Summary of Review by John Pierce Consulting Actuary of

BPA #AG-645S-B-09-0029 BPA Call AG-645S-K-11-0063 Due October 14, 2011

“Methodology Analysis for Weighting Historical Experience” 

Funded by the RMA and produced by Coble, Miller, Rejesus, Boyles, Knight and Goodwin

Page 1

This submission by Coble, Miller, Rejesus, Boyles, Knight and Goodwin proposed to 

revise the current RMA methodology for updating rates. It is my understanding that 

approval of the submission will impact rates for all crops in the FCIC programs.

Section 5 of the Implementation Report lists the following changes recommended to the 

RMA ratemaking methodology:

1. An adjustment to pre-1995 loss costs (reducing these pre-1995 loss costs to bring 

them to current levels)

2. Weather weighting (using weather indices to place loss costs by country by crop 

in statistical “bins”, and also using these weather indices to temper the impact of 

extreme years in the excess loss procedure)

3. Net acre weighting within probability bins

4. The use of a 20 year moving average of loss data (instead of the current 

procedure’s 31 years) 

5. Use of a 90th percentile cutoff for catastrophe loading (instead of the current 80th

percentile cutoff) and distributing the catastrophe loading across each climate 

division (instead of the current procedure’s distribution of the catastrophe loading 

across each state)

I believe the arguments made in the submission for these changes are convincing. 

However, in our review we do identify a number of potential problem areas in the 

submission. These include:

1. There is no mention of global warming in the submission. Because of the 

possibility that global warming – or some other long-term trend in weather -- does 

exist, it would appear necessary for the submission to consider the possible 

impact of this phenomenon on its calculation of weather indices. 

2. The fractional logit regression procedure is used in the submission. I believe the 

information provided in the submission leaves a significant part of this procedure 

as a “black box” for the reviewers.

3. Various aspects of the pre-1995 adjustment are unclear. The Technical Report 

uses ordinary least squares to calculate three methods for calculating this 

adjustment. However, the technical report does not provide sufficient information 

for us to actually calculate this adjustment. 

In addition, the Implementation Report suggests using the fractional logit 

regression method for calculating this adjustment, even though the Technical 

Report used ordinary least squares regression. Finally, the Implementation Report 

does not reach a conclusion as to whether this adjustment should be on the state, 

regional or national level.

4. The Climate Division Data is available yearly from 1895 to present. However, 

some data from the pre-1931 years was not available, and had been estimated 

using regression techniques. The submission does not investigate whether using 

data from only 1931 to present would be an improvement over their approach of 

using 1895 to present data. 

5. The RMA premium and loss experience by year and by crop provides some 
Summary of Review by John Pierce Consulting Actuary of

BPA #AG-645S-B-09-0029 BPA Call AG-645S-K-11-0063 Due October 14, 2011

“Methodology Analysis for Weighting Historical Experience” 

Funded by the RMA and produced by Coble, Miller, Rejesus, Boyles, Knight and Goodwin

Page 2

evidence that breaking the experience period between pre-2003 years and 2004 

and subsequent years might be preferable to the submission’s breaking of the 

experience into pre-1995 years and 1995 and subsequent years.
BPA #AG-645S-B-09-0029 BPA Call # AG-645S-K-11-0063 Due October 14, 2011

“Methodology Analysis for Weighting Historical Experience” 

Funded by the RMA and Produced by Coble, Miller, Rejesus, Boyles, Knight and Goodwin

Page 1 

1. Actuarial soundness.

A. Is adequate, credible, and reliable rate-making data available? Is it likely that the data 

will continue to be available? Is the data vulnerable to tampering if the proposed policy is 

approved?

Answer 2A: The submission uses the RMA’s Statplan database. This database includes 

experience from the various FCIC insurance products and covers approximately 35 years of 

history. The Statplan database is credible and reliable. Because the database is under control of 

the RMA, it would not be vulnerable to tampering.

The submission also uses historical weather data from “the National Climatic Data Center’s Time 

Bias Corrected Divisional Temperature-Precipitation-Drought Index data, also called the Climate 

Division Data. Climate Division data provide monthly, serially complete information on 

temperature, precipitation, relative severity of dry and wet periods using drought indexes, and 

degree day metrics of heat and cold accumulation since 1895 for the continental United States, 

grouped into 344 divisions. Updates are operationally provided each month by NOAA’s National 

Climatic Data Center.” (pages 23-24 of the Implementation Report.) 

