Search results

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.

In this article, the authors develop an arbitrage approach to valuing insurance‐linked securities (ILS) for non‐catastrophic events within a framework of stochastic interest rates. The prices of these transactions are driven by both an interest rate process and a non‐trivial actuarial risk process. The authors find that the duration of ILS is, in most cases, higher than the Macaulay duration of risk‐free bonds, which implies that the alleged relative out‐performance of ILS is illusory.

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.

Two strands of the literature are combined, namely the modeling of disability insurance and the design, valuation and discussion of insurance-linked securities.

This paper provides a discussion regarding the advantages and detriments of disability-linked securities in comparison with mortality-linked bonds and swaps as well as regarding potential disability-linked indices and the potential use. The discussion is followed by an introduction of a potential design and a corresponding valuation of disability bonds and swaps.

This securitization will provide useful tools for the risk management of disability risk in a risk-based regulatory framework.

No disability-linked securities have been defined and discussed so far.

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.

The insurance industry, in general, accepts large risks due to the combined severity and frequency of catastrophic events; further, these risks are poorly defined given the small amount of data available for extreme events. It is important for the equitable transfer of risk to understand and quantify this risk as accurately as possible. As this risk is propagated to the capital markets, more and more parties will be exposed. An important part of pricing insurance‐linked securities (ILS) is quantifying the uncertainties existing in the physical parameters of the catastrophe models, including both the hazard and damage models. Given the amount of reliable data (1945 till present) on important storm parameters such as central pressure drop, radius to maximum winds, and non‐stationarity of the occurrence rate, moments estimated for these parameters are not highly reliable and knowledge uncertainty must be considered. Also, the engineering damage model for a given class of building in a large portfolio is subject to uncertainty associated with the quality of the buildings. A sample portfolio is used to demonstrate the impact of these knowledge uncertainties. Uncertainties associated with variability of statistics on central pressure drop, occurrence rate, and building quality were estimated and later propagated through a tropical cyclone catastrophe model to quantify the uncertainty of PML results. Finally their effect on the pricing of a typical insurance‐linked security (ILS) was estimated. Statistics of spread over LIBOR given different bond ratings/probability of attachment are presented using a pricing model (Lane [2000]). For a typical ILS, a relatively large coefficient of variation for both probability of attachment and spread over LIBOR was observed. This in turn leads to a rather large price uncertainty for a typical layer and may explain why rational investors expect a higher return for assuming catastrophe risk. The results hold independent of pricing model used. The objective of this study is to quantify this uncertainty for a simple call option and demonstrate its effect on pricing.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a model to hedge annuity portfolios against increases in life expectancy. Across the globe, and in the industrial nations in particular, people have seen an unprecedented increase in their life expectancy over the past decades. The benefits of this apply to the individual, but the dangers apply to annuity providers. Insurance companies often possess no effective tools to address the longevity risk inherent in their annuity portfolio. Securitization can serve as a substitute for classic reinsurance, as it also transfers risk to third parties.

This paper extends on methods insurer's can use to hedge their annuity portfolio against longevity risk with the help of annuity securitization. Future mortality rates with the Lee-Carter-model and use the Wang-transformation to incorporate insurance risk are forecasted. Based on the percentile tranching method, where individual tranches are aligned to Standard & Poor's ratings, we price an inverse survivor bond. This bond offers fix coupon payments to investors, while the principal payments are at risk and depend on the survival rate within the underlying portfolio.

The contribution to the academic literature is threefold. On the theoretical side, building on the work of Kim and Choi (2011), we adapt their pricing model to the current market situation. Putting the principal at risk instead of the coupon payments, the insurer is supplied with sufficient capital to cover additional costs due to longevity. On the empirical side, the method for the German market is specified. Inserting specific country data into the model, price sensitivities of the presented securitization model are analyzed. Finally, in a case study, the procedure to the annuity portfolio of a large German life insurer is applied and the price of hedging longevity risk is calculated.

To illustrate the implication of this bond structure, several sensitivity tests were conducted before applying the pricing model to the retail sample annuity portfolio from a leading German life insurer. The securitization structure was applied to calculate the securitization prices for a sample portfolio from a large life insurance company.

The findings contribute to the current discussion about how insurers can face longevity risk within their annuity portfolios. The fact that the rating structure has such a severe impact on the overall hedging costs for the insurer implies that companies that are willing to undergo an annuity securitization should consider their deal structure very carefully. In addition, we have pointed out that in imperfect markets, the retention of the equity tranche by the originator might be advantageous. Nevertheless, one has to bear in mind that by this behavior, the insurer is able to reduce the overall default risk in his balance sheet by securitizing a life insurance portfolio; however, the fraction of first loss pieces from defaults increases more than proportionally. The insurer has to take care to not be left with large, unwanted remaining risk positions in his books.

In this paper, we extend on methods insurer's can use to hedge their annuity portfolio against longevity risk with the help of annuity securitization. To do so, we take the perspective of the issuing insurance company and calculate the costs of hedging in a four-step process. On the theoretical side, building on the work of Kim and Choi (2011), we adapt their pricing model to the current market situation. On the empirical side, we specify the method for the German market. Inserting specific country data into the model, price sensitivities of the presented securitization model are analyzed.

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.