HP C, W 154.39 10167.99 151.73 11601.59 155.32 12100.73 92.58 3705.93 109.11 8972.35
22 BMB, HP D, B 196.98 30460.93 206.75 33670.27 200.79 31936.98 157.66 26065.04 145.27 23671.24
23 BMB, HP D, M 175.98 17694.34 179.31 21059.67 178.37 20903.82 108.54 6804.49 128.26 15622.57
24 BMB, HP D, W 183.46 18479.18 186.15 22677.63 185.39 22406.46 109.84 6535.28 133.74 16699.22
25 BMC, HP A, B 601.42 131373.54 613.31 164111.60 613.51 165097.24 591.91 131860.30 618.24 151126.30
26 BMD, HP A, M 537.32 76313.11 541.27 107216.06 545.01 109018.66 511.81 65142.30 545.87 95523.00
27 BMD, HP A, W 560.14 79698.02 561.99 115476.70 566.45 116893.25 524.41 64612.06 569.17 101603.68
28 BMD, HP B, B 303.69 17911.53 304.87 19167.52 305.64 19385.37 317.57 22467.66 319.63 28068.18
29 BMD, HP B, M 271.32 10404.57 271.88 12831.92 271.51 12847.07 270.40 10712.80 282.22 17391.14
30 BMD, HP B, W 282.84 10866.07 282.31 13822.11 282.20 13776.66 276.98 10614.65 294.27 18454.66
31 BMD, HP C, B 336.50 19244.87 336.52 23129.37 337.44 23385.76 353.80 23820.14 354.06 32168.91
32 BMD, HP C, M 300.64 11179.09 300.14 15486.68 299.76 15498.33 300.25 11270.97 312.61 19922.38
33 BMD, HP C, W 313.40 11674.94 311.64 16681.73 311.56 16619.75 307.55 11165.35 325.96 21139.48
34 BMD, HP D, B 399.85 34975.39 402.16 42412.94 402.78 42819.65 412.50 40339.87 418.90 49941.43
35 BMD, HP D, M 357.23 20316.73 357.83 28251.56 357.81 28364.50 351.74 19299.08 369.87 31088.48
36 BMD, HP D, W 372.41 21217.89 371.54 30430.94 371.89 30416.57 360.31 19124.05 385.65 33007.98

Overall, the results summarized in Tables 4 and 5 show the following trends by type of frequency/severity model as to which the lowest/highest variances are observed. First, from Table 4 we see that the NBII model has the highest variance values among all models in eleven risk classes. The Delaporte model has the highest variance values among all models in six risk classes, while it has the lowest variance value among all mixed Poisson models[18] in one risk class. The Sichel model has the highest variance values among all models in five risk classes, while it has the lowest variance values among all mixed Poisson models in eight risk classes. The ZIP model has the highest variance values among all models in two risk classes, while it has the lowest variance values among all mixed Poisson models in fifteen risk classes. Second, from Table 5 we observe that the gamma model has the highest variance value among all models in one risk class, while it has the lowest variance values among all models in fourteen risk classes. The Weibull model has the highest variance values among all models in five risk classes. The Weibull type III model has the highest variance values among all models in ten risk classes. The generalized gamma model has the lowest variance values among all models in nineteen risk classes. The generalized Pareto model has the highest variance value among all models in twenty risk classes, while it has the lowest variance values among all models in three risk classes.

The claim frequency and severity models are better compared through their variance values, leading to a better classification of the policyholders and thus modeling jointly the location, scale and shape parameters in terms of a priori rating variables is justified because it enables us to use all the available information in the estimation of these values through the use of the important a priori rating variables for the number and the costs of claims respectively.

3.4. Calculation of the premiums according to the expected value and standard deviation principles

Consider a policyholder i who belongs to a group of policyholders, whose number of claims, denoted as Ki, are independent, for i = 1, . . . , n. Let Xi,k be the cost of the kth claim reported by the policyholder i and assume that the individual claim costs \(X_{i, 1}\), \(X_{i, 2}, \ldots, X_{i, n}\) are independent. It is assumed that the number of claims of each policyholder that belongs to a certain group is independent of the severity of each claim in order to deal with the frequency and the severity components separately.

