Would like some input and suggestions on the correct way to think through this.
suppose I work at a P&C company and I'm needing to decide on how to move forward with a state (I.e, increase production, slow production , or leave it alone for now). And suppose the focus is to get profitable first, before growing.
If combined ratio is below 100, then means I'm profitable, so that is an opportunity to grow and increase production right?
If combined ratio is above 100, I'm not profitable, so I should not grow, but how do I know whether to deliberately slow production(by way increasing down payment for example), vs not doing anything and letting my most recent rate change slow production?
And on a related note, does comparing 2 sets of indication tell me anything about how I performed, and can It predict what the next indication might look like? Suppose I took 5% in Q1 and in Q3, I indicated 10%. Or vice verse
suppose I work at a P&C company and I'm needing to decide on how to move forward with a state (I.e, increase production, slow production , or leave it alone for now). And suppose the focus is to get profitable first, before growing.
If combined ratio is below 100, then means I'm profitable, so that is an opportunity to grow and increase production right?
If combined ratio is above 100, I'm not profitable, so I should not grow, but how do I know whether to deliberately slow production(by way increasing down payment for example), vs not doing anything and letting my most recent rate change slow production?
And on a related note, does comparing 2 sets of indication tell me anything about how I performed, and can It predict what the next indication might look like? Suppose I took 5% in Q1 and in Q3, I indicated 10%. Or vice verse
How to use actuarial indications for product decisions