Uncertainty Analysis for Computer Model Projections of Hurricane Losses

Projecting losses associated with hurricanes is a complex and difficult undertaking that is wrought with uncertainties. Hurricane Charley, which struck southwest Florida on August 13, 2004, illustrates the uncertainty of forecasting damages from these storms. Due to shifts in the track and the rapid intensification of the storm, real-time estimates grew from 2 to 3 billion dollars in losses late on August 12 to a peak of 50 billion dollars for a brief time as the storm appeared to be headed for the Tampa Bay area. The storm hit the resort areas of Charlotte Harbor near Punta Gorda and then went on to Orlando in the central part of the state, with early poststorm estimates converging on a damage estimate in the 28 to 31 billion dollars range. Comparable damage to central Florida had not been seen since Hurricane Donna in 1960. The Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology (FCHLPM) has recognized the role of computer models in projecting losses from hurricanes. The FCHLPM established a professional team to perform onsite (confidential) audits of computer models developed by several different companies in the United States that seek to have their models approved for use in insurance rate filings in Florida. The team's members represent the fields of actuarial science, computer science, meteorology, statistics, and wind and structural engineering. An important part of the auditing process requires uncertainty and sensitivity analyses to be performed with the applicant's proprietary model. To influence future such analyses, an uncertainty and sensitivity analysis has been completed for loss projections arising from use of a Holland B parameter hurricane wind field model. Uncertainty analysis quantifies the expected percentage reduction in the uncertainty of wind speed and loss that is attributable to each of the input variables.     

Les normes comptables comme institution du capitalisme. Une analyse du passage aux normes IFRS en Europe à partir de 2005

In 2002, the European Union changed direction from its past efforts to harmonise European accounting systems and turned instead to a subcontractor, requiring listed European companies to adopt accounting standards drawn up by a private London-based organisation, the IASB (International Accounting Standards Board), which had until then had no public mandate. This decision was all the more significant because the EU has no institutional means of control over the IASB, although it was the first geographical group to decide to impose these standards on its businesses. IASB standards are rooted in the “anglo-saxon” tradition of standardisation for the financial markets, and the view of the enterprise they promote diverges from the accounting traditions of continental European capitalism. This article shows how the new standards are transforming the concept of enterprise, and examines the span of factors that brought about what is a major institutional change for European capitalism. — Special issue: New patterns of institutions.     

The Impact of Question and Respondent Characteristics on Comprehension and Mapping Difficulties

Behavior coding is one technique researchers use to detect problemsin survey questions, but it has been primarily explored as apractical tool rather than a source of insight into the theoreticalunderstanding of the cognitive processes by which respondentsanswer survey questions. The latter is the focus of the currentinvestigation. Using data from a large study in which face-to-faceinterviews were taped and extensive behavior coding was done,we tested whether sets of respondent behavior codes could beused to distinguish respondent difficulties with comprehensionof the question from difficulties associated with mapping ajudgment onto the response format provided, and whether characteristicsof the survey questions and respondents could be used to predictwhen and for whom such difficulties would occur. Sets of behaviorcodes were identified that reflected comprehension and mappingdifficulties, and these two types of difficulties were associatedwith different question and respondent characteristics. Thisevidence suggests that behavior coding shows promise as a toolfor researchers studying the cognitive processes involved inanswering survey questions.