Insurers Using More CAT Bonds
Insurers of the last resort are increasingly using catastrophe bonds and other similar products to transfer some of their peak exposures to the capital markets, according to a rating agency A.M. Best.
Insurers of the last resort are those that include Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) plans, quasi-state-run insurance companies and beach/windstorm plans.
According to a report by A.M. Best, these entities have welcomed the growing availability of insurance-linked instruments such as catastrophe (CAT) bonds, insurance-linked funds and industry loss warranties (ILWs).
“Given an increase in exposure to loss for insurers of the last resort, CAT bonds have provided another alternative for these entities to cede part of their peak exposures as a complement to the traditional reinsurance market,” said Asha Attoh-Okine, author of the report.
“Catastrophe bonds also provide multi-year coverage as opposed to most traditional reinsurance programs,” he said.
Approximately $5.6 billion in CAT bonds have been issued by seven of these entities from 2009 through Sept. 30, 2014, according to the A.M. Best report.
The two main perils that were covered were hurricanes and earthquakes occurring in the respective regions that the bonds were placed.
Hurricanes accounted for approximately $4.53 billion, or 81 percent, with earthquakes taking the other $1.05 billion, or 19 percent, for these entities during the period reviewed by the ratings agency.
“The increased use of these insurance-linked instruments is due to growth in investor demand,” said Attoh-Okine.
“We have specialized insurance-linked securities funds, whose mandate is to invest in insurance exposure, hedge funds, and pension funds all participating in this market. Investors have been attracted to these products given the low-interest environment for fixed income securities of similar quality and the perceived minimal correlation to the general financial market.
“Sponsors have also continued to increase the use of CAT bonds and other insurance-linked instruments to cede their peak exposures.
“Lately,” he said, “we have seen a decrease in spread [price] for the same level of risk for CAT bonds, providing sponsors cost relief when compared to the traditional property catastrophe reinsurance market.”
Advantages and Drawbacks
Among the advantages such products offered insurers are multi-year coverage and minimal credit risk versus the traditional reinsurance market, he said. They also provide another dimension to diversify and manage catastrophe risk.
“The main drawback for some of these instruments, for example, CAT bonds and ILWs, is the lack of reinstate features when compared to the traditional reinsurance program. (Reinstate implies the restoration of the reinsurance limit of an excess property treaty to its full amount after payment by the reinsurer of a loss as a result of an occurrence).
“Another criticism for the use of these instruments,” he said, “is whether investors’ participation will continue in case of property catastrophe insurance market disruption as result of a huge catastrophe event or if we start seeing a continuous increase in returns for other fixed income instruments.”
According to Attoh-Okine, if a major hurricane or other natural disaster triggers one of the CAT bonds, the sponsor of the bond will be reimbursed for the loss amount up to the amount of the CAT bond. In such a case, investors will lose part or all of the principal amount and the corresponding interest proceeds.
The A.M. Best report concluded that the increasing usage of CAT bonds and similar instruments add to recent improvements in the modeling of peak risk exposures, but also “adds another dimension to diversifying and managing catastrophe risk.”
In addition, the report said, other areas that might benefit from the use of various capital market instruments to transfer insurance risk include terrorism risk exposure; assigned risk non-property plans facing inadequate pricing/capacity issues, (e.g., workers’ compensation, auto, accident/health, etc.; and the National Flood Insurance Program, which provides flood insurance to approximately 5.5 million U.S. properties with total insured values exceeding $1 trillion, and growing.
Congress Must Act in 2015
I am disappointed by Congress’ decision to adjourn last week without taking action on legislation to reauthorize of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) and enact the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers (NARAB) — and I speak for the entire NAPSLO organization and membership.
As a result of that inaction, insurers and insureds are astounded and scrambling to address the increased exposure of the expiring federal backstop.
Carriers, brokers and insureds are now faced with potential terrorism exclusions and/or acceptance of the exposure between Dec. 31 and the time by which Congress takes needed action — exposure that was assessed and priced assuming Congress would reauthorize TRIA before adjourning in 2014.
NAPSLO believes TRIA has been an important tool for insurers to better manage the risk of terrorism events and provides certainty to the industry in offering private capital and solutions to policyholders.
Surplus lines insurers provided certain terrorism coverage pursuant to the mandatory provisions and subject to the deductibles and triggers of the existing federal program.
In general, we believe private market solutions should be exhausted before government-sponsored programs or residual markets are considered, and governments should not provide coverage options the private or open market is able to address.
However, we also believe a role exists for the federal government in the management of terrorism risk. Insurers can model the severity of a hypothetical terrorist attack, but it is impossible to model the likelihood or frequency of those attacks.
