ID
2020-006

Type
Politique
Secteur
Secteur de l'assurance automobile
État
Période de commentaires du public terminée
Date
6 juillet 2020
Date de remise des commentaires
27 juillet 2020

Nous désirons remercier vos rétroactions au sujet des Dépôts de taux en formule intégrale, les taux de référence de l’ARSF et les tendances en matière de sinistres pour les voitures de tourisme.

Nous sommes reconnaissants de tous les commentaires et questions reçus jusqu’à date. Cette consultation est maintenant terminée.

L’ARSF fait appel à des taux de référence afin d’évaluer si les modifications de taux proposées par un assureur auto sont justes et raisonnables dans le cadre du traitement des demandes d’approbation des assureurs.

On actualise ces taux de référence deux fois par année afin de suivre les tendances liées aux coûts dans le secteur, ce qui permet au public de mieux comprendre la perspective de l’autorité de réglementation en ce qui a trait aux prévisions et aux tendances pour les coûts liés aux sinistres.

Dans le cadre de l’engagement de l’ARSF en matière de transparence, l’Autorité publie ses nouveaux taux de référence, les commentaires recueillis lors des consultations et les analyses dont sont issus les taux de référence.

Liens utiles

#En soumettant un contenu, vous acceptez que votre document soit publié sur notre portail de participation et utilisé dans des rapports ou d’autres documents préparés par l’Autorité de réglementation des services financiers (ARSF) et qui pourraient rendus publics. Nous avons modéré le contenu pour nous assurer que toutes les publications sont respectueuses et professionnelles. La Loi sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée, L.R.O. 1990, chap. F.31, s’applique à tout contenu publié en ligne.

Use left and right arrows to navigate between tabs.
Secteur Commentaire Date postée Trier par ordre croissant
Secteur de l'assurance automobile
[2020-006] Jingwen Li - TD Insurance
A. Selection of ultimate losses for BI & AB
a. According to IBC loss development exhibit, insurers have implemented various changes on case reserve protocol and claims handling process for BI and AB, which makes the reporting pattern unstable and makes it difficult to estimate the ultimate losses for the most recent years. Therefore, the most recent AYs should be given less weight in the trend selection.
B. Trend model selection for BI & AB
a. Longer term trends should be considered for long tail coverages. The split trend method used by OW could potentially overfit the most recent AY and does not generalize to future AYs.
b. A sensitivity test should be done with different data points being excluded or included to assess the stability of the trend selection.
i. The most recent data points should be excluded when selecting the loss trend for long-tailed lines, because most claims have not been reported or developed and the reporting pattern is unstable (see comment A).
c. Reduction of BI loss cost after 2016 reform does not indicate that the BI loss cost will continue to decrease by 7.5% annually beyond 2019.
C. Trend model selection for Collision & Comprehensive
a. In general, using a 7 year period for short tail coverages looks like a too long time frame. There is less volatility in the ultimate loss cost projections and using and 5 years looks like a better balance between credibility and responsiveness.
D. Stability of benchmark selection and rate indication
a. Since OW methodology heavily relies on the reported claims in the most recent AYs, particularly on the long-tailed coverages, we expect the selected benchmark to vary significantly year over year. This will introduce significant volatility into the rate indication if adopted by the industry, which will eventually translate into large premium swing in the market and will not benefit the customers.
b. We recommend FSRA to adopt a more prudent approach to ensure the stability of loss trend and reform benchmark selection, which will benefit both the industry and the customers.
c. We recommend FSRA to adopt a long term view when selecting benchmark methodology.
E. Individual insurer could have loss experience that differs from the industry experience, which could justify different selection of loss trend and reform factors.
F. Given the stability of the data has been impacted by changes in economic environment, past reforms and companies' claims practice, FSRA should consider different point of views from other independent actuarial consultants in addition to Oliver Wyman's study. For example, IBC retained an independent consultant to perform the loss trend analysis using GISA data and the outcome was drastically different from OW selection. If Oliver's Wyman's assumptions do not materialize as expected, mandating the industry to adopt those assumptions could cause some insurers to need higher rates increases or limit insurance availability.

Secteur de l'assurance automobile
[2020-006] Laura Ni - Farm Mutual Reinsurance Plan
Given the material changes in assumptions and approach between FSRA Analysis of Reform Cost and Loss Trend Rates published in October 2019 and June 2020, we would appreciate FSRA providing supporting information to fully explain the rationale and impact of these changes. For example, it appears that June 2020 report did not apply reform adjustment factors to adjust historical costs to a common cost level before performing statistical regressions, which is contrary to the standard procedure.

We were unable with our current set of assumptions to identify a decreasing or neutral trend in BI and AB loss cost after the 2015/2016 reforms within Ontario Mutuals (Company 789) Private Passenger Auto data that is commensurate with predictions set out by this report. We are prepared to submit detailed justification for selected trend rates should they differ from FSRA recommended ones in future PPA filings.

Aucune question n'a encore été posée sur cette consultation.