Optimal reinsurance analysis from a crop insurer's perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the optimal reinsurance contract structure from the crop insurer's perspective. Design/methodology/approach A very powerful and flexible empirical‐based reinsurance model is used to analyze the optimal form of the reinsurance treaty. The reinsurance model is calibrated to unique data sets, including private reinsurance experience for Manitoba, and loss cost ratio (LCR) experience for all of Canada, under the assumption of the standard deviation premium principle and conditional tail expectation risk measure. Findings The Vasicek distribution is found to provide the best statistical fit for the Canadian LCR data, and the empirical reinsurance model stipulates that a layer reinsurance contract structure is optimal, which is consistent with market practice. Research limitations/implications While the empirical reinsurance model is able to reproduce the optimal shape of the reinsurance treaty, the model produces some inconsistencies between the implied and observed attachment points. Future research will continue to explore the reinsurance model that will best recover the observed market practice. Practical implications Private reinsurance premiums can account for a significant portion of a crop insurer's budget, therefore, this study should be useful for crop insurance companies to achieve efficiencies and improve their risk management. Originality/value To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper to show how a crop insurance firm can optimally select a reinsurance contract structure that minimizes its total risk exposure, considering the total losses retained by the insurer, as well as the reinsurance premium paid to private reinsurers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".