As a result, we have long supported a thoughtful and thorough review of TRIA with a goal of maintaining or increasing opportunities for capacity and solutions delivered by the private market.
NAPSLO has also strongly supported the enactment of NARAB. This critical legislation will streamline agent and broker licensing for those operating on a multi-state basis.
It would create a nonprofit board to be governed by state insurance regulators and industry representatives to create rigorous standards and ethical requirements with a goal of applying licensing, continuing education and nonresident insurance producer standards on a multi-state basis.
We were very pleased when the House of Representatives passed TRIA legislation on Dec. 10 that appeared to be a middle-ground compromise between the House and Senate proposals that had passed through their respective committees last June. That legislation would have extended TRIA for six years and enacted NARAB.
Unfortunately, when the TRIA and NARAB legislation moved to the Senate, leaders were unable to overcome the objections of one Senator in order to pass the bill. When a Member refused to support NARAB absent provisions allowing for states to opt-out of participation in the national licensing system, it marked the end of compromise for this year, and the end of TRIA until further action is taken.
This was a disappointing outcome for our industry and our nation’s insureds.
We at NAPSLO urge Congress to act on this issue as soon as members return on Jan. 6, 2015, as we believe this is an important issue for our nation’s economic security. We look forward to working with our industry partners and the new Congress to see legislation passed that will reauthorize TRIA and enact NARAB in early 2015.
2015 General Liability Renewal Outlook
There was a time, not too long ago, when prices for general liability (GL) insurance would fluctuate significantly.
Prices would decrease as new markets offered additional capacity and wanted to gain a foothold by winning business with attractive rates. Conversely, prices could be driven higher by decreases in capacity — caused by either significant losses or departing markets.
This “insurance cycle” was driven mostly by market forces of supply and demand instead of the underlying cost of the risk. The result was unstable markets — challenging buyers, brokers and carriers.
However, as risk managers and their brokers work on 2015 renewals, they’ll undoubtedly recognize that prices are relatively stable. In fact, prices have been stable for the last several years in spite of many events and developments that might have caused fluctuations in the past.
Mark Moitoso discusses general liability pricing and the flattening of the insurance cycle.
Flattening the GL insurance cycle
Any discussion of today’s stable GL market has to start with data and analytics.
These powerful new capabilities offer deeper insight into trends and uncover new information about risks. As a result, buyers, brokers and insurers are increasingly mining data, monitoring trends and building in-house analytical staff.
“The increased focus on analytics is what’s kept pricing fairly stable in the casualty world,” said Mark Moitoso, executive vice president and general manager, National Accounts Casualty at Liberty Mutual Insurance.
With the increased use of analytics, all parties have a better understanding of trends and cost drivers. It’s made buyers, brokers and carriers much more sophisticated and helped pricing reflect actual risk and costs, rather than market cycle.
The stability of the GL market also reflects many new sources of capital that have entered the market over the past few years. In fact, today, there are roughly three times as many insurers competing for a GL risk than three years ago.
Unlike past fluctuations in capacity, this appears to be a fundamental shift in the competitive landscape.
“The current risk environment underscores the value of the insurer, broker and buyer getting together to figure out the exposures they have, and the best ways to manage them, through risk control, claims management and a strategic risk management program.”
— David Perez, executive vice president and general manager, Commercial Insurance Specialty, Liberty Mutual
Dynamic risks lurking
The proliferation of new insurance companies has not been matched by an influx of new underwriting talent.
The result is the potential dilution of existing talent, creating an opportunity for insurers and brokers with talent and expertise to add even greater value to buyers by helping them understand the new and continuing risks impacting GL.
And today’s business environment presents many of these risks:
- Mass torts and class-action lawsuits: Understanding complex cases, exhausting subrogation opportunities, and wrangling with multiple plaintiffs to settle a case requires significant expertise and skill.
- Medical cost inflation: A 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers report predicts a medical cost inflation rate of 6.8 percent. That’s had an immediate impact in increasing loss costs per commercial auto claim and it will eventually extend to longer-tail casualty businesses like GL.
- Legal costs: Hourly rates as well as award and settlement costs are all increasing.
- Industry and geographic factors: A few examples include the energy sector struggling with growing auto losses and construction companies working in New York state contending with the antiquated New York Labor Law
David Perez outlines the risks general liability buyers and brokers currently face.
Managing GL costs in a flat market
While the flattening of the GL insurance cycle removes a key source of expense volatility for risk managers, emerging risks present many challenges.
With the stable market creating general price parity among insurers, it’s more important than ever to select underwriting partners based on their expertise, experience and claims handling record – in short, their ability to help better manage the total cost of GL.
And the key word is indeed “partners.”
“The current risