1 / 19

Finite Reinsurance Discussion and Demonstration

Casualty Actuarial Society 2003 Spring Meeting Marco Island, Florida May 18 - 21, 2003 Douglas A. Carlone Senior Vice President. Finite Reinsurance Discussion and Demonstration. What Is Buyer’s Motivation?. Is buyer looking to disguise unprofitable results or other financial difficulties?

rmcpherson
Download Presentation

Finite Reinsurance Discussion and Demonstration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Casualty Actuarial Society 2003 Spring Meeting Marco Island, Florida May 18 - 21, 2003 Douglas A. Carlone Senior Vice President Finite Reinsurance Discussion and Demonstration

  2. What Is Buyer’s Motivation? • Is buyer looking to disguise unprofitable results or other financial difficulties? • Is buyer looking for traditional reinsurance at a finite reinsurance price? • Neither situation attractive to the reinsurer

  3. Due Diligence - Retroactive Covers • Claims audit • Quality of underwriting • Ceded reinsurance program • IBNR reserving philosophy • Data distortions

  4. Due Diligence - Prospective Covers • Same as for retroactive covers, plus ... • Planning process • Pricing philosophy • Changes in claims handling, underwriting, ceded reinsurance

  5. Actuarial Analysis

  6. Pricing Model • Parameters (loss pick, payout pattern, volatility) are entered into a simulation model • Simulation can be implemented via macros or via add-in software (e. g., @Risk) • Trial and error approach until pricing targets are reached • Typical pricing targets (alone or in combination): minimum return on capital, minimum absolute return, maximum probability of loss, maximum downside risk, etc.

  7. Capital Allocation Can Be Based on … • Regulatory capital requirements (e. g., RBC) • Rating agency capital requirements • Distribution of PV profit from simulation output • Unfunded limit (limit minus premium)

  8. Adverse Development Cover • Attachment point: $1,386 million (carried reserves as of 12/31/2002) • Limit: $250 million • Guaranteed cost premium: $100 million

  9. Aggregate Stop Loss Cover • 2003 subject premium assumed to be $700 million • Attachment point: $630 million (90% of subject premium) • Limit: $140 million (20% of subject premium) • Guaranteed cost premium: $45.5 million (6.5% of subject premium)

  10. Guaranteed Cost • Low up-front cost • No profit sharing • Upside is retained by reinsurer • Similar to traditional reinsurance • Rarely used for stop loss covers • Occasionally used for adverse development covers • More commonly used for loss portfolio transfers

  11. Profit Sharing • Higher up-front cost compared to guaranteed cost • Reinsurer’s upside consists only of a relatively small margin • Since reinsurer’s upside is capped, need to overfund to reduce the reinsurer’s downside • Most of profit goes to ceding company • Lower economic cost compared to guaranteed cost • Pricing model needs to track funding premium, margin, funded losses, unfunded losses, and interest accrual on experience account balance (EAB)

  12. Profit Sharing (cont.) • EAB can be either held by reinsurer (funds transferred) or held by cedant (funds withheld) • Funds transferred: EAB crediting rate usually linked to risk-free rate • Funds withheld is similar to debt (reinsurer loans reinsurance premium back to cedant) • Therefore, EAB crediting rate is higher for funds withheld than for funds transferred (should approximate cedant’s cost of debt) • Funds transferred: higher up-front cost • Funds withheld: lower up-front cost

  13. Other Structural Features:Additional Premiums • Generally used only for prospective covers • Lowers the deposit premium requirement • Contingent upon experience • Can take many forms • Reinsurer is subject to credit risk with regard to future AP payments (offset provisions can mitigate this risk, however) • Pricing model needs to project premium inflows in addition to loss outflows

  14. Other Structural Features:Sublimits • Retroactive covers: used for types of losses that are difficult to quantify (e. g., asbestos, pollution, other mass torts) • Prospective covers: used for shock losses (e. g., property catastrophes)

  15. Multiyear Aggregate Stop Loss Covers • Single year: get benefit of discounting • Multiyear: get benefit of discounting and temporal smoothing • Analysis is largely the same as for a single year cover • Need to investigate cedant’s growth plans • Need to project loss ratios more than one year into the future • Pricing model needs to simulate multiple future years

  16. Monitoring • Need to monitor for changes that increase losses or speed up loss payouts • “Change in Administrative Practices” clause calls for adjustment if a change should alter deal economics • Commutations (both inwards and outwards) can also affect deal economics • Actuarial input critical to quantifying the impact of changes and adjusting for such changes

  17. Reserving • Unique characteristics of each deal preclude a portfolio reserving approach • Finite re deals usually reserved individually • Periodic update of reserve analysis done as part of the pricing exercise

  18. Conclusion • Pricing is largely driven by actuarial modelling • Actuarial input also essential in monitoring and reserving • Therefore, the actuary plays a key role throughout the entire life cycle of a finite re transaction

More Related