系統識別號 | U0002-0306201114365200 |
---|---|
DOI | 10.6846/TKU.2011.01106 |
論文名稱(中文) | 汽車車體損失險的預期損失與相依結構探討 |
論文名稱(英文) | The Expected Loss and Dependence Structure Analysis of Automobile Physical Damage Insurance |
第三語言論文名稱 | |
校院名稱 | 淡江大學 |
系所名稱(中文) | 財務金融學系碩士班 |
系所名稱(英文) | Department of Banking and Finance |
外國學位學校名稱 | |
外國學位學院名稱 | |
外國學位研究所名稱 | |
學年度 | 99 |
學期 | 2 |
出版年 | 100 |
研究生(中文) | 陳威宇 |
研究生(英文) | Wei-Yu Chen |
學號 | 698530473 |
學位類別 | 碩士 |
語言別 | 英文 |
第二語言別 | |
口試日期 | 2011-05-12 |
論文頁數 | 54頁 |
口試委員 |
指導教授
-
李沃牆
委員 - 洪明欽 委員 - 顧廣平 委員 - 何宗武 |
關鍵字(中) |
汽車車體損失險 預期損失 極端值 copula模型 關連結構 |
關鍵字(英) |
automobile physical damage insurance Expect shortfall Extreme value copula function Hill plot |
第三語言關鍵字 | |
學科別分類 | |
中文摘要 |
次貸風暴所引發的連鎖效應對全球金融市場造成巨大的衝擊,也讓全球重新省思風險管理的價值。其中又以美國國際集團(AIG)的破產事件影響最鉅,因此本文以台灣某產險公司的汽車車體損失險為研究對象,評估該險種損失分配與相依結構。首先利用損失因子對損失資料做交叉分析與分量迴歸分析;再利用一般化柏拉圖極端值模型(GPD)分別計算95%、97.5%與99%信賴水準下的風險值,透過拔靴複製法來估計其信賴區間並檢測模型績效;最後使用四種copula模型來檢測甲、乙與丙式汽車車體損失險之間的關聯性。實證結果顯示,GPD模型能夠精準的配適損失資料的尾端部分,在99%的信賴水準為下,預期損失為469409.6738,損失超過50萬的機率為0.25%。甲、乙與丙式險種之間的相依結構極低,隱含三式車險之間彼此獨立。 |
英文摘要 |
After the 2007 finance crisis, the risk management is more noticeable in recent years, but there is still very limited number of general literatures on automobile physical insurance. This paper focuses on modeling and estimating tail parameters of automobile physical damage loss severity. At an attempt to do so, firstly, the cross analysis and quantile regression are used to examine the correlations between risk factors and loss. Then, we proceed with a simple exploratory loss data analysis using Q-Q plot and cross analysis. Furthermore, we determine the thresholds of GPD through mean excess plot and Hill plot. Value at Risk and the expected shortfall are also calculated. Bootstrap method is taken into account to estimate the confidence interval of parameters. Empirical results show that the GPD method is a theoretically well supported technique for fitting a parametric distribution to the tail of an unknown underlying distribution. Copula functions are also applied to fit the rank correlation between different loss types. From the results, it is concluded that the GPD model can capture the behavior of the loss severity tail of automobile physical damage insurance very well. |
第三語言摘要 | |
論文目次 |
Contents Contents V Figure Contents VII Table Contents VIII Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Motivation 1 1.2 Research objectives 3 1.3 The flow chart 4 Chapter 2: Literature Review 5 2.1 Loss data and extreme value distribution 5 2.2 Copula function 7 Chapter3: Methodologies 8 3.1 Extreme value distribution 8 3.1.1 The GEV distribution 10 3.1.2 Generalized Pareto distribution 11 3.1.3 Steps in applying GPD 12 3.1.4 Threshold selection 13 3.1.5 Expected shortfall 16 3.2 Copula function 17 Chapter4: Results and Analysis 20 4.1 Data description 20 4.2 Cross analysis 20 4.3 Quantile regression analysis 28 4.4 Extreme value analysis 33 4.5 Copula analysis 42 4.5.1 Copula analysis between loss type A and loss type B 42 4.5.2 Copula analysis between loss type A and loss type C 44 4.5.3 Copula analysis between loss type B and loss type C 45 Chapter 5 Conclusions 47 References 49 Figure Contents Figure 1: The flow chart 4 Figure 2: The 95% confidence interval between the risk factors and loss 32 Figure 3(a): 1-F(x)on logarithmic scaling in x-axis 35 Figure 3(b): 1-F(x) for empirical distribution of a sample. 