This Climate Division Data appears to be credible and reliable. Because the data is under control 

of a government agency, it would not be vulnerable to tampering.

B. Are the explicit and implicit assumptions used in the rating process reasonable?

Answer 2B: One implicit assumption in the submission involves the Climate Division Data. The 

submission does not mention global warming. More broadly, the submission does not mention 

the possibility of any trend in the Climate Division Data.

Global warming is a topic which is the subject of ongoing debate. Nevertheless, I believe it would 

have been appropriate for the submission to consider – if only in broad-brush terms – the impact 

on their conclusions from any trend towards more extreme weather in recent years. 

C. Are the technical analyses (e.g. stochastic and other simulations) technically correct? 

Do they provide credible, relevant results?

Answer 2C: The submission relies on a fractional logit regression procedure in an important 

portion of the proposed methodology – the assignment of weather indices to individual years by 

crop and by climate division. 

These weather indices are in turn used in the assignment of years to weather “bins”. For 

example, Tables 4.15 and 4.16 of the Implementation Report show how each of the 20 years 

from 1991 to 2010 for corn in Illinois Climate Division 5 are assigned to 11 “bins” based on the 

weather indices for that crop-state combination.

Additionally, the weather indices are used in the excess loss procedure. Based on the weather 

indices for excess years, the amount of excess loss which is added back to the climate division is 

adjusted to reflect years where the excess event is less likely than average. 

This fractional logit regression procedure is described in general terms in the submission. In 

addition, the procedure is described in a paper by Papke and Wooldridge “Econometric Methods 

for Fractional Response Variables with An Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates”. This 

paper is extremely technical and detailed, and did not provide us with understandable 

information.

Table 4.4 in the Implementation Report provides an example of the output of a fractional logit 
BPA #AG-645S-B-09-0029 BPA Call # AG-645S-K-11-0063 Due October 14, 2011

“Methodology Analysis for Weighting Historical Experience” 

Funded by the RMA and Produced by Coble, Miller, Rejesus, Boyles, Knight and Goodwin

Page 2 

regression. Based on additional data and information provided by Thomas Worth of the RMA, we 

were able to use the information in Table 4.4 to produce weather indices for corn for Illinois 

Climate Division 5 as follows:

Pre-Adjust Weather Index = -17.6357 + 0.0101*Total CDD + 0.0055*jaj CDD

For 2010 the data from Thomas Worth shows: Total CDD = 1134 jaj CDD = 616

Pre-Adjust Weather Index (2010) = -17.6357 + .0.0101*1134 + 0.0055*616

Pre-Adjust Weather Index (2010) = -2.7943

Adjusted Weather Index = exp(Pre-Adjust Weather Index) / (1+exp(Pre-Adjust Weather Index)) 

where exp(x) = raise e to the power (x)

For 2010, this value is:

Adjusted Weather Index (2010) = 0.061158 / (1+0.061158) = 0.057633

Having worked through this example, we understood some of the calculations associated with the 

fractional logit regression procedure. However, we still do not have an explanation of how the 

procedure fits the weather data and produces the pre-adjusted regression coefficients. While the 

explanation in the submission provides some background, I feel that the fractional logit regression 

procedure remains for the most part a “black box” to us.

Another part of the technical analysis which merits discussion is the calculation of the pre-1995 

adjustment. Based on changes in the RMA insurance program beginning in 1995, the 

submission includes an adjustment to loss cost ratios from 1995 and prior years. As shown in 

Table 4.18 of the Implementation Report, this adjustment involves multiplying the pre-1995 loss 

costs by an adjustment factor -- to reduce those loss costs to the current (1995 and subsequent) 

level.

The Technical Report includes extensive analysis of possible methods for determining this pre1995 adjustment (on pages 47-70). The methods all use ordinary least squares projections, and 

produce results on a by-crop by-state level, as well as on a regional by-crop level and a 

countrywide by-crop level. However, the submission does not include all of the detailed 

coefficients which would allow us to actually calculate the various pre-1995 adjustment factors.