A premium principle is a rule for assigning a premium to an insurance risk. In this section the premiums rates will be calculated via two well-known premium principles, the expected value and the standard deviation premium principles. More details about the use of the expected value premium principle in MTPL insurance can be found in Lemaire (1995). Furthermore, regarding the use of the standard deviation premium principle one can refer to Bühlmann (1970) and Lemaire (1995) who used the variance principle in MTPL insurance, which is closely related to the standard deviation principle. The standard deviation principle can be used as an alternative and complementary of the expected value principle. It provides a more complete picture to the actuary since it takes into account an additional characteristic of the distribution, i.e., the standard deviation of the number of claims and of losses.

  • The premium rates calculated according to the expected value principle are given by

    \[ P_{1}=\left(1+w_{1}\right) E\left(K_{i}\right)\left(1+w_{2}\right) E\left(X_{i, k}\right), \tag{33} \]

where w1 > 0 and w2 > 0 are risk loads.

  • The premium rates calculated according to the standard deviation principle are given by

    \[ \begin{array}{l} P_{2}=\left[E\left(K_{i}\right)+\omega_{1} \sqrt{\operatorname{Var}\left(K_{i}\right)}\right] \\ {\left[E\left(X_{i, k}\right)+\omega_{2} \sqrt{\operatorname{Var}\left(X_{i, k}\right)}\right],} \end{array} \tag{34} \]

where ω1 > 0 and ω2 > 0 are risk loads.

In the following example (Table 6), six different groups of policyholders have been considered. In Table 6 a YES indicates the presence of the characteristic corresponding to the column.

Table 6.The six different groups of policyholders to be compared
Group BM Category A HP 0-33 HP 34-66 HP 100-132 Male Female
1 YES YES NO NO YES NO
2 YES YES NO NO NO YES
3 YES NO YES NO YES NO
4 YES NO YES NO NO YES
5 YES NO NO YES YES NO
6 YES NO NO YES NO YES

We will calculate the premiums P1 and P2 that must be paid by a specific group of policyholders based on the alternative models for assessing claim frequency and the various claim severity models. We assume that w1 = w2 = ω1 = \(\omega_{2}=\frac{1}{10} .\) The premiums P1 and P2 are obtained in Table 7 by substituting into Eqs (33 and 34) the corresponding E(Ki) and Var(Ki), and E(Xi,k) and Var(Xi,k) values to these six different groups of policyholders, which were displayed in Tables 4 and 5 for the case of the Poisson, NBII, Delaporte, Sichel and ZIP, and the gamma, Weibull, Weibull type III, generalized gamma and generalized Pareto regression models for location scale and shape respectively.

