European Actuarial Journal

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 61–96 | Cite as

A credibility approach of the Makeham mortality law

  • Yahia SalhiEmail author
  • Pierre-E. Thérond
  • Julien Tomas
Original Research Paper


Interest from life insurers to assess their portfolios’ mortality risk has considerably increased. The new regulation and norms, Solvency II, shed light on the need of life tables that best reflect the experience of insured portfolios in order to quantify reliably the underlying mortality risk. In this context and following the work of Bühlmann and Gisler (A course in credibility theory and its applications. Springer, New York, 2005) and Hardy and Panjer (ASTIN Bull 28(2):269–283, 1998), we propose a credibility approach which consists on reviewing, as new observations arrive, the assumption on the mortality curve. Unlike the methodology considered in Hardy and Panjer (1998) that consists on updating the aggregate deaths we have chosen to add an age structure on these deaths. Formally, we use a Makeham graduation model. Such an adjustment allows to add a structure in the mortality pattern which is useful when portfolios are of limited size so as to ensure a good representation over the entire age bands considered. We investigate the divergences in the mortality forecasts generated by the classical credibility approaches of mortality including Hardy and Panjer (1998) and the Poisson-Gamma model on portfolios originating from various French insurance companies.


Credibility Makeham law Mortality Life insurance Graduation Extrapolation 


  1. 1.
    Barrieu P, Bensusan H, El Karoui N, Hillairet C, Loisel S, Ravanelli C, Salhi Y (2012) Understanding, modelling and managing longevity risk: key issues and main challenges. Scand Actuar J 3:203–231MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blanpain N, Chardon O (2010) Projections de populations \(2007\)\(2060\) pour la France métropolitaine: méthode et principaux résultats. In: Série des Documents de Travail de la direction des statistiques Démographiques et Sociales F1008, Institut National de la Statistique et des Études ÉconomiquesGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bongaarts J (2005) Long-range trends in adult mortality: models and projection methods. Demography 42(1):23–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bühlmann H, Gisler A (2005) A course in credibility theory and its applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Centeno L (1989) The Bühlmann–Straub model with the premium calculated according to the variance principle. Insur Math Econ 8(1):3–10MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delwarde A, Kachkhdze D, Olie L, Denuit M (2004) Modèles linéaires et additifs géneralisés, maximum de vraisemblance local et méthodes relationelles en assurance sur la vie. Bull Français d’Actuar 6(12):77–102Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Felipe A, Guillén M, Pérez-Marín A (2002) Recent mortality trends in the Spanish population. Br Actuar J 8(4):757–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forfar D, McCutcheon J, Wilkie A (1988) On graduation by mathematical formula. J Instit Actuar 115(01):1–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gavrilova N, Gavrilov L (2011) Ageing and longevity: mortality laws and mortality forecasts for ageing populations. Demografie 53(2):109–128Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hardy MR, Panjer HH (1998) A credibility approach to mortality risk. ASTIN Bull 28(2):269–283CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hyndman RJ, Booth H, Yasmeen F (2013) Coherent mortality forecasting: the product-ratio method with functional time series models. Demography 50(1):261–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keyfitz N (1981) The limits of population forecasting. Popul Devel Rev 579–593Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee RD, Carter LR (1992) Modeling and forecasting us mortality. J Am Stat Assoc 87(419):659–671Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liddell FDK (1984) Simple exact analysis of the standardised mortality ratio. J Epidemiol Commun Health 38:85–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Makeham WM (1867) On the law of mortality. J Inst Actuar 1866:325–358Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ngai A, Sherris M (2011) Longevity risk management for life and variable annuities: the effectiveness of static hedging using longevity bonds and derivatives. Insur Math Econ 49(1):100–114MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Plat R (2009) Stochastic portfolio specific mortality and the quantification of mortality basis risk. Insur Math Econ 45(1):123–132MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thatcher AR (1999) The long-term pattern of adult mortality and the highest attained age. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Stat Soc) 162(1):5–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tomas J, Planchet F (2013) Construction et validation des références de mortalité de place. In: Technical report II1291-11 v1.3, Institut des ActuairesGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tomas J, Planchet F (2014) Constructing entity specific projected mortality table: adjustment to a reference. Eur Actuar J 4(2):247–279MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhu Z, Li Z (2013) Logistic regression for insured mortality experience studies. SCOR InformGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© DAV / DGVFM 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yahia Salhi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pierre-E. Thérond
    • 1
    • 2
  • Julien Tomas
    • 3
  1. 1.Univ Lyon, Université Lyon 1, LSAFLyonFrance
  2. 2.Galea & AssociésParisFrance
  3. 3.SCOR Global LifeParis Cedex 16France

Personalised recommendations