The Implementation Report discusses the pre-1995 adjustment factor as well, and states “We 

suggest estimation with the fractional logit procedure” (page 45). The Implementation Report 

therefore suggests using the fractional logit regression procedure, even though the Technical 

Report has done extensive testing using ordinary least squares regression. Furthermore, the 

Implementation Report states “Our previous analysis evaluated state, regional and national level 

estimates of the pre-1995 effect. ... we do not make a specific recommendation as to what level 

of aggregation should be used.” (page 45)

Section 5 of the Implementation Report provides estimates of the impact of the submission’s new 

methodology on base rates for corn and for soybeans. Because the submission does not 

recommend either the state, regional or national adjustment factors, it is not clear which pre-1995 

adjustments are used in the Section 5 impacts. 

It therefore appears that the technical analysis of the pre-1995 adjustment is not finalized, with a 

variety of approaches still being considered. 

D. Is the data used for the analyses appropriate, reliable, and the best available?

Answer 2D: The RMA Statplan data is by definition the best available source for experience on 

the FCIC insurance programs.
BPA #AG-645S-B-09-0029 BPA Call # AG-645S-K-11-0063 Due October 14, 2011

“Methodology Analysis for Weighting Historical Experience” 

Funded by the RMA and Produced by Coble, Miller, Rejesus, Boyles, Knight and Goodwin

Page 3 

The Climate Division Data is discussed in the submission and is also described in more detail in a 

paper by Guttman and Quayle “A Historical Perspective of U.S. Climate Divisions”. These two 

authors discuss the Climate Division Data, and point out that – while the data is available for each 

year in the period from 1895 to present – the data from prior to 1931 is sometimes incomplete. In 

this early period missing data for some states is estimated based on regression analysis using 

available data from neighboring states.

Given this background, it may have been appropriate for the submission to consider the impact of 

an alternate approach – of using the Climate Division Data only for the period from 1931 to 

present.

 E. Does experience from prior years and relevant crops and areas support the validity of 

the proposed rates?

Answer 2F: We obtained premium and loss experience from the RMA website for a) all crops, for 

years 1989-2010 and b) apples, corn, and soybeans, for years 2004-2010. We viewed this 

experience from a few different perspectives:

Does the experience support the generally lower rates for FCIC products which are expected to 

result from this submission?

Does the experience on apples, corn and soybeans support the higher rates which are expected 

to result for apples, and the lower rates which are expected to result for corn and soybeans?

Does the experience support the position that FCIC experience (loss ratios, and loss cost ratios) 

changed dramatically for the better beginning in 1995?

The table below shows experience for all crops from 1989 to 2010. 

The extremely low loss ratios – averaging 69% across all crops during the 2004-2010 period – do 

provide additional support for the generally lower rates which are expected to result from this 

submission.

Not all rates will decline if the methodology in this submission is adopted. For example, rates for 

corn and soybeans are expected to decline, but rates for apples are expected to increase. The 

following table shows recent experience for these three crops during the 2004-2010 period. Loss 

ratios for corn and soybeans are quite low (54% for corn and 59% for soybeans) but loss ratios 

are relatively high at 123% for apples. The actual RMA experience therefore supports the 

expected direction of the changes in rates for these three crops.

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Total 89-94

Premium 814,302 836,468 737,049 758,789 755,739 949,395 4,851,742

Indemnity 1,212,235 973,032 955,289 918,215 1,655,479 601,146 6,315,396

Loss Ratio 149% 116% 130% 121% 219% 63% 130%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total 95-03

Premium 1,090,508 1,408,699 1,426,100 1,517,775 2,014,351 2,275,324 2,715,809 2,684,649 3,205,475 18,338,690

Indemnity 1,400,140 1,342,663 949,744 1,561,395 2,352,764 2,528,993 2,909,972 3,988,368 3,216,222 20,250,261

Loss Ratio 128% 95% 67% 103% 117% 111% 107% 149% 100% 110%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 04-10

Premium 3,944,251 3,712,434 4,365,131 6,288,533 9,515,121 8,641,236 7,325,320 43,792,026

Indemnity 3,155,235 2,266,515 3,434,704 3,487,972 8,602,971 5,154,052 4,196,167 30,297,616

Loss Ratio 80% 61% 79% 55% 90% 60% 57% 69%

Summary of RMA Loss Ratio Reports for 1989-2010

All Crops -- Buy-Up Coverage Only (CAT excluded)

Premium and Indemnity Shown in $1,000's
BPA #AG-645S-B-09-0029 BPA Call # AG-645S-K-11-0063 Due October 14, 2011

“Methodology Analysis for Weighting Historical Experience” 

Funded by the RMA and Produced by Coble, Miller, Rejesus, Boyles, Knight and Goodwin

Page 4

Finally, we also considered the insurance premiums per unit of exposure during the 1989-2010 

period. These values can be derived from the RMA’s loss ratio reports, as shown in the table 

below. 

Premiums per dollar of Liability increased from an average of $0.066 in 1989-1994 to an average 

of $0.083 in 1995-2003 to an average of $0.108 in 2004-2010. These premium increases could 

explain much of the loss ratio decline from 1989-1994 to 1995-2003. However, the loss ratio 

decline from 1995-2003 to 2004-2010 is somewhat larger than would be expected from the 

premium increases alone.

(The premium increase from 1995-2003 to 2004-2010 averages 30.1%. A rate increase of this 

magnitude would be expected to decrease the 1995-2003 loss ratio of 110% to about 85%, where

110% / 1.301 = 85%. However, the actual all-crops loss ratio for 2004-2010 is 69%.)

An explicit assumption in the submission is that there is a change in the FCIC insurance program 

in 1995, so an adjustment to the pre-1995 loss costs is appropriate. Based on discussions with 

Thomas Worth of the RMA, some of the factors relating to this 1995 change are:

1. Disaster assistance was linked to buying FCIC insurance. That link has subsequently 

been loosened, but many of the producers who entered the program at that time have 

remained in the program.

2. The RMA was given authority to track taxpayer ID’s. This additional tool reduced fraud.

3. The policy wording was tightened.

4. Rates were increased.

5. In addition, in recent years farming methods have improved. For example, genetically 

Apples

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 04-10

Premium 27,406,946 36,946,661 35,907,329 39,535,807 46,585,341 60,053,652 63,129,800 309,565,536

Indemnity 18,653,731 39,482,775 48,086,791 50,572,586 69,774,956 72,025,833 83,024,122 381,620,794

Loss Ratio 68% 107% 134% 128% 150% 120% 132% 123%

Corn

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 04-10

Premium 1,406,769,772 1,265,847,493 1,561,050,566 3,109,900,085 3,804,344,456 3,396,415,492 2,855,200,988 17,399,528,852

Indemnity 814,200,896 697,946,532 807,625,823 1,095,466,475 3,063,515,648 1,178,868,553 1,720,466,628 9,378,090,555

Loss Ratio 58% 55% 52% 35% 81% 35% 60% 54%

Soybeans

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 04-10

Premium 943,561,418 873,155,931 1,042,784,150 1,066,163,554 2,609,708,811 1,981,984,102 1,747,061,964 10,264,419,930

Indemnity 739,813,485 260,245,246 305,780,701 602,745,032 2,873,849,415 555,899,236 739,945,264 6,078,278,379

Loss Ratio 78% 30% 29% 57% 110% 28% 42% 59%

Summary of RMA Loss Ratio Reports for 2004-2010

Apples, Corn and Soybeans -- All Coverages

Premium and Indemnity

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Total 89-94

Premium 814,302 836,468 737,049 758,789 755,739 949,395 4,851,742

Liability 13,535,807 12,828,368 11,215,994 11,334,059 11,353,421 13,608,387 73,876,036

Prem/Liability $ 0.060 $ 0.065 $ 0.066 $ 0.067 $ 0.067 $ 0.070 $ 0.066

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total 95-03

Premium 1,090,508 1,408,699 1,426,100 1,517,775 2,014,351 2,275,324 2,715,809 2,684,649 3,205,475 18,338,690

Liability 15,346,421 19,303,090 19,165,190 20,841,481 23,608,659 27,302,555 29,877,548 30,481,149 33,917,882 219,843,975

Prem/Liability $ 0.071 $ 0.073 $ 0.074 $ 0.073 $ 0.085 $ 0.083 $ 0.091 $ 0.088 $ 0.095 $ 0.083

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 04-10

Premium 3,944,251 3,712,434 4,365,131 6,288,533 9,515,121 8,641,236 7,325,320 43,792,026

Liability 39,469,474 37,185,449 43,232,303 59,894,869 81,439,377 71,641,824 71,007,193 403,870,489

