Large Loss and Catastrophe Loadings in Technical Pricing
By Jonas Mohamed Osman Abdelghafour
How to set large-loss and catastrophe loadings that are stable, defensible and consistent between pricing, reserving and capital.
Executive answer
Large-loss and catastrophe loadings exist because the experience of any individual account or short period contains too little information about the tail. They should be derived from a portfolio-wide or model-based view and allocated, not estimated account by account from recent experience.
Setting the threshold
The large-loss threshold should be stable in real terms and set where the frequency-severity approach begins to outperform the attritional model — typically where individual claims start to distort the loss ratio of a segment. Thresholds left unindexed for several years silently reclassify losses and create spurious trends in both components.
Consistency across functions
The same event definitions, thresholds and inflation assumptions should flow through pricing, reserving and capital. Where they differ, the firm's view of its own risk is internally inconsistent, and reconciliations between technical price, reserve and capital become impossible to explain to a supervisor.
Governance considerations
Loadings are a frequent point of friction with underwriters because they reduce apparent competitiveness. Documenting the derivation, the review cycle and the override process protects both the technical basis and the commercial relationship.
Conclusion
Stable, consistently applied loadings are a quiet but powerful control on underwriting profitability, particularly across a softening market.
Primary sources
More in Pricing & Underwriting
- GLMs Versus Gradient Boosting in General Insurance Pricing
By Jonas Mohamed Osman Abdelghafour · 8 min read