35 Figure 3(c): P-P plot for loss data 35 Figure 3(d): Q-Q plot for loss data 35 Figure 4(a): The Lognormal pdf plot of loss amount 37 Figure 4(b): The Exponential pdf plot of loss amount 37 Figure 5: The mean excess function of loss amount 38 Figure 6: The Hill plot of loss amount 39 Figure 7: The Bootstrap estimate of parameter (Threshold =11900) 41 Figure 8: The cdf of empirical copula 43 Figure 9: The 3d histogram for u & v 43 Figure 10: The cdf of empirical copula 44 Figure 11: The 3d histogram for u & v 44 Figure 12: The cdf of empirical copula 46 Figure 13: The 3d histogram for u & v 46 Table Contents Table 1: All the input factors 22 Table 2: Summary of cross-analysis 23 Table 3: Cross-analysis between loss and type of automobile physical damage loss 23 Table 4: Cross-analysis between loss and sex 24 Table 5: Cross-analysis between loss and age 24 Table 6: Cross-analysis between loss and age of vehicle 25 Table 7: Cross-analysis between loss and engine displacement 26 Table 8: Cross-analysis between loss and marriage 27 Table 9: The correlations between all the input factors and loss data 27 Table 10: The results of Quantile Regression between sex and loss 29 Table 11: The results of Quantile Regression between age and loss 29 Table 12: The results of Quantile Regression between age of vehicle and loss 30 Table 14: The results of Quantile Regression between marriage and loss 31 Table 15: Frequencies of loss data 34 Table 16: Summary statistics for Loss data 35 Table 17: Parametric estimations for fitted functions 36 Table 18: The VaR and ES of GPD 39 Table 19: Bootstrapa confidence intervals for the GPD 40 Table 20: The Estimate Results of Copula Functions-Loss type A & Loss type B 43 Table 21: The Estimate Results of Copula Functions-Loss type A & Loss type C 45 Table 22: The Estimate Results of Copula Functions-Loss type B & Loss type C 46 |
參考文獻 |
1. Akaike, H., (1974), “A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 19, Issue 6, pp. 716-723. 2. Balkema, A. A. and L. de Haan, (1974), “Residual Life Time at Great Age,” Annals of Probability, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 792–804. 3. Bassi, F., P. Embrechts and M. Kafetzaki, (1998), “Risk Management and Quantile Estimation,” in Practical Guide to Heavy Tails (Adler, R. J., F. Feldman and M. Taqqu, eds.), Birkhauser, Boston, pp. 111-130. 4. Beder, T. S., (1995), “VAR:Seductive but Dangerous,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 51, No 5, pp. 12-24. 5. Beirlant, J. and J. L. Teugels, (1992), “Modeling Large Claims in Non-life Insurance,” Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Vol. 11, Issue 1, pp. 17-29. 6. Beirlant, J., P. Vynckier, and J. Teugels, (1996), “Excess Function and Estimation of the Extreme Values Index,” Bernoulli, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 293-318. 7. Boyd, V., (1988), “Fitting the Truncated Pareto Distribution to Loss Distributions,” Journal of the Staple Inn Actuarial Society, Vol. 31, pp. 151-158. 8. Chava, S., C. Stefanescu and S. Turnbull, (2008), “Modeling the Loss Distribution,” Working Paper http://faculty.london.edu/cstefanescu/Chava_Stefanescu_Turnbull.pdf 9. Chiou, S. C. and R. S. Tsay, (2008), “A copula-based Approach to Option Pricing and Risk Assessment,” Journal of Data Science, Vol. 6, pp. 273-301. 10. Cruz, M. G. (2002). Modeling, Measuring and Hedging Operational Risk, John Wiley & sons, Ltd. 11. Davidson, A. C. and R. L. Smith, (1990), “Models for Exceedances Over High Thresholds,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 52, No 3, pp. 393-442. 12. Denuit, M., O. Purcaru, and I. V. Keilegom, (2004), “Bivariate Archimedean Copula Modelling for loss-ALAE Data in non-life Insurance,” Working Paperhttp://www.stat.ucl.ac.be/ISpub/tr/2004/TR0422.ps 13. Embrecht, P., C. Kluppelberg, and T. Mikosch, (1997), Modeling Extreme Events for Insurance and Finance, Springer, Berlin. 14. Embrechts, P., S. I. Resnick and G. Samorodnitsky, (1999), “Extreme Value Theory as a Risk Management Tool,” North American Actuarial Journal, Vol. 3, No 2, pp. 30-41. 15. Hill, B. M., (1975), “A simple General Approach to Inference about the Tail of a Distribution,” Annals of Statistics, Vol. 3, No 5, pp. 1163-1173. 16. Hogg, R. and S. Klugman, (1984), Loss Distributions, Wiley, N.Y. 17. Hsu, C. C, C. P. Tseng and Y. H. Wang, (2008), “Dynamic Hedging with Futures: a Copula-based GARCH Model,” Journal of Futures Markets, Vol. 28, pp. 1095-1116. 