Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

glmReserve: Missing row in summary #70

Open
JackyP opened this issue Jan 19, 2020 · 5 comments
Open

glmReserve: Missing row in summary #70

JackyP opened this issue Jan 19, 2020 · 5 comments

Comments

@JackyP
Copy link

JackyP commented Jan 19, 2020

Hi,

There is an inconsistency where Mack summary has all origin periods, but glmReserve drops the first origin period.

library(ChainLadder)

dev_glm <- glmReserve(GenIns)
dev_mack <- MackChainLadder(GenIns)

dev_glm$summary
summary(dev_mack)$ByOrigin
@marcopark90
Copy link
Contributor

Hi,

I did not developed this function myself, however I think this is the case because the oldest AY in the triangle is assumed to be fully developed, hence IBNR is set to zero and the S.E. is set to zero as well.

@JackyP
Copy link
Author

JackyP commented Jan 19, 2020

Yes, but wouldn't that be true for the Mack estimates as well? Ultimates for both methods are the same except for the missing first origin period.

@marcopark90
Copy link
Contributor

It is true for the Mack method as well. And yes, as long you choose an odp distribution, ultimates are the same. Regarding the fact of showing or not showing the first row, it is only a style choice, it doesn't add any additional information related to IBNR or CV.

@JackyP
Copy link
Author

JackyP commented Jan 20, 2020

I see - thanks for the quick reply! For extra context, I was looking to compare projections between different methods, potentially select one of them if results were appropriate, then take the results further for additional data processing within an R based pipeline.

So I used the two different summary properties and functions above, which each seemed to produce the relevant summaries for the models. In doing so would I be misunderstanding the use of the methods or the goals of this package?

@marcopark90
Copy link
Contributor

The goal of the package is to provide reserving methodologies and analysis in the context of loss reserving. And that's exactly what you're doing, trying different methods and compare the results, so you're spot on. Beware that the results returned will not tell you which is the "best" method. That depends on your specific case and the prior knowledge about the specific environment you're dealing with.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants