Shake up your thinking on catastrophe risk modeling : lessons learned from the Canterbury earthquakes

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
  <record>
    <leader>00000cab a2200000   4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">MAP20140023400</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20140703131002.0</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="008">140703e20140702esp|||p      |0|||b|spa d</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">MAP</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">5</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20140011001</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Lough, Craig</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
      <subfield code="a">Shake up your thinking on catastrophe risk modeling</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">: lessons learned from the Canterbury earthquakes</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">by Craig Lough and Ron Kozlowski</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Catastrophe models are used by property & casualty (P&C) insurers for many reasons, such as estimating reinsurance needs, concentration analysis and pricing. These models have recently come to the forefront of thought in New Zealand due to the Canterbury earthquake events, which have stressed many reinsurance programs (government and private), and the introduction of a new regulation requiring insurers to hold reinsurance for one-in-1,000-year events. This article provides a background on recent events in New Zealand. It also describes why catastrophe models are relevant and useful, and what their shortcomings are  universally applicable points</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080608088</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Programas de reaseguro</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080612429</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Riesgos extraordinarios</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080600204</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Catástrofes naturales</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080611613</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Modelos probabílisticos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080604394</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Valoración de riesgos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080556792</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Terremotos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20090005181</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Nueva Zelanda</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20110026523</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Kozlowski, Ron</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="w">MAP20077000932</subfield>
      <subfield code="t">Emphasis</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">New York : Towers Watson, 1987-</subfield>
      <subfield code="g">02/07/2014 Número 2 - 2014 , p. 23-26</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>