Table 7.Premium rates calculated via the expected value and standard deviation principles
Group PO-GA PO-WEI PO-WEI3 PO-GG PO-GP
P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2
1 40.2946 44.3448 40.2793 44.5028 40.2503 44.4722 40.1279 44.2231 40.6082 45.0619
2 44.9970 49.1158 44.8004 49.1297 44.8135 49.1391 43.9796 48.0550 45.3558 49.9293
3 31.7830 35.9450 31.7710 36.0730 31.7480 36.0482 31.6515 35.8463 32.0303 36.5261
4 35.4925 39.7840 35.3374 39.7953 35.3477 39.8030 34.6900 38.9248 35.7755 40.4430
5 79.7985 89.0400 80.5602 90.6845 80.7942 90.9493 77.2260 86.1468 78.7325 88.2257
6 89.1126 98.5955 89.5992 100.1082 89.9547 100.4874 84.6006 93.5402 87.9379 97.7515
NBII-GA NBII-WEI NBII-WEI3 NBII-GG NBII-GP
P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2
1 40.3903 47.3588 40.3750 47.5275 40.3458 47.4948 40.2232 47.2290 40.7045 48.1246
2 45.0967 51.3464 44.9000 51.3610 44.9128 51.3708 44.0770 50.2374 45.4563 52.1968
3 31.9105 37.3493 31.8984 37.4824 31.8754 37.4566 31.7785 37.2468 32.1588 37.9532
4 35.6254 40.8331 35.4700 40.8447 35.4801 40.8525 34.8200 39.9513 35.9095 41.5094
5 79.9880 95.0917 80.7514 96.8480 80.9860 97.1309 77.4093 92.0020 78.9194 94.2221
6 89.3100 103.0732 89.7977 104.6550 90.1540 105.0510 84.7881 97.7883 88.1327 102.1909
DEL-GA DEL-WEI DEL-WEI3 DEL-GG DEL-GP
P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2
1 40.0077 46.1980 39.9925 46.3625 39.9637 46.3306 39.8422 46.0711 40.3190 46.9449
2 45.5620 52.1760 45.3630 52.1908 45.3762 52.2008 44.5318 51.0492 45.9253 53.0402
3 31.3686 36.1354 31.3567 36.2641 31.3341 36.2392 31.2388 36.0362 31.6127 36.7197
4 35.7251 40.7265 35.5690 40.7381 35.5794 40.7459 34.9173 39.8470 36.0100 41.4011
5 79.2304 92.7607 79.9866 94.4740 80.2190 94.7500 76.6762 89.7467 78.1720 91.9124
6 90.2314 104.7387 90.7241 106.3456 91.0841 106.7484 85.6628 99.3684 89.0420 103.8421
SI-GA SI-WEI SI-WEI3 SI-GG SI-GP
P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2
1 40.1034 46.3306 40.0881 46.4957 40.0592 46.4637 39.9374 46.2034 40.4154 47.0800
2 45.7614 52.4340 45.5614 52.4489 45.5748 52.4590 44.7267 51.3016 46.1263 53.3025
3 31.3686 35.7989 31.3567 35.9264 31.3341 35.9017 31.2388 35.7006 31.6127 36.3777
4 35.8248 40.4289 35.6683 40.4404 35.6787 40.4481 35.0148 39.5558 36.1105 41.0985
5 79.4197 93.0272 80.1778 94.7453 80.4107 95.0221 76.8594 90.0045 78.3588 92.1765
6 90.6263 105.2565 91.1212 106.8714 91.4827 107.2762 86.0377 99.8600 89.4317 104.3555
ZIP-GA ZIP-WEI ZIP-WEI3 ZIP-GG ZIP-GP
P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2
1 40.1990 44.7401 40.1837 44.8994 40.1547 44.8685 40.0327 44.6172 40.5118 45.4635
2 46.9910 51.4043 46.7857 51.4189 46.7993 51.4287 45.9285 50.2941 47.3657 52.2557
3 31.3367 35.8390 31.3248 35.9666 31.3022 35.9420 31.2071 35.7406 31.5806 36.4185
4 36.6224 41.1386 36.4624 41.1503 36.4730 41.1582 35.7943 40.2502 36.9144 41.8200
5 79.6091 89.8335 80.3690 91.4926 80.6024 91.7600 77.0427 86.9146 78.5457 89.0120
6 93.0615 103.1895 93.5696 104.7726 93.9409 105.1700 88.3495 97.8986 91.8347 102.3061

From Table 7 consider, for instance, a man who belongs to BM category A and has a car with a HP between 34–66. In the case of the Poisson model and the corresponding claim severity models, P1 is equal to 31.78, 31.77, 31.75, 31.65 and 32.03 euros, while P2 equals 35.95, 36.07, 36.05, 35.85 and 36.5 euros. In the case of the NBII model and the corresponding claim severity models, P1 is equal to 31.91, 31.90, 31.88, 31.78 and 32.16 euros, while P2 equals 37.35, 37.48, 37.46, 37.25 and 37.95 euros. In the case of the Delaporte model and the corresponding claim severity models, P1 is equal to 31.37, 31.36, 31.33, 31.24 and 31.61 euros, while P2 equals 36.14, 36.26, 36.24, 36.04 and 36.72 euros. In the case of the Sichel model and the corresponding severity models, P1 is equal to 31.37, 31.36, 31.33, 31.24 and 31.61 euros, while P2 equals 35.80, 35.93, 35.90, 35.70 and 36.38 euros. In the case of the ZIP model and the corresponding claim severity models, P1 is equal to 31.34, 31.33, 31.30, 31.20 and 31.58 euros, while P2 equals 35.84, 35.97, 35.94, 35.74 and 36.42 euros. Overall, we observe that all the claim frequency models which were combined with the generalized gamma model for assessing claim severity have the lowest P1 and P2 values among their combinations with the other claim severity models. Also, PO-GP, NBII-GP, DEL-GP, SI-GP and ZIP-GP have the highest P1 and P2 values in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, while PO-WEI3, NBII-WEI3, DEL-WEI3, SI-WEI3 and ZIP-WEI3 have the highest P1 and P2 values in groups 5 and 6 among their combinations with the other claim severity models. Finally, with respect to the NBII and GG models which performed best, we see that NBII-GG has the lowest P1 values in groups 2, 4 and 6 and the lowest P2 values in groups 2 and 6 among all the combinations of the mixed Poisson models for approximating claim frequency and the claim severity models.

