Estimating Translated Gamma Parameters from Monte Carlo Loss Samples
Summary
The document discusses fitting a translated gamma distribution to aggregate losses generated by Monte Carlo simulation. The setup simulates loss frequency with a Poisson or negative binomial model, samples individual losses from a chosen severity distribution, sums them, and repeats the process to form an aggregate-loss sample. The original question focuses on why the location parameter varies substantially between simulation runs and whether moments can be estimated from simulated values.
The answer explains the method of moments: estimate sample moments, express the target distribution’s moments in terms of its parameters, then solve the resulting equations. Each population moment can be approximated by the average of the corresponding powers of simulated observations. The answer cautions that this empirical average exists for a finite sample even when the theoretical moment does not; large variation may signal slow convergence, especially with heavy tails, or a nonexistent moment. It offers no specific prescription for choosing the translated parameter.
Key ideas
- Method of moments estimates distribution parameters by matching sample moments to theoretical moments.
- Monte Carlo moments can be estimated by averaging the corresponding powers of simulated aggregate losses.
- A finite-sample moment estimate exists even when the theoretical moment may not.
- High variability in estimated moments can indicate slow convergence or a nonexistent moment.
Tags
Full text
# Getting Parameter of Translated Gamma Distribution from Monte Carlo
# Getting Parameter of Translated Gamma Distribution from Monte Carlo
Spin-off from here.
(Edit) Main question: What do I do about a parameter whose suggested values range quite vastly?
(Edit) Backstory: I am given data of loss values and the dates that correspond to when each loss was incurred. I am to fit a distribution for the aggregate losses: I must first simulate using poisson or negative binomial the frequency of loss (some positive integer, usually less than 15) and then simulate losses given the frequency (e.g. simulate 15 loss values) that follow some distribution e.g. loglogistic, mixture, lognormal. I have to them sum up those losses and that counts as the first aggregate loss. I have to do this 2000 times and then fit those 2000 values into a distribution.
Richard referred to me an article that tells me how to get parameters of a translated gamma distribution to which I should consider fitting simulated aggregated loss values.
The parameters depend on moments of S (or. in Richard's terms, L):
When I simulate the parameters, as we would expect I get different values each time. The values for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ don't vary much and seem to be close to zero, but $x_0$ seems to vary each time. Iirc, I got values ranging from -100,000 to -600,000. How should I know what $x_0$ to use? Do I get an average of 1000 x_0's?
This would seems impractical even if it were 100 x_0's since each x_0 is obtained from 2000 simulations (the requirement of the project).
Btw, I am assuming the $E(S^n)$'s can be approximated with mean($S^n$)'s. Is that right?
Cross-posted: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/136829/getting-parameter-of-translated-gamma-distribution-from-monte-carlo
## Answer by Richi Wa (score 1, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/16504
I though about this one more time: method of moments means that you do the following:
- calculate some statistics (i.e. the moments) on the sample
- express the moments of the distribution that you want to fit in terms of the parameters of this distribution
- solve the resulting system of equations.
If you estimate $E[S^n]$ by averaging the $S_k,k=1,\ldots,K$ of the sample that you have generated by MC simply means that you apply the empirical distribution function in order to calculate this quantity. I.e. $$ E[S^n] \approx \sum_{k=1}^K p_k S^n_k = \frac1K \sum_{k=1}^K S^n_k $$ and $p_k = 1/K$ for all $k$.
Note that while E[S^n] maybe does not exist the rhs always will. Large variations of the rhs indicate that either convergence is very slow (in the case of heavy tails) or that the expression does not exist.Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.