Publication: Análisis de los factores de riesgo en el seguro de automóvil mediante ecuaciones estructurales
Loading...
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2015
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
La gestión de riesgos, asociada al seguro del automóvil, es una cuestión crucial a la que se enfrentan en la actualidad tanto actuarios como profesionales del sector. Es clave seleccionar adecuadamente los factores de riesgos para asignar las tarifas a los asegurados en función del riesgo asociado. Por tanto, el objetivo de este trabajo es comprobar empíricamente la validez de la utilización de los niveles de “bonus-malus” para clasificar adecuadamente a los asegurados a través de dos modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Los análisis sobre una muestra de 4.365 pólizas automovilísticas españolas descritas a través de 11 factores de riesgo muestran que la variable BM contribuye a mejorar la capacidad explicativa del modelo pero no de manera significativa.
Risk management, associated to car insurance, is a crucial issue currently faced by both actuaries and field professionals. It is essential to adequately choose the risk factors to assign the payment rates to policyholders according to the associated risks. Therefore, the purpose of this work is to demonstrate, in an empirical way, the validity of using “bonus malus” (BM) levels to classify policyholders correctly through two models of structural equations. The analysis of a sample of 4,365 Spanish car insurance policies described through 11 risk factors shows that the variable BM contributes to improving the explaining capacity of the model, though not in a significant way.
A gestão de riscos, associada com o seguro do automóvel, é uma questão crucial à qual se enfrentam, na atualidade, tanto atuários quanto profissionais do setor. É fundamental selecionar adequadamente os fatores de riscos para designar as tarifas aos segurados em função do risco associado. Portanto, o objetivo deste trabalho é comprovar empiricamente a validade da utilização dos níveis de bonus-malus (BM) para classificar adequadamente os segurados por meio de dois modelos de equações estruturais. As análises sobre uma amostra de 4.365 apólices automobilísticas espanholas descritas por meio de 11 fatores de risco mostram que a variável BM contribui para a melhoria da capacidade explicativa do modelo, mas não de maneira significativa.
La gestion des risques associés à l’assurance du véhicule est une question cruciale que les actuaires comme les professionnels du secteur confrontent actuellement. Il est essentiel de bien choisir les facteurs de risque pour attribuer les tarifs aux assurés en fonction du risque associé. Par conséquent, le but de cet article est de tester empiriquement la validité de l’utilisation des niveaux de “bonus-malus” afin de classer correctement les assurés à travers deux modèles d’équations structurelles. Les analyses d’un échantillon de 4.365 polices d’assurance automobile espagnoles, décrites par 11 facteurs de risque, montrent que la variable BM contribue à améliorer le pouvoir explicatif du modèle, mais pas de manière significative.
Risk management, associated to car insurance, is a crucial issue currently faced by both actuaries and field professionals. It is essential to adequately choose the risk factors to assign the payment rates to policyholders according to the associated risks. Therefore, the purpose of this work is to demonstrate, in an empirical way, the validity of using “bonus malus” (BM) levels to classify policyholders correctly through two models of structural equations. The analysis of a sample of 4,365 Spanish car insurance policies described through 11 risk factors shows that the variable BM contributes to improving the explaining capacity of the model, though not in a significant way.
A gestão de riscos, associada com o seguro do automóvel, é uma questão crucial à qual se enfrentam, na atualidade, tanto atuários quanto profissionais do setor. É fundamental selecionar adequadamente os fatores de riscos para designar as tarifas aos segurados em função do risco associado. Portanto, o objetivo deste trabalho é comprovar empiricamente a validade da utilização dos níveis de bonus-malus (BM) para classificar adequadamente os segurados por meio de dois modelos de equações estruturais. As análises sobre uma amostra de 4.365 apólices automobilísticas espanholas descritas por meio de 11 fatores de risco mostram que a variável BM contribui para a melhoria da capacidade explicativa do modelo, mas não de maneira significativa.
La gestion des risques associés à l’assurance du véhicule est une question cruciale que les actuaires comme les professionnels du secteur confrontent actuellement. Il est essentiel de bien choisir les facteurs de risque pour attribuer les tarifs aux assurés en fonction du risque associé. Par conséquent, le but de cet article est de tester empiriquement la validité de l’utilisation des niveaux de “bonus-malus” afin de classer correctement les assurés à travers deux modèles d’équations structurelles. Les analyses d’un échantillon de 4.365 polices d’assurance automobile espagnoles, décrites par 11 facteurs de risque, montrent que la variable BM contribue à améliorer le pouvoir explicatif du modèle, mais pas de manière significative.
Description
Este trabajo fue parcialmente financiado por el Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación de España por el proyecto: ref. ECO2010-22065-C03-01.
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
Altoè, G. (2008). Introduzione all’utilizzo dei modelli di equazioni strutturali in psicologia cross-culturale. Corso di Psicologia Culturale dello Sviluppo. Padova: Università degli Studi di Padova – Facoltà di Psicologia.