4. Conclusions

In this paper, we examined the use of regression models for location, scale and shape for pricing risks through ratemaking based on a priori risk classification. Specifically, we assumed that the number of claims was distributed according to a Poisson, negative binomial type II, the Delaporte, Sichel and zero-inflated Poisson and that the losses were distributed according to a gamma, Weibull, Weibull type III, generalized gamma and generalized Pareto regression model for location, scale and shape respectively. These classification models were calibrated employing a generalized Akaike information criterion (GAIC) which is valid for both nested or non-nested model comparisons (as suggested by Rigby and Stasinopoulos 2005, 2009). The best fitted claim frequency model was the negative binomial type II model, followed closely by the Sichel and Delaporte models while regarding the claim severity models, the best fitting performances were provided by the generalized gamma model followed by the generalized Pareto and gamma models. Furthermore, the difference between these models was analyzed through the mean and the variance of the annual number of claims and the severity of claims of the policyholders, who belong to different risk classes. The resulting a priori premiums rates were calculated via the expected value and standard deviation principles with independence between the claim frequency and severity components assumed.

Extensions to other frequency/severity regression models for location scale and shape can be obtained in a similar straightforward way. Moreover, these models are parametric and a possible line of further research is to explore the semiparametric approach and go through the ratemaking exercise when functional forms other than the linear are included, based on the generalized additive models for location scale and shape (GAMLSS) approach of Rigby and Stasinopoulos (2001, 2005, 2009). Also see, for example, a recent paper by Klein et al. (2014) in which Bayesian GAMLSS models are employed for nonlife ratemaking and risk management.


Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Variance Editor in Chief and the referees for their constructive comments and suggestions.


  1. For more details about the claim frequency/severity models and the associated link functions used in this paper, we refer the reader to Rigby and Stasinopoulos (2005, 2009).

  2. The Poisson regression model has been widely used by insurance practitioners for modeling claim count data. See, for example, Renshaw (1994).

  3. Equidispersion implied by the Poisson distribution is usually corrected by the introduction of a random variable into the regression component. Then the marginal distribution of the number of claims is a mixed Poisson distribution. For well-known results applied to the above situation, we refer the interested reader to Gourieroux, Montfort, and Trognon (1984b, 1984a), Boyer, Dionne, and Vanasse (1992), Lemaire (1995), and Boucher, Denuit, and Guillen (2007, 2008).

  4. This parameterization was used by Evans (1953) as pointed out by Johnson, Kotz, and Balakrishnan (1994). Note also that a negative binomial type I distribution arises if σ is reparameterized to σ1μ. A priori ratemaking using the NBI where regression is not only performed on the mean parameter has been recommended by, for example, Boucher, Denuit, and Guillen (2007, 2008).

  5. This parameterization of Delaporte was given by Rigby, Stasinopoulos, and Akantziliotou (2008).

  6. Parameterization (10) was given by Rigby, Stasinopoulos, and Akantziliotou (2008). The use of the Sichel distribution for modeling claim frequency where regression is only performed on the mean parameter has been recommended by Tzougas and Frangos (2014).

