Senior Lecturer in Actuarial SciencePostgraduate Taught LeadFellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, UKFellow of the Institute of Actuaries of India
Pradip is a Fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries in the UK. He is also a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries of India. Pradip's doctoral thesis The impact of multifactorial genetic disorders on long-term Insurance was researched at Heriot-Watt University. His undergraduate and postgraduate studies were in Statistics at the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India, and he holds a postgraduate diploma in Actuarial Science from Heriot-Watt University.
Pradip joined CASRI in December 2006. He serves on the Research and Enterprise Committee, is the Head of Research for CASRI, and co-ordinates the Actuarial Science seminar programme.
He has worked in the life insurance industry for more than 5 years; his business exposure includes product development, pricing, valuation, financial reporting, and business planning experience with HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company, a joint venture life insurance firm between Standard Life and HDFC, based in Mumbai, India. He has similar UK experience gained with Standard Life in Edinburgh, and has carried out research at the Genetics and Insurance Research Centre at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.
With the advent of new risk-based regulations for financial services firms, specifically Basel 2 and Basel 3 for banks and Solvency 2 for insurers, there is now a heightened focus on the practical implementation of quantitative risk management techniques for firms and defined benefit pension schemes operating within the financial services sector.
In particular, financial services firms are now expected to self-assess and quantify the amount of capital they need to cover the risks they are running. This self-assessed quantum of capital is commonly termed risk, or economic, capital.
At Kent we are actively involved in developing rigorous risk management techniques to explicitly measure how much risk a firm or pension scheme is taking, holistically, across the entire spectrum of risks it accepts.
Restrictions on risk classification can lead to adverse selection, and actuaries usually regard this as a bad thing. However, restrictions do exist in many countries, suggesting that policymakers often perceive some merit in such restrictions. Careful re-examination of the usual actuarial arguments can help to reconcile these observations.
Models of insurance purchasing behaviour under different risk classification regimes can quantify the effects of particular bans, e.g. on insurers’ use of genetic test results, or gender classification in the European Union.