Arvidsson, S. (2010). Does private information affect the insurance
risk? Working paper, The Geneva Association, 396. Disponible en:
http://swopec.hhs.se/vtiwps/abs/vtiwps2010_001.htm.
Åberg, L., & Rimmö, P. A. (1998). Dimensions of aberrant behavior. Ergonomics,
41, 39-56.
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology
to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400-404.
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230-258.
Bousoño, C., Heras, A., & Tolmos, P. (2008) Factores de Riesgo y Cálculo
de Primas mediante Técnicas de Aprendizaje. Madrid: Editorial
MAPFRE.
Casas, M. (2002). Los modelos de ecuaciones estructurales y su aplicación
en el índice europeo de satisfacción del cliente. Rect@.
ASEPUMA, 10(1), 1-27.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences.
New Jersey: Routledge, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers,
3ª edición.
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Denuit, M., Maréchal, X., Pitrebois, S., & Walhin, J. F. (2007). Actuarial
Modelling of Claim Counts: Risk Classification, Credibility and
Bonus-Malus Systems. UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Dionne, G., & Ghali, O. (2005). The Bonus-Malus System in Tunisia: An empirical
Evaluation. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 72(4), 609-633.
Directiva 2009/138/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 25 de
noviembre de 2009, sobre el seguro de vida, el acceso a la actividad
de seguro y de reaseguro y su ejercicio (Solvencia II). Disponible en:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONI
D=FMVYTP9YyFV5pvvmnKrDJ5JD2XRQz6TTpnm5Vy7GZQJcyT0x
6kJ8!337030866?uri=CELEX:32009L0138.
Forward, S. (2008). Driving violations: investigating forms of irrational
rationality. Uppsala: Universitetsbiblioteket. Disponible en: http://
uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:172720/FULLTEXT01.
Glendon, A. I., Dorn, L., Davies, D. R., Matthews, G., & Taylor, R. G.
(1996). Age and Gender Differences in Perceived Accident Likelihood
and Driver Competences. Risk Analysis, 16, 755-762.
Gulian, E., Matthews, G., Glendon, A. I., Davies, D. R., & Debney, L. M.
(1989). Dimensions of driver stress. Ergonomics, 32, 585-602.
Gulliver, P., & Begg, D. (2007). Personality factors as predictors of
persistent risky driving behavior and crash involvement among
young adults. Injury Prevention, 13(6), 376-381.
Heras, A., Vilar, J. L., & Gil, J. A. (2002). Asymptotic Fairness of Bonus-
Malus systems and Optimal Scales Premiums. The Geneva Papers
on Risk and Insurance Theory, 27, 61-82.
Hey, J. (1985). No claim bonus? The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance
Theory, 10, 209-228.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In Hoyle, R. H.
(Ed.). Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues and applications
(pp. 77-99). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Iversen, H. (2004). Risk-taking attitudes and risky driving behavior.
Transportation Research Part F, 7(3), 135-150.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modelling
with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific
Software.
Lemaire, J. (1988). A comparative analysis of most European and Japanese
Bonus-malus Systems. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 55(4), 660-681.
Lemaire, J. (1995). Bonus-Malus Systems in Automobile Insurance.
Boston Kluwer Academic Publisher.
López, C., Fernández, C., & Mariel, P. (2002). Índices de satisfacción del
consumidor: Una aplicación de modelos de ecuaciones estructurales
a la industria automovilística española. Working paper s eries
Departamento de Econometría y Estadística de la Universidad
del País Vasco.
Matthews, G., Dorn, L., & Glendon, A. (1991). Personality correlates of
driver stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(6), 535-549.
Park, S., Lemaire, J., & Chua, C. T. (2009). Is the design of Bonus-Malus
Systems influenced by insurance maturity or national culture? Evidence
from Asia. The Geneva Papers, 35, 7-27
Pitrebois, S., Denuit, M., & Walhin, J. F. (2006). Multi-Event Bonus-
Malus Scales. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 73(3), 517-528.
Richaudeau, D. (1999). Automobile Insurance Contracts and Risk of Accident:
An Empirical Test Using French Individual Data. Geneva
Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 24, 97-114.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit of
Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive
Goodness-of-Fit Measures. Methods of Psychological Research
Online, 8(2), 23-74.
Schwebel, D. C., Severson, J., Ball, K. K., & Rizzo, M. (2006). Individual
difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility,
conscientiousness, and sensation-seeking. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 38, 801-810.
Segovia-González, M. M., Contreras, I., & Mar-Molinero, C. (2009). A
DEA analysis of risk, cost, and revenues in insurance. Journal of
Operational Research Society, 60, 1483-1494.
Turner, C., & McClure, R. (2003). Age and gender differences in risktaking
behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor
vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. Injury Control and
Safety Promotion, 10(3), 123-130.
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, M. (2000). Personality and Risk-Taking:
Common Bisocial Factors. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 999-1029.