  7. This parameterization was used by Johnson, Kotz, and Balakrishnan (1994) and Lambert (1992). The ZIP model is a special case of a mixed Poisson distribution. However, if overdispersion in the Poisson part is still present then all the distributions seen before can be used since a heterogeneity term may be incorporated in the model. For instance, see Yip and Yau (2005) for an application to insurance claim count data. For more details about zero-inflated count models see Lambert (1992) and Green and Silverman (1994).

  8. We use the parameterization of the two parameter gamma distribution given by Rigby and Stasinopoulos (2009). Note also that a priori ratemaking using the gamma distribution where regression is not only performed on the mean parameter can be found in, for example, Denuit et al. (2007).

  9. The specific parameterization of the two parameter Weibull distribution used here was that used by Johnson, Kotz, and Balakrishnan (1994).

  10. This is a parameterization of the Weibull distribution where m is the mean of the distribution.

  11. The parameterization of the generalized gamma distribution we use was that used by Lopatatzidis and Green (2000).

  12. The above parameterization of the generalized Pareto distribution can be found, for example, in Klugman, Panjer, and Willmot (2004). Note that if we let n = 1 in Eq. (29), the generalized Pareto distribution reduced to the Pareto distribution. The use of the Pareto distribution for modeling claim severity where regression is not only performed on the mean parameter can be found in Frangos and Vrontos (2001).

  13. All the characteristics we consider are observable.

  14. A Bonus-Malus System (BMS) penalizes policyholders responsible for one or more claims by a premium surcharge (malus) and rewards the policyholders who had a claim-free year by awarding discount of the premium (bonus).

  15. Note that the same models can be fitted to larger data sets in order to study the effect of other rating factors such as age of driver, driving experience or driving zone, which have been traditionally used in MTPL insurance.

  16. Heller et al. (2007) used generalized additive models for location scale and shape (GAMLSS) for the statistical analysis of the total amount of insurance paid out on a policy.

  17. Note that in Tables 1 and 2 the significant at a probability level of 5% p-values are included in parentheses.

  18. The Poisson regression model has the lowest variance values among all models since they are equal to its mean values.

