Search results

It is essential for the welfare and growth of a society that it is able to share risk efficiently in the economy. However, extreme events have increased enormously during the last decades, so that catastrophe risks seem to become uninsurable in a free-market economy. With insurance-linked securities (ILS) or catastrophe bonds (cat bonds), the limits of insurability can be ex-tended by using the resources of capital markets worldwide. Interestingly, to date the issuers of cat bonds must guarantee excessively high returns in order to attract investors from the financial markets. Therefore, the authors aim to discuss in this paper the hypothesis that at least parts of these excessively high returns can be explained by an individual innovation resistance to cat bonds.

In the first step, the authors examine the criteria for insurability of catastrophe risks and explore the potential reasons for lack of insurance, specifically for extreme events such as catastrophic environmental risks. The authors especially focus on the criteria which are considered to be problematic for the insurance of catastrophic events. In the next step, the authors discuss the new financial products “ILS” or “cat bonds” and analyze to what extent ILS represent an innovative opportunity to increase the insurability of catastrophe risks. Starting from the model of the consumer resistance by RAM, the authors consider different factors that can prevent the acceptance of ILS by private investors.

The authors found out that catastrophe risks do not really fulfil important actuarial criteria in order to be insurable. Thus, insurance exists only if risk can be transferred, not only to reinsurance companies but also to capital markets (through securitization or catastrophe options). In line with Ram's seminal model of consumer resistance, the authors assume that product-related, diffusion mechanism-related and psychographic factors influence individuals' resistance to cat bonds. In particular, the authors expect that perceptions of immorality influence private investors' decision-making. Within this context, Robin and Reidenbach's “Multi-dimensional ethics”-scale represents a possibility to assess perceptions of immorality.

In this paper, the authors provide a new approach to explain the excess spreads on cat bonds versus comparable corporate bonds. These abnormal high turns from cat bonds have been subject of intensive research in the last decade. To date, the insurance literature has identified “novelty premium”, “market size” and “cliff risk” as the reasons for the excess spreads. The authors assume that at least parts of these excessively high returns can be explained by an individual innovation resistance against ILS. In the authors' opinion, persuasive communication can be used to alleviate individual resistance towards ILS. The paper provides implications for management and suggestions for further research.

Insurance‐linked securities can benefit both issuers and investors; they supply insurance and reinsurance companies with additional risk capital at reasonable prices (with little or no credit risk), and supply excess returns to investors that are uncorrelated with the returns of other financial assets. This article explains the terminology of insurance and reinsurance, the structure of insurance‐linked securities, and provides an overview of major transactions. First, there is a discussion of how stochastic catastrophe modeling has been applied to assess the risk of natural catastrophes, including the reliability and validation of the risk models. Second, the authors compare the risk‐adjusted returns of recent securitizations on the basis of relative value. Compared with high‐yield bonds, catastrophe (“CAT”) bonds have wide spreads and very attractive Sharpe ratios. In fact, the risk‐adjusted returns on CAT bonds dominate high‐yield bonds. Furthermore, since natural catastrophe risk is essentially uncorrelated with market risk, high expected excess returns make CAT bonds high‐alpha assets. The authors illustrate this point and show that a relatively small allocation of insurance‐linked securities within a fixed income portfolio can enhance the expected return and simultaneously decrease risk, without significantly changing the skewness and kurtosis of the return distribution.

Property and casualty (“P&C”) insurance companies rely on “risk capital” to absorb large losses that unexpectedly deplete claims‐paying resources and reduce underwriting capacity. The purpose of this paper is to review the similarities and differences between two different types of risk capital raised by insurers to cover losses arising from natural catastrophes: internal risk capital provided by investors in insurance company debt and equity; and external risk capital provided by third parties. The paper also explores the distinctions between four types of external catastrophe risk capital: reinsurance, industry loss warranties, catastrophe derivatives, and insurance‐linked securities. Finally, how the credit crisis has impacted alternative sources of catastrophe risk capital in different ways is considered.

The discussion is based on the conceptual framework for analyzing risk capital developed by Merton and Perold.

In 2008, the P&C insurance industry was adversely affected by significant natural catastrophe‐related losses, floundering investments, and limited access to capital markets, all of which put upward pressure on catastrophe reinsurance premiums. But the influx of new risk capital that generally accompanies hardening markets has been slower than usual to occur in the wake of the credit crisis. Meanwhile, disparities between the relative costs and benefits of alternative sources of catastrophe risk capital are even more pronounced than usual.

Although many insurance companies focus on how much reinsurance to buy, this paper emphasizes that a more important question is how much risk capital to acquire from external parties (and in what form) vis‐à‐vis investors in the insurance company's own securities.

One aspect of the growing issuance in catastrophe bonds is the increasing geographic diversity of coverage. Although catastrophe bonds initially focused on a single peril and territory, more recently they have been structured with independent multiple event triggers, differing according to peril and territory. This paper reviews the territorial development of catastrophe bonds and explores the geographical horizon for new issues.

The purpose of this paper is to outline a pricing formula for the valuation of catastrophic (CAT) bonds as applied to multiple trigger drought risks in Kenya.

The valuation model is designed around the multiple triggers of the Mexican Catastrophe bonds, but the valuation model is based on Jarrow’s (2010) closed form CAT Bond Pricing model. The authors outline the model structure, the multiple tranches with rainfall triggers, and simulate the model using Monte Carlo methods. Data input was synthesized from historical rainfall data in Kenya’s Moyale region as well as prevailing LIBOR and rates and conventional coupons.

