Next Article in Journal
Memory, Risk Aversion, and Nonlife Insurance Consumption: Evidence from Emerging and Developing Markets
Next Article in Special Issue
Using Neural Networks to Price and Hedge Variable Annuity Guarantees
Previous Article in Journal
Firm’s Risk-Return Association Facets and Prospect Theory Findings—An Emerging versus Developed Country Context
Article Menu
Issue 4 (December) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Risks 2018, 6(4), 144;

Credibility Methods for Individual Life Insurance

BlueCrest Capital, New York, NY 10022, USA
PayPal, Inc., San Jose, CA 95131, USA
Unum, Chattanooga, TN 37402, USA
Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043, USA
Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., Omaha, NE 68175-1004, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 17 September 2018 / Revised: 5 November 2018 / Accepted: 15 November 2018 / Published: 11 December 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Young Researchers in Insurance and Risk Management)
Full-Text   |   PDF [446 KB, uploaded 18 December 2018]   |  


Credibility theory is used widely in group health and casualty insurance. However, it is generally not used in individual life and annuity business. With the introduction of principle-based reserving (PBR), which relies more heavily on company-specific experience, credibility theory is becoming increasingly important for life actuaries. In this paper, we review the two most commonly used credibility methods: limited fluctuation and greatest accuracy (Bühlmann) credibility. We apply the limited fluctuation method to M Financial Group’s experience data and describe some general qualitative observations. In addition, we use simulation to generate a universe of data and compute Limited Fluctuation and greatest accuracy credibility factors for actual-to-expected (A/E) mortality ratios. We also compare the two credibility factors to an intuitive benchmark credibility measure. We see that for our simulated data set, the limited fluctuation factors are significantly lower than the greatest accuracy factors, particularly for low numbers of claims. Thus, the limited fluctuation method may understate the credibility for companies with favorable mortality experience. The greatest accuracy method has a stronger mathematical foundation, but it generally cannot be applied in practice because of data constraints. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) recognizes and is addressing the need for life insurance experience data in support of PBR—this is an area of current work. View Full-Text
Keywords: credibility; principle-based reserving; simulation credibility; principle-based reserving; simulation

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Gong, Y.M.; Li, Z.; Milazzo, M.; Moore, K.; Provencher, M. Credibility Methods for Individual Life Insurance. Risks 2018, 6, 144.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Risks EISSN 2227-9091 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top