[PPT] - Stochastic Model Efficiency Applications: Cluster-Distance Sampling PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Stochastic Model Efficiency Applications: Cluster-Distance Sampling to Tackle Sampling Errors and Bias

Yvonne C. Chueh, PhD, ASA Paul H. Johnson, Jr., PhD

Joint work between the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) and Central Washington University (CWU) Funded by The Actuarial Foundation

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 1 / 20

SLIDE 2

Introduction and Purpose

Introduction

Practitioners/researchers are challenged to make credible inferential statements about the population distribution of important economic variables These distributions often involve a large number of policyholders and economic scenarios Well known challenge of running a stochastic asset/liability model is the long run-time Successful projection of these population distributions is important for actuaries

Pricing, reserving, budgeting risk capital

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 2 / 20

SLIDE 3

Introduction and Purpose

Introduction (Continued)

To analyze the population distrbution of economic outcomes, model efficiency approaches are often utilized Model Efficiency: Mathematical approaches that reduce the number of economic scenarios required to achieve a given level of precision in stochastic actuarial modeling (Rosner 2011) Model efficiency approaches include (Rosner 2011):

Transfer Scenario Order Importance Sampling Curve Fitting Representative Scenarios

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 3 / 20

SLIDE 4

Introduction and Purpose

Purpose

We discuss the development of CSTEP , a high performance computation software tool that utilizes representative scenarios to reduce sampling errors arising from small stochastic economic scenario samples, especially at the tails

Overview of CSTEP Description of method of Representative Scenarios Original definition of distance between two economic scenarios employed in CSTEP New (economic) definition of distance between two economic scenarios employed in CSTEP Brief comparison of original and economic distance definitions using statutory ending surplus data from a real block of general annuities, provided by Ed Cowman, FSA

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 4 / 20

SLIDE 5

Representative Scenarios

CSTEP

CSTEP: Cluster Sampling for Tail Estimation of Probability (Chueh and Johnson 2012, Johnson et al. 2013) Upgrade from SALMS (Stochastic Asset Liability Model Sampling) used since 2003 CSTEP is open source, high performance computation software

Universe capacity: 8,388,608 scenarios with up to 4500 time periods each Flexible sample size, reversible and reusable sampling Rate sampling (interest rate, equity return, index)

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 5 / 20

SLIDE 6

Representative Scenarios

Consider a population of N rate paths Editable distance formulas similar to Euclidean distance are used to select n representative (pivot) scenarios where n <<< N (Chueh 2002)

Choose an arbitrary path out of the N paths and call it Pivot 1 Calculate the distances of the remaining N - 1 paths to Pivot 1, the path with the largest distance to Pivot 1 is Pivot 2 Assign each of remaining N - 2 paths to the closest of Pivots 1 and 2, forming two disjoint paths Calculate the distances of the remaining N - 2 paths to Pivots 1 and 2, the path with the largest distance to Pivots 1 and 2 is Pivot 3 Assign each of remaining N - 3 paths to the closest of Pivots 1, 2, and 3, forming three disjoint paths ... repeat until n Pivots

A probability is then assigned to each representative scenario

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 6 / 20

SLIDE 7

Scenario Distance Formulas

In order to employ the method of representative scenarios, we need to be able to calculate the distance between two scenarios and tie that distance to the model output The original version of CSTEP employed a theorem of high-dimensional continuity (Continuity Theorem 1) The new version of CSTEP employs a modified theorem of high-dimensional continuity that improves the tail fit for volative economic scenarios and equity-based insurance guarantees (Continuity Theorem 2)

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 7 / 20

SLIDE 8

Scenario Distance Formulas

Continuity Theorem 1

Consider two n-period rate scenarios: x = (r1, r2, ..., rn) and s = (r ′

1, r ′ 2, ..., r ′ n)

Let CFt denote the net cash flow at the end of period t under scenario x; CF ′

t is similarly defined under scenario s

Let f(x) = n

t=1 CFt

t

k=1 1 1+rk and f(s) = n t=1 CF ′ t

t

k=1 1 1+r′

k

Let the distance between x and s: dX(x, s) = n

t=1[t k=1 1 1+rk − t k=1 1 1+r ′

k ]2

Let the distance between f(x) and f(s): dY(f(x), f(s)) = | n

t=1[CFt

t

k=1 1 1+rk − CF ′ t

t

k=1 1 1+r′

k ]|

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 8 / 20

SLIDE 9

Scenario Distance Formulas

Continuity Theorem 1 (Continued)

Given an arbitrary risk scenario s ∈ X, ∀ ǫ > 0 ∃ δ =

ǫ 2√nM

∋ ∀ scenario vectors x ∈ X: dX(x, s) ≤ δ is a sufficient condition ∋ dY(f(x), f(s)) ≤ ǫ M = maxt(|CFt|, |CF ′

t |)

The above illustrates uniform continuity

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 9 / 20

SLIDE 10

Scenario Distance Formulas

Continuity Theorem 1: Proof

[dY(f(x), f(s))]2 = | n

t=1[CFt

t

k=1 1 1+rk − CF ′ t

t

k=1 1 1+r ′

k ]|2

≤ (2M)2| n

t=1[t k=1 1 1+rk − t k=1 1 1+r′

k ]|2

≤ n(2M)2 n

t=1[t k=1 1 1+rk − t k=1 1 1+r′

k ]2

= n(2M)2[dX(x, s)]2 ≤ n(2M)2δ2 = ǫ2 Then: dX(x, s) ≤ δ ensures that dY(f(x), f(s)) ≤ ǫ