Prem/Liability $ 0.100 $ 0.100 $ 0.101 $ 0.105 $ 0.117 $ 0.121 $ 0.103 $ 0.108

Summary of RMA Loss Ratio Reports for 1989-2010

All Crops -- Buy-Up Coverage Only (CAT excluded)

Premium and Liability Shown in $1,000's
BPA #AG-645S-B-09-0029 BPA Call # AG-645S-K-11-0063 Due October 14, 2011

“Methodology Analysis for Weighting Historical Experience” 

Funded by the RMA and Produced by Coble, Miller, Rejesus, Boyles, Knight and Goodwin

Page 5 

engineered corn and soybeans are now quite common. These crops are more robust. 

Also, improved combines and tractors make it easier for producers to plant and harvest in 

poor weather conditions.

The submission provides information on the increase in FCIC premium volume beginning in 1995. 

That increase in volume, combined with the background information in the previous paragraph, 

does support a difference in loss costs in pre-1995 years versus 1995 and subsequent years. 

However, the RMA loss ratio information – with the extremely low loss ratios in the 2004-2010 

period – might suggest an alternate break point. The loss ratio information might suggest a break 

point into pre-2003 years versus 2004 and subsequent years. 

 F. Are the proposed premium rates likely to cover anticipated losses and a reasonable 

reserve?

Answer 2I: When dealing with weather events, relatively short periods of historical experience 

may not provide completely credible results. Nevertheless, the extremely low loss ratios for FCIC 

insurance observed during the 2004-2010 period provide some additional support for the overall 

decrease in rates which is expected to result from this submission. 

Based on the submission itself and our additional review of the RMA loss ratio experience, I 

believe it is likely that the rates resulting from the proposed new methodology will cover 

anticipated losses and a reasonable reserve. 

G. Is the actuarial method appropriate for the proposed policy?

Answer 2J: The proposed new actuarial methods described in the submission appear to be 

reasonable and appropriate. These new methods are discussed and analyzed in detail in the 

submission, and for the most part the submission’s recommendations are well-documented. We 

have listed a number of potential problem areas with the proposed methods in our answers to 

Questions 2A to 2F above. 

Conclusion: The purpose of the submission is to revise and refine the RMA’s methodology for 

updating rates. It is my understanding that approval of the submission will impact rates for all 

crops in the FCIC programs.

Section 5 of the Implementation Report lists the following recommended changes to the RMA 

ratemaking methodology:

1. An adjustment to pre-1995 loss costs (reducing these pre-1995 loss costs to bring them 

to current levels)

2. Weather weighting (using weather indices to place loss costs by country by crop in 

statistical “bins”, and also using these weather indices to temper the impact of extreme 

years in the excess loss procedure)

3. Net acre weighting within probability bins

4. The use of a 20 year moving average of loss data (instead of the current procedure’s 31 

years)

5. Use of a 90th percentile cutoff for catastrophe loading (instead of the current 80th

percentile cutoff) and distributing the catastrophe loading across each climate division 

(instead of the current procedure’s distribution of the catastrophe loading across each 

state)

I believe the arguments made in the submission for these changes are convincing. However, in 

our review we do identify a number of potential problem areas in the submission. These include:

1. There is no mention of global warming in the submission. Because of the possibility that 
BPA #AG-645S-B-09-0029 BPA Call # AG-645S-K-11-0063 Due October 14, 2011

“Methodology Analysis for Weighting Historical Experience” 

Funded by the RMA and Produced by Coble, Miller, Rejesus, Boyles, Knight and Goodwin

Page 6 

global warming – or some other long-term trend in weather -- does exist, it would appear 

necessary for the submission to consider the possible impact of this phenomenon on its 

calculation of weather indices.

2. The fractional logit regression procedure is used in the submission. I believe the 

information provided in the submission leaves a significant part of this procedure as a 

“black box” for the reviewers.

3. Various aspects of the pre-1995 adjustment are unclear. The Technical Report uses 

ordinary least squares to calculate three methods for calculating this adjustment. 

However, the technical report does not provide sufficient information for us to actually 

calculate this adjustment. 

In addition, the Implementation Report suggests using the fractional logit regression 

method for calculating this adjustment, even though the Technical Report used ordinary 

least squares regression. Finally, the Implementation Report does not reach a 

conclusion as to whether this adjustment should be on the state, regional or national 

level.

