RT Journal Article
T1 Análisis de los factores de riesgo en el seguro de automóvil mediante ecuaciones estructurales
T2 Analysis of risk factors in car insurance through structural equations
T2 Análise dos fatores de risco no seguro de automóvel mediante equações estruturais
T2 Analyse des facteurs de risque pour l'assurance automobile par équations structurelles
A1 Segovia Vargas, María Jesús
A1 Camacho Miñano, María del Mar
A1 Pascual Ezama, David
A1 Tolmos Rodríguez-Piñero, Piedad
AB 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.
AB 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.
AB A gestão de riscos, associada com o seguro do automóvel, é uma questão crucial à qual se enfrentam, na atualidade, tanto atuáriosquanto 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.
AB 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.
PB Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas
SN 2248-6968
YR 2015
FD 2015
LK https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/34192
UL https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/34192
LA spa
NO 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 insurancerisk? 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 methodologyto 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 assessingmodel fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230-258.Bousoño, C., Heras, A., & Tolmos, P. (2008) Factores de Riesgo y Cálculode Primas mediante Técnicas de Aprendizaje. Madrid: EditorialMAPFRE.Casas, M. (2002). Los modelos de ecuaciones estructurales y su aplicaciónen 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 MultipleRegression/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). ActuarialModelling of Claim Counts: Risk Classification, Credibility andBonus-Malus Systems. UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Dionne, G., & Ghali, O. (2005). The Bonus-Malus System in Tunisia: An empiricalEvaluation. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 72(4), 609-633.Directiva 2009/138/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 25 denoviembre de 2009, sobre el seguro de vida, el acceso a la actividadde seguro y de reaseguro y su ejercicio (Solvencia II). Disponible en:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONID=FMVYTP9YyFV5pvvmnKrDJ5JD2XRQz6TTpnm5Vy7GZQJcyT0x6kJ8!337030866?uri=CELEX:32009L0138.Forward, S. (2008). Driving violations: investigating forms of irrationalrationality. 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 Likelihoodand 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 ofpersistent risky driving behavior and crash involvement amongyoung 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 Paperson Risk and Insurance Theory, 27, 61-82.Hey, J. (1985). No claim bonus? The Geneva Papers on Risk and InsuranceTheory, 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 modellingwith the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: ScientificSoftware.Lemaire, J. (1988). A comparative analysis of most European and JapaneseBonus-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 delconsumidor: Una aplicación de modelos de ecuaciones estructuralesa la industria automovilística española. Working paper s eriesDepartamento de Econometría y Estadística de la Universidaddel País Vasco.Matthews, G., Dorn, L., & Glendon, A. (1991). Personality correlates ofdriver stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(6), 535-549.Park, S., Lemaire, J., & Chua, C. T. (2009). Is the design of Bonus-MalusSystems influenced by insurance maturity or national culture? Evidencefrom Asia. The Geneva Papers, 35, 7-27Pitrebois, 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. GenevaPapers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 24, 97-114.Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit ofStructural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and DescriptiveGoodness-of-Fit Measures. Methods of Psychological ResearchOnline, 8(2), 23-74.Schwebel, D. C., Severson, J., Ball, K. K., & Rizzo, M. (2006). Individualdifference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility,conscientiousness, and sensation-seeking. Accident Analysis andPrevention, 38, 801-810.Segovia-González, M. M., Contreras, I., & Mar-Molinero, C. (2009). ADEA analysis of risk, cost, and revenues in insurance. Journal ofOperational Research Society, 60, 1483-1494.Turner, C., & McClure, R. (2003). Age and gender differences in risktakingbehaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motorvehicle crashes as a driver in young males. Injury Control andSafety Promotion, 10(3), 123-130.Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, M. (2000). Personality and Risk-Taking:Common Bisocial Factors. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 999-1029.
NO Este trabajo fue parcialmente financiado por el Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación de España por el proyecto: ref. ECO2010-22065-C03-01.
NO Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (MICINN)
DS Docta Complutense
RD 17 ago 2024