Search results

Industry loss index‐based risk transfer and management instruments such as the industry loss warranty (ILW) and other catastrophe insurance derivative products have proliferated in recent years. This article introduces an alternative measure of the ILW basis risk, specifically the conditional probability that the ILW policy does not pay out, given an actual loss sustained by the policyholder that exceeds some critical level. The author also discusses the effectiveness of upwardly oriented basis risk in reducing loss volatility. After introducing guidelines for choosing between an ILW and traditional reinsurance, the article concludes that a properly structured ILW can be an effective and innovative instrument for a large insurer or reinsurer to manage the severity and volatility of catastrophe losses, but not necessarily, for a medium‐sized or small (re)insurer. Although this article focuses on ILWs, the general methodology and conclusions presented are applicable to other index‐based risk transfer products.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed analysis of industry loss warranties (ILWs), an alternative risk transfer instrument which has become increasingly popular throughout the last few years.

The authors first point out key characteristics of ILWs important to investor and cedent, including transaction costs, moral hazard, basis risk, counterparty risk, industry loss index, and regulation. Next, the authors present and discuss the adequacy of actuarial and financial approaches for pricing ILWs, as well as the aspects of basis risk. Finally, drivers of demand and associated models frameworks from the purchaser's viewpoint are studied.

Financial pricing approaches for ILWs are highly sensitive to input parameters, which is important given the high volatility of the underlying loss index. In addition, the underlying assumption of replicability of the claims is not without problems. Due to their simple and standardized structure and the dependence on a transparent industry loss index, ILWs are low‐barrier products, which can also be offered by hedge funds. In principle, traditional reinsurance contracts are still preferred as a measure of risk transfer, especially since these are widely accepted for solvency capital reduction. However, the main important impact factor for the demand of ILWs from the perspective of market participants, i.e. large diversified reinsurers and hedge funds, is the lower price due to rather low transaction costs and less documentation effort. Hence, ILWs are attractive despite the introduction of basis risk and the still somewhat opaque regulatory environment.

An important issue for future research is how reinsureds deal with the basis risk inherent in ILWs. Another central point is the development of a European industry loss index and the creation of an exchange platform to enable an even higher degree of standardization and a faster processing of transactions.

ILWs feature an industry loss index to be triggered, and, in some cases, a double‐trigger design that includes a company indemnity trigger. ILW contracts belong to the class of alternative risk transfer instruments that have become increasingly popular, especially in the retrocession reinsurance market. There has been no comprehensive analysis of these instruments in academic literature to date. Consequently, the authors believe that this paper provides a high degree of originality.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the impact of counterparty risk on the basis risk of industry loss warranties as well as on reinsurance with and without collateral under different dependence structures. The authors additionally compare the solvency and Sharpe ratio for different premium loadings and contract parameters.

The authors propose a model framework extension to account for the counterparty risk of risk transfer arrangements. Copulas are used to also take into account non-linear dependencies between risk factors, and Monte Carlo simulation is employed to derive numerical results and to conduct sensitivity analyses.

The authors show that the impact of counterparty risk is particularly pronounced for higher degrees of dependencies and tail dependent losses, i.e. in cases of basis risk levels that appear low if counterparty risk is not considered. With respect to counterparty risk management, the authors find that already partial collateralization limits counterparty and basis risk to more acceptable levels.

The study results are particularly relevant to practitioners, as insurers may not only underestimate the “true” basis risk of index-linked instruments, but also the effect of counterparty risk of reinsurance contracts along with the consequences for solvency and profitability.

The authors extend existing literature by allowing for the (partial) default of industry loss warranties and reinsurance under different dependence structures. Furthermore, the authors include profitability in addition to risk considerations. The interaction effects between counterparty risk and the basis risk of index-based alternative risk transfer instruments are largely unstudied, despite their considerable relevance in practice.

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.

This article describes the forces that drive financial innovation in the insurance industry, as it relates to the convergence between insurance and capital markets. The authors base their analysis on general principles of supply and demand underlying financial intermediation and innovation, e.g., regulation and taxation. They also provide practical examples from both the capital and insurance markets. Finally, the article addresses the costs and benefits of capital markets‐based insurance solutions and inherent challenges to future innovation.

The US insurance industry has long faced the spectrum of large unexpected losses from natural catastrophes such as hurricanes and earthquakes. However, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack clearly demonstrated a new form of catastrophic risk of man‐made origin. The damages in property and life are now well known as estimates of insured losses deriving from this event range from $40 to $54 billion. The 9/11 terrorist attacks renewed the capacity problem faced the insurance industry in the underwriting of large catastrophic risk. In that regard, this paper explores the feasibility of capital market alternatives to the conventional insurance mechanism, and analyses whether the capital market could provide extra capacity to absorb terrorism risk.

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.

The recent trend of integrated risk management has resulted in corporations reassessing their risk management practices. Insurance derivatives and insurance‐linked securities are emerging as alternatives or complements to traditional resisurance capacity. Despite its theoretical benefits, the market for insurance‐linked transactions has not matured, due to problems of information asymmetry and lack of transparency. This article proposes a solution to resolve the conflicting interests preventing insurers/reinsurers and investors from more widely trading insurance risk.

Risk is difficult to measure — so difficult that no single measure seems robust enough for all circumstances. This is especially true of measuring the risk contained in insurance‐linked securities. Insurance risk is usually asymmetrically skewed. As a conse‐quence, traditional capital market risk measures — expected loss, probability of default, and the standard deviation of return out‐comes — are less than perfect to the insurance task. Without a good risk measure, it is impossible to compare the risk‐adjusted pricing of insurance‐linked notes on a consistent basis. It is impossible to tell which securities are cheap and which are expensive. It is impossible to decide on their value relative to more traditional investments.

Demonstrates the feasibility of, and introduces a practical approach to enhancing, reinsurance efficiency using index‐based instruments.

First reviews the general mathematical framework of reinsurance optimization. Next, illustrates how index‐based instruments can potentially enhance reinsurance efficiency through a simple yet self‐contained example. The simplicity allows the analytical examination of the cost and benefits of an index‐based contract. Finally, introduces a real‐world model that optimizes index‐based reinsurance instruments using the genetic algorithm.

Identifies the key factors that determine the efficiency of index‐based reinsurance contracts and demonstrates that, in the property catastrophe reinsurance market, the combined effect of these factors frequently allows the construction of an index‐based hedging program that is more efficient than a traditional excess‐of‐loss reinsurance contract. A robust optimization model based on the genetic algorithm is introduced and shown to be effective in optimizing index‐based reinsurance contracts.

Most financial optimization procedures are subject to parameter risk, which can adversely affect the robustness of their solutions. The reinsurance optimization approach presented in this paper is not completely immune from this problem. It remains a challenging problem for actuarial researchers and practitioners.

The concept and method proposed in this paper can be applied to designing real‐world reinsurance programs.

This paper makes two contributions to the risk finance literature: a systematic approach for evaluating the costs and benefits of index‐based reinsurance instruments, and an innovative and practical model for optimizing reinsurance efficiency.