← Project hub

Interactive scenario planner

Set your own assumptions and read CLV back · Call #4, August 6, 2026 · all six model families · runs entirely in your browser

This is the page presented on 6 August 2026, kept as the record of that call. It has since been superseded by the interactive CLV scenario planner, which exposes every lever predict_clv() has — including retention, the two growth hazards, LAE, the fixed-dollar expense fields and both tenure bases — adds a single-customer mode that reproduces a worked example term by term, and verifies its own arithmetic against Python-generated golden vectors on load.

What this is

“One of my thoughts was that when this work is completed, we can create a web user interface where it gives you different options. You select, in your particular scenario, what’s the loss ratio, what’s the average premium, what’s the expenses and all. Based on that, you can get possibilities of this being your most probable value of lifetime. And as you want to change it, you can also change it.” — Pramod Misra, Call #3 (2026-07-16)

This is that interface, at the preliminary-toolkit stage of the tranche-2 bundle. Move any lever; all three CLV variants and the year-by-year build-up update immediately. Nothing is sent anywhere — the model coefficients are embedded in this page and the arithmetic runs locally, so it works offline and from a PDF-adjacent context.

Toolkit users who want per-customer rather than book-average answers call predict_clv() directly; this page is the book-average view for people who do not want to run Python.

Your assumptions

Per customer, across all products held
Incurred loss ÷ earned premium
Charged once, at inception (sunk for in-force)
Charged on every future term
Years of future renewals valued
Applied as (1 + r)−t
Credited once, at the modelled time of sale · with-growth variant only, excluded from filing
Applies in every term from the upgrade year onward · with-growth variant only, excluded from filing

Customer lifetime value — book average, per customer

Base — filing basis
—
P − L − E only. Defensible in an indication.
With growth — planning headline
—
Adds cross-sell (once) + upsell (recurring).
Net of acquisition — new business
—
With-growth minus acquisition expense.

Year-by-year build-up

Discounted contribution to with-growth CLV Negative contribution
Discounted contribution to CLV by future year

The same numbers as a table

YearExpected renewalsLoss multiplier Effective loss ratioDiscount factor ContributionCumulative

How it computes, and how to check it

CLV = Σt=1..H (1+r)−t × [ (1−e) · At · sP − mt · Bt · sP sL + X · Nt ]

where, for the selected model, At is premium-weighted expected renewals in year t, Bt loss-weighted, Nt unweighted; sP and sL scale those to your premium and loss ratio; mt is the tenure loss multiplier (1.0 when the toggle is off).

Why weighted aggregates rather than a simple book mean. Renewal counts and premiums are positively correlated, so mean renewals × mean margin is not the mean of the products — that shortcut was out by 4–14% here. Carrying premium- and loss-weighted aggregates makes this page reconcile to predict_clv() to the cent.

Press Reset to book reference and you should read exactly these, which are the same figures the toolkit produces on the seeded book:

ModelBaseWith growth
Hybrid (headline)$2,886.91$3,494.10
BG/NBD$2,805.31$3,498.71
Pareto/NBD$2,759.37$3,394.29
Cox PH$2,879.44$3,498.62
Weibull AFT$2,688.91$3,257.01
Markov$2,574.99$3,128.86

BG/NBD's $2,805 / $3,499 are the same two numbers as case study 3 on the July 16 page — the $693 filing-vs-planning gap. Figures are consistent across calls by construction, not coincidence.

Honest limits

Coefficients embedded from python docs/calls/phase4_cohort_scenario_data.py §F, set_seed(42). Reference: premium $4,013.37 · loss ratio 0.5603 · acquisition 0.40 · renewal 0.20 · cross-sell $150 (credited once) · upsell $100 (recurring) · horizon 5 · discount 8%.

Companion materials: call brief · decision poll · cohorts & scenarios deep dive

← Project hub
This research project has been funded by the Casualty Actuarial Society.