SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2202.10588

Cyber Loss Model Risk Translates to Premium Mispricing and Risk Sensitivity

Abstract

We focus on model risk and risk sensitivity when addressing the insurability of cyber risk. The standard statistical approaches to assessment of insurability and potential mispricing are enhanced in several aspects involving consideration of model risk. Model risk can arise from model uncertainty, and parameters uncertainty. We demonstrate how to quantify the effect of model risk in this analysis by incorporating various robust estimators for key model parameter estimates that apply in both marginal and joint cyber risk loss process modelling. We contrast these robust techniques with standard methods previously used in studying insurabilty of cyber risk. This allows us to accurately assess the critical impact that robust estimation can have on tail index estimation for heavy tailed loss models, as well as the effect of robust dependence analysis when quantifying joint loss models and insurance portfolio diversification. We argue that the choice of such methods is akin to a form of model risk and we study the risk sensitivity that arise from choices relating to the class of robust estimation adopted and the impact of the settings associated with such methods on key actuarial tasks such as premium calculation in cyber insurance. Through this analysis we are able to address the question that, to the best of our knowledge, no other study has investigated in the context of cyber risk: is model risk present in cyber risk data, and how does is it translate into premium mispricing? We believe our findings should complement existing studies seeking to explore insurability of cyber losses. In order to ensure our findings are based on realistic industry informed loss data, we have utilised one of the leading industry cyber loss datasets obtained from Advisen, which represents a comprehensive data set on cyber monetary losses, from which we form our analysis and conclusions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Gareth W. Peters, Matteo Malavasi, Georgy Sofronov, Pavel V. Shevchenko, Stefan Trück, Jiwook Jang. 2022-02-22. Cyber Loss Model Risk Translates to Premium Mispricing and Risk Sensitivity. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.10588

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Simplifying Cyber Cat(astrophe)s with Cyber Kittens: Power Law Plausibility for Cyber Insurance Risks

Cyber insurance requires accurate modeling of worst-case catastrophic (cat) events, but the field lacks robust quantitative approaches for estimating upper-bound losses. Building on a recent dataset of 24 cyber cat events over 30 years, this work tests whether cyber economic losses follow a power law distribution. We analyze "cyber kittens" - sub-1B USD events distinguished from cat events (1B+ USD) only by magnitude - extracted via LLM from cyber insurance claims data (2020-2024). Using victim count (weighted by claim year) as a proxy for economic loss, we link kitten-sized events to known cat events to estimate losses. The kitten distribution proved consistent with the cat dataset, and power laws were statistically plausible: each order-of-magnitude increase in event size corresponds to a 5-7x drop in probability. Extrapolating, an event 100x the largest 2020-2024 cat event is expected roughly every 206 years, translating to 100-250B USD in losses - catastrophic, but not extraordinary relative to other insurance lines.

q-fin.RM

Pricing the DeFi Tail: Do Protocols or Depositors Price Operational Risk?

Similar to banks, DeFi protocols expose depositors to operational risk (USD 9.45 billion across 1,075 events since 2020). Unlike banks, they are not required to hold capital against it. A protocol may maintain a buffer voluntarily. Absent one, the risk falls on the depositor, who should then demand a risk premium in the supply yield. I quantify the underlying tail on one benchmark, a per-sector Basel loss-distribution approach fitted to a new operational risk event dataset, and test both margins against it. Tails in the four core sectors are no heavier than the Moscadelli banking band $[0.85, 1.39]$. Bridge, Derivatives, and the residual Other sector exhibit cyber-loss-level tails ($\hat\xi \approx 1.6$), with point estimates past the infinite-mean boundary. The Lending tail implies a $\mathrm{VaR}_{99.9}$ capital buffer of 18% of TVL and of the ten largest Lending venues, the four holding a buffer cover on average 5% of it. Under market discipline, depositors should demand a higher yield in compensation where a venue does not maintain a buffer. I find that venues without a buffer pay a higher premium than those with (a 125-bps gap in medians): evidence the market discriminates in the right direction. However, the premium falls far short of an adequately priced tail. This unpriced tail falls disproportionately on the retail depositor, who sees only the posted rate but lacks the information and skills to price it. Because these products are not bank-regulated, I recommend disclosure over capital mandates: protocols, and any service providers that front access to it, should publish standardized losses, existing capital buffers and tail coverage.

q-fin.RM

Illiquidity at Risk

Market efficiency relies fundamentally on stable liquidity. Consequently, forecasting liquidity dynamics is a priority for both investors and regulators. We introduce a new tail-risk metric, Illiquidity-at-Risk (IlliQaR), designed to quantify the magnitude of extreme liquidity dry-ups. Relying upon the realized Amihud (a precise illiquidity measurement derived from high-frequency data as the ratio of realized volatility to trading volume) we assess the predictive power of various linear and non-linear econometric models, with a specific focus on the impact of discontinuous jump components. Accounting for these jumps is essential for achieving accurate probability coverage and better IlliQaR predictions during periods of systemic stress, where standard continuous models systematically underestimate the severity of liquidity evaporation. Our empirical analysis, encompassing the S&P 500 index and a cross-section of 25 large U.S. equities, demonstrates that incorporating jumps significantly improves forecasts of illiquidity. Our results suggest that individual stock IlliQaR violations often cluster during periods of S&P 500 liquidity stress. This indicates that Illiquidity at Risk is not just a localized concern but a systemic one, where the main index acts as a leading indicator for extreme dry-ups in individual stock liquidity.

q-fin.RM