References

Boucher, J. P., M. Denuit, and M. Guillen. 2007. “Risk Classification for Claim Counts: A Comparative Analysis of Various Zero-Inflated Mixed Poisson and Hurdle Models.” North American Actuarial Journal 11 (4): 110–31. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1080/​10920277.2007.10597487.
Google Scholar
———. 2008. “Models of Insurance Claim Counts with Time Dependence Based on Generalization of Poisson and Negative Binomial Distributions.” Variance 2 (1): 135–62.
Google Scholar
Boyer, M., G. Dionne, and C. Vanasse. 1992. “Econometric Models of Accident Distribution.” In Contributions to Insurance Economics, edited by G. Dionne, 169–213. Boston: Kluwer. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-94-017-1168-5_6.
Google Scholar
Bühlmann, H. 1970. Mathematical Models in Risk Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Google Scholar
Dean, C., J. F. Lawless, and G. E. Willmot. 1989. “A Mixed Poisson-Inverse-Gaussian Regression Model.” Canadian Journal of Statistics 17 (2): 171–81. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2307/​3314846.
Google Scholar
Denuit, M., and S. Lang. 2004. “Nonlife Ratemaking with Bayesian GAM’s.” Insurance, Mathematics and Economics 35:627–47. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.insmatheco.2004.08.001.
Google Scholar
Denuit, M., X. Marechal, S. Pitrebois, and J. F. Walhin. 2007. Actuarial Modelling of Claim Counts: Risk Classification, Credibility and Bonus-Malus Systems. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​9780470517420.
Google Scholar
Dionne, G., and C. Vanasse. 1989. “A Generalization of Actuarial Automobile Insurance Rating Models: The Negative Binomial Distribution with a Regression Component.” ASTIN Bulletin 19:199–212. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2143/​AST.19.2.2014909.
Google Scholar
———. 1992. “Automobile Insurance Ratemaking in the Presence of Asymmetrical Information.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 7:149–65. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​jae.3950070204.
Google Scholar
Evans, D. A. 1953. “Experimental Evidence Concerning Contagious Distributions in Ecology.” Biometrika 40:186–211. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1093/​biomet/​40.1-2.186.
Google Scholar
Frangos, N., and S. Vrontos. 2001. “Design of Optimal Bonus-Malus Systems with a Frequency and a Severity Component on an Individual Basis in Automobile Insurance.” ASTIN Bulletin 31 (1): 1–22. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2143/​AST.31.1.991.
Google Scholar
Gourieroux, C., A. Montfort, and A. Trognon. 1984a. “Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Applications to Poisson Models.” Econometrica 52:701–20. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2307/​1913472.
Google Scholar
———. 1984b. “Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Theory.” Econometrica 52:681–700. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2307/​1913471.
Google Scholar
Green, P. J., and B. W. Silverman. 1994. Nonparametric Regression and Generalized Linear Models. Chapman and Hall. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-1-4899-4473-3.
Google Scholar
Hastie, T. J., and R. J. Tibshirani. 1990. Generalized Additive Models. London: Chapman and Hall.
Google Scholar
Heller, G. Z., M. D. Stasinopoulos, R. A. Rigby, and P. de Jong. 2007. “Mean and Dispersion Modeling for Policy Claims Costs.” Scandinavian Actuarial Journal 4:281–92. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1080/​03461230701553983.
Google Scholar
Johnson, N. L., S. Kotz, and N. Balakrishnan. 1994. Continuous Univariate Distributions. New York: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Klein, N., M. Denuit, S. Lang, and T. Kneib. 2014. “Nonlife Ratemaking and Risk Management with Bayesian Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale, and Shape.” Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 55:225–49. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.insmatheco.2014.02.001.
Google Scholar
Klugman, S., H. Panjer, and G. Willmot. 2004. Loss Models: From Data to Decisions. New York: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Lambert, D. 1992. “Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression with an Application to Defects in Manufacturing.” Technometrics 34:1–14. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2307/​1269547.
Google Scholar
Lemaire, J. 1995. Bonus-Malus Systems in Automobile Insurance. Kluwer Academic Publishers. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-94-011-0631-3.
Google Scholar
Lopatatzidis, A., and P. J. Green. 2000. “Nonparametric Quantile Regression Using the Gamma Distribution.” working paper.
Nelder, J. A., and R. W. M. Wedderburn. 1972. “Generalized Linear Models.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 135:370–84. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2307/​2344614.
Google Scholar
Renshaw, A. E. 1994. “Modeling the Claims Process in the Presence of Covariates.” ASTIN Bulletin 24:265–85. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2143/​AST.24.2.2005070.
Google Scholar
Rigby, R. A., and D. M. Stasinopoulos. 2001. “The GAMLSS Project: A Flexible Approach to Statistical Modelling.” In New Trends in Statistical Modelling, Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Statistical Modelling, edited by B. Klein and L. Korsholm, 249–56. Odense, Denmark.
Google Scholar
———. 2005. “Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale and Shape.” Applied Statistics 54:507–54. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1467-9876.2005.00510.x.
Google Scholar
———. 2009. A Flexible Regression Approach Using GAMLSS in R. University of Lancaster. http:/​/​www.gamlss.org/​wp-content/​uploads/​2013/​01/​Lancaster-booklet.pdf.
Google Scholar
Rigby, R. A., D. M. Stasinopoulos, and C. Akantziliotou. 2008. “A Framework for Modeling Overdispersed Count Data, Including the Poisson-Shifted Generalized Inverse Gaussian Distribution.” Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 53:381–93. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.csda.2008.07.043.
Google Scholar
Tzougas, G., and N. Frangos. 2014. “The Design of an Optimal Bonus-Malus System Based on the Sichel Distribution.” In Modern Problems in Insurance Mathematics, 239–60. New York: Springer. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-3-319-06653-0_15.
Google Scholar
Yip, K., and K. Yau. 2005. “On Modeling Claim Frequency Data in General Insurance with Extra Zeros.” Insurance, Mathematics and Economics 36:153–63. https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.insmatheco.2004.11.002.
Google Scholar

This website uses cookies

We use cookies to enhance your experience and support COUNTER Metrics for transparent reporting of readership statistics. Cookie data is not sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Powered by Scholastica, the modern academic journal management system