18. Hu, L., (2006), “Dependence Patterns across Financial Markets: a Mixed Copula Approach,” Applied Financial Economics, Vol. 16, Issue 10, pp. 717-729. 19. Joe, H., (1997), Multivariate Models and Dependence Concepts, Chapman & Hall. London. 20. Junker, M., A. Szimayer, and N. Wagner, (2006), “Nonlinear Term Structure Dependence: Copula Functions, Empirics, and Risk Implications,” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 30, Issue 4, pp. 1171-1199. 21. Kao, J. H., (2007), “The Evaluation of Value at Risk for Automobile Physical Damage Insurance with Extreme Value Model (in-Chinese),” Grad-Finance, AU, Taiwan. 22. Klugman, S. A. and R. Parsa, (1999), “Fitting Bivariate Loss Distributions with Copulas,” Insurance: Mathematics & Economics, Vol. 24, Issues 1-2, pp. 139–148. 23. Koenker, R. and G. Bassett, (1978), “Regression Quantiles,” Econometric, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp.33-50. 24. Kole, E., K., Koedijk and M. Verbeek, (2007), “Selecting Copulas for Risk Management”, Vol. 31, Issue 8, pp. 2405-2423. 25. Lee, W. C., (2009), “Applying Generalized Pareto Distribution to the Risk Management of Commerce Fire Insurance,” Working Paper http://ir.lib.au.edu.tw/bitstream/987654321/2656/1/CF07-conf.2009_li_01.pdf 26. Lee, W. C. and C. J. Fang, (2010), “The Measurement of Capital for Operational Risk of Taiwanese Commercial Banks,” The Journal of Operational Risk, Vol. 5 Issue 2, pp. 79-102. 27. Manner, H. and O. Reznikova, (2009), “Time-Varying Copulas: a Survey,”Universite catholique de Louvain, Institut de statistique, Institut de statistique, Discussion Paper: DP0917. 28. Moscadelli, M., (2004), “The Modeling of Operational Risk: Experience with the Analysis of the Data Collected by the Basel Committee,” Working Paper http://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/econo/temidi/td04/td517_04/td517/tema_517.pdf 29. McNeil, A. J., (1997), “Estimating the Tails of Loss Severity Distributions Using Extreme Value Theory,” Astin Bulletin Vol. 27, No 1, pp. 117-137. 30. McNeil A. J. and T. Saladin, (1997), “The Peaks Over Thresholds Method for Estimating High Quantiles of Loss Distributions,” Proceedings of 28th International ASTIN Colloquium. 31. Neftci, S. N., (2000), “Value at Risk Calculations, Extreme Events and Tail Estimation,” Journal of Derivatives, Vol. 7, No 3, pp. 23-38. 32. Nelsen, R. B., (1999), Introduction to Copulas, Springer Verlag, N. Y. 33. Nešlehova, J., P. Embrechts and V. Chavez-Demoulin, (2006), “Infinite-Mean Models and the LDA for Operational Risk,” Journal of Operational Risk, Vol. 3, pp. 3-25. 34. Palaro, H. P. and L. K. Hotta, (2006), “Using Conditional Copula to Estimate Value at Risk” Journal of Data Science, Vol.4, pp. 93-11. 35. Patrick, D. F., J. S. Jordan and E. S.Rosengren, (2004), “Implications of Alternative Operational Risk Modeling Techniques,” NBER Working Paper, No.W11103, http://www.nber.org/chapters/c9617.pdf 36. Pickands, J., (1975), “Statistical Inference Using Extreme Order Statistics,” Annals of Statistics, Vol. 3, pp. 119-131. 37. Rodriguez, J. C., (2007), “Measuring Financial Contagion: A Copula Approach,” Journal of Empirical Finance, Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 401-423. 38. Rootzen, H. and N. Tajvidi., (2000), “Extreme Value Statistics and Wind Storm Losses: A Case Study (1997),” Extremes and Integrated Risk Management, Risk Books, London. 39. Schwarz, G., (1978), “Estimating the Dimension of a Model,” Annals of Statistics, Vol. 6, pp. 461-464. 40. Sklar, A., (1959), “Fonctions de Repartition a n Dimensions et leurs Marges, ” Publications de l. Institution de Statistique de L’Universite de Paris, Vol. 8, pp. 229-231. 41. Zajdenweber, D., (1996), “Extreme Values in Business Interruption Insurance,” The Journal of Risk and Insurance, Vol. 63, Issue 1, pp. 95-110. |
論文全文使用權限 |
如有問題,歡迎洽詢!
圖書館數位資訊組 (02)2621-5656 轉 2487 或 來信