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 10 / 20

SLIDE 11

Scenario Distance Formulas

Original CSTEP Distance Formulas

Let p denote a pivot scenario Significance Method: dX(x, p) = n

t=1[t k=1 1 1+rk ]2

Relative Present Value (RPV) Method: dX(x, p) = n

t=1[t k=1 1 1+rk − t k=1 1 1+rp

k ]2

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 11 / 20

SLIDE 12

Scenario Distance Formulas

Continuity Theorem 2

Let Ct ≈ CFt and C′

t ≈ CF ′ t (determined by historical experience

for a similar block of business or a sample(s) of the population distribution) Let the distance between x and s: d∗

X(x, s) =

n

t=1[Ct

t

k=1 1 1+rk − C′ t

t

k=1 1 1+r′

k ]2

Given an arbitrary risk scenario s ∈ X, ∀ ǫ > 0 ∃ δ = ǫ > 0 ∋ ∀ scenario vectors x ∈ X: d∗

X(x, s) ≤ δ is a sufficient condition ∋ dY(f(x), f(s)) ≤ ǫ

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 12 / 20

SLIDE 13

Scenario Distance Formulas

Continuity Theorem 2: Proof

[dY(f(x), f(s))]2 = | n

t=1[CFt

t

k=1 1 1+rk − CF ′ t

t

k=1 1 1+r ′

k ]|2

≈ | n

t=1[Ct

t

k=1 1 1+rk − C′ t

t

k=1 1 1+r ′

k ]|2

= [d∗

X(x, s)]2

≤ δ2 = ǫ2 Then: d∗

X(x, s) ≤ δ ensures that dY(f(x), f(s)) ≤ ǫ

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 13 / 20

SLIDE 14

Scenario Distance Formulas

New (Economic) CSTEP Distance Formulas

Let p denote a pivot scenario Economic Significance Method: d∗

X(x, p) =

n

t=1[Ct

t

k=1 1 1+rk ]2

Economic Present Value (EPV) Method: d∗

X(x, p) =

n

t=1[Ct

t

k=1 1 1+rk − C′ t

t

k=1 1 1+r′

k ]2

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 14 / 20

SLIDE 15

Comparison of RPV and EPV Methods

Cowman Data

Statutory ending surplus data was the stochastic model output from a real block of general annuities with annual cash flows using proprietary stochastic scenario generator 10,000 stochastic economic interest rate scenarios were considered, where each scenario is a random path of 20 one-year US treasury yield rates x = (i1, i2, , i20) Compare the percentage differences of tail metrics under the RPV and EPV methods with 100 scenarios each, to corresponding tail metrics for the full-run distribution of 10,000 scenarios For EPV method, the average statutory ending surplus of an RPV sample of 100 scenarios at each time divided by the average statutory ending surplus at the end of first year was an approximation for Ct

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 15 / 20

SLIDE 16

Comparison of RPV and EPV Methods

Percentage Difference (VaR): 100 Scenarios, RPV vs EPV

2.pdf

20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0%

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97

RPV EPV

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 16 / 20

SLIDE 17

Comparison of RPV and EPV Methods

Percentage Difference (CTE): 100 Scenarios, RPV vs EPV

3.pdf

18.00%
16.00%
14.00%
12.00%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%

0.00% 2.00%

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97

RPV EPV

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 17 / 20

SLIDE 18

Applications and Next Steps

CSTEP can be used with another software application: AMOOF (Chueh and Curtis 2004, Johnson et al. 2013) We have validated the new CSTEP distance formulas using the Cowman data We are conducting a study of new CSTEP distance formulas in conjunction with Milliman with the intent to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed actuarial journal

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 18 / 20

SLIDE 19

References

Chueh, Y.C.M. 2002. “Efficient Stochastic Modeling for Large and Consolidated Insurance Business: Interest Rate Sampling Algorithms.” North American Actuarial Journal 6(3): 88 - 103 Chueh, Y.C. and Curtis, D. 2004. “Optimal PDF (Probability Density Function) Models for Stochastic Model Outcomes: Parametric Model Fitting on Tail Distributions.” New Ideas in Symbolic Computation: Proceedings of the 6th International Mathematica Symposium: 1-17

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 19 / 20

SLIDE 20

References

References (Continued)

Chueh, Y.C., and Johnson, P .H. Jr. 2012. “CSTEP: a HPC Platform for Scenario Reduction Research on Efficient Stochastic Modeling - Representative Scenario Approach.” Actuarial Research Clearing House 2012.1: 1-12 Johnson, P .H. Jr., Chueh, Y.C., and Qi, Yongxue. 2013. “Small Sample Stochastic Tail Modeling: Tackling Sampling Errors and Sampling Bias by Pivot-Distance Sampling and Parametric Curve Fitting Techniques.” Actuarial Research Clearing House 2013.1: 1-12 Rosner, B.B., Ernest and Young LLP . 2011. “Model Efficiency Study Results.” Financial Reporting Section, Product Development Section, Committee on Life Insurance Research, Society of Actuaries:

http://www.soa.org/research/research-projects/life-insurance/research-2011-11-model-eff.aspx

Y. Chueh and P. Johnson Jr (IME 2013)

July 2013 20 / 20