The authors compute the valuation model using Monte Carlo techniques. The authors found the pricing method to be robust and consistent under various parameter settings including trigger levels, time after launch, recovery rates, coupon spreads, and zero coupon curves. For example the higher the trigger rates, the lower will be the bond price at issue. With 50 percent recovery the CAT bond at issue would be around $702 with a high triggers and 976 with low triggers, but the valuation changes with parameters.

As far as the authors know the use of multiple trigger CAT bonds has been very limited in practice. The valuation formula and methods outlined in this paper show how CAT bonds can be effectively designed to address CAT covariate risks in developing agricultural economies.

This paper examines CAT bonds to investigate multi-trigger rainfall risks in Kenya. The paper shows how CAT bonds can be designed to meet specific and CAT risks. Using Jarrow’s (2010) closed form solution this paper is one of the first to apply it to the macro-management of agricultural risks.

This article examines the economic impact of a major California earthquake, by focusing on the catastrophic damage to residential real estate. It asserts that the damage, although substantial, would be small relative to the U.S. GNP. The author also asserts that the risk can be optimally allocated through reasonably priced insurance contracts and well‐functioning insurance derivative markets.

The advent of derivatives and structured products has coincided with a proliferation of fixed income models used to analyze hedging, pricing, forecasting, and estimation for the term structure of interest rates. This article evaluates five models Ho‐Lee (HL); Black‐Derman‐Toy (BDT); Vasicek; Cox‐Ingersoll‐Ross (CIR); and Heath‐Jarrow‐Morton (HJM) (see Exhibit 1) that are currently used by structured finance practitioners. We suggest which models are most appropriate for assets with different time horizons, interest rate sensitivities and cashflow properties. The authors link model selection to structured financial instruments with the singular focus on the trade‐off between model precision/complexity and calculation costs.

Catastrophe (CAT) events associated with natural catastrophes and man-made disasters cause profound impacts on the insurance industry. This research thus reviews the impact of CAT risk on the insurance industry and how traditional reinsurance and securitized risk-transfer instruments are used for managing CAT risk.

This research reviews the impact of CAT risk on the insurance industry and how traditional reinsurance and securitized risk-transfer instruments are used for managing CAT risk. Apart from many negative influences, CAT events can increase the net revenue of the insurance industry around CAT events and improve insurance demand over the post-CAT periods. The underwriting cycle of reinsurance causes inefficiencies in transferring CAT risks. Securitized risk-transfer instruments resolve some inefficiencies of the reinsurance market, but are subject to moral hazard, basis risk, credit risk, regulatory uncertainty, etc. The authors introduce some popular securitized solutions and use Merton's structural framework to demonstrate how to value these CAT-linked securities. The hybrid solutions by combining reinsurance with securitized CAT instruments are expected to offer promising applications for CAT risk management.

The authors introduce some popular securitized solutions and use Merton's structural framework to demonstrate how to value these CAT-linked securities. The hybrid solutions by combining reinsurance with securitized CAT instruments are expected to offer promising applications for CAT risk management.

This research reviews a broad array of impacts of CAT risks on the (re)insurance industry. CAT events challenge (re)insurance capacity and influence insurers' supply decisions and reconstruction costs in the aftermath of catastrophes. While losses from natural catastrophes are the primary threat to property–casualty insurers, the mortality risk posed by influenza pandemics is a leading CAT risk for life insurers. At the same time, natural catastrophes and man-made disasters cause distinct impacts on (re)insures. Man-made disasters can increase the correlation between insurance stocks and the overall market, and natural catastrophes reduce the above correlation. It should be noted that huge CAT losses can also improve (re)insurance demand during the postevent period and thus bring long-term effects to the (re)insurance industry.

This article examines how reinsurance coupled with new financial instruments can expand coverage to areas exposed to catastrophe losses from natural disasters, and demonstrates how reinsurance and the catastrophe‐linked financial instruments can be combined to lower the price of protection from its current level. A simple example illustrates the relative advantages and disadvantages of pure catastrophic bonds and pure indemnity reinsurance in supporting a structure of payments contingent on certain extreme events occurring. The authors suggest ways to combine these two instruments using customized catastrophe indices to expand coverage and reduce the cost of protection. This article states six principles for designing catastrophic risk transfer systems and discusses practical issues for implementation, and then concludes with suggestions for future research.

Conventional wisdom states that catastrophe risk securities show no or little correlation with stock and bond markets, and offer significant attractions to investors providing a good diversification of risks. This study examines the correlation between catastrophe risk securities and portfolios of other equities by analyzing catastrophe effects on the Japanese stock market.

Using catastrophe data from SwissRe Sigma publications and stock returns from the Pacific‐Basin Capital Markets database, this paper analyzes stock and abnormal returns in the Japanese stock market using event study methodology.

For the Japanese stock market as a whole, there is no significant catastrophe effect. The results indicate a significant negative correlation between catastrophe loss amount and the insurance industry's equity returns and abnormal returns, a significant positive correlation with the construction industry, but no significant correlation with the real estate industry. This paper also analyzes the impact of catastrophe causalities. The results show little evidence on the significance of these variables.

This study provides important insights to the insurance/reinsurance industry in the Japanese risk market for catastrophe property and mortality risk securitization and to investors who are interested in further improvement of their portfolio risk/return profile by including catastrophe risk securities.