4. The Climate Division Data is available yearly from 1895 to present. However, some data 

from the pre-1931 years was not available, and had been estimated using regression 

techniques. The submission does not investigate whether using data from only 1931 to 

present would be an improvement over their approach of using 1895 to present data.

5. The RMA premium and loss experience by year and by crop provides some evidence 

that breaking the experience period between pre-2003 years and 2004 and subsequent 

years might be preferable to the submission’s breaking of the experience into pre-1995

years and 1995 and subsequent years. 
BPA #AG-645S-B-09-0029 BPA Call # AG-645S-K-11-0063 Due October 14, 2011

“Methodology Analysis for Weighting Historical Experience”

Funded by the RMA and Produced by Coble, Miller, Rejesus, Boyles, Knight and Goodwin

Background of John Pierce

Education and Credentials 

 B.S. University of Chicago 1971 

 M.B.A. University of Chicago 1983 

 F.C.A.S. Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society

 M.A.A.A. Member of the American Academy of Actuaries

Consulting Experience 

Consulting practice established May of 1983. Examples of completed projects include: 

Annual Statement work for property-casualty insurers and reinsurers -- review of yearend loss and LAE reserves, provide actuarial opinion letters and actuarial reports, all per 

statutory requirements.

Rate analyses and rate filings for a variety of product lines (e.g. Private Passenger 

automobile, Real Estate E&O, Group AD&D, Crop Insurance)

Analysis of funding requirements for Hospital Professional Liability self-insurance trust 

funds. Analysis of funding requirements for Workers Compensation self-insurers.

Analysis of company and bureau rate filings for South Dakota, Michigan and Oklahoma 

state Insurance Departments. Analysis of Crop Insurance submissions to RMA. 

Design of system to calculate Worker's Compensation Indemnity and Medical reserves 

on a claim-by-claim basis. Used by a leading Illinois self-insurer.

Experience Prior to Consulting 

Insurance Services Office (ISO) Chicago, IL June 1979 to May 1983 

Midwest Regional Actuary -- responsible for presentation of rate filings to all midwestern 

state insurance departments. Involved in filings for all ISO lines of business (e.g. Private 

Passenger, Homeowners, Medical Malpractice, Increased Limits factors.)

Kemper Insurance Long Grove, IL. October 1977 to June 1979 

Group health actuary -- responsible for pricing and profitability studies of all group 

health products (e.g. Group Major Medical and Dental, multi-employer trust plans, group 

LTD.)

Zurich Insurance Chicago, IL. August 1973 to October 1977 

Annual Statement loss reserves for personal and commercial property-casualty lines. 

Loss reserve calculations for Group Health Insurance. Ratemaking for Private Passenger 

and Homeowners. 

CNA Insurance Chicago, IL. May 1971 to August 1973 

Pricing and loss reserve calculations for Group Health insurance. 
BPA #AG-645S-B-09-0029 BPA Call # AG-645S-K-11-0063 Due October 14, 2011

“Methodology Analysis for Weighting Historical Experience”

Funded by the RMA and Produced by Coble, Miller, Rejesus, Boyles, Knight and Goodwin

Background of Maureen Boyle

Education and Credentials 

B.S. University of Illinois 1993 

M.S. University of Illinois 1994 

A.C.A.S. Associate of the Casualty Actuarial Society

M.A.A.A. Member of the American Academy of Actuaries

Experience at John Pierce Consulting Actuary

Prepare Workers Compensation rate filings; work on GAP and Collateral Protection 

Insurance (CPI) rate filings; loss reserve projections for Automobile, Title Insurance, 

Accident & Health, and other lines 

Experience Prior to John Pierce Consulting Actuary 

The Warranty Group 2003 to 2007 

Review external books of business for potential acquisition; prepare and defend rate 

filings for Specialty and Warranty products; work with data center to improve data 

capture for GAP contracts

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company 2001-2002 

Supervised pricing of personal lines, financial institution and warranty insurance 

CNA Insurance 1996-2001 

Estimated ultimate loss and LAE for CNA’s medical professional liability products; 

performed reserve reviews of retrospectively rated and excess property business

Coopers & Lybrand LLP 1994-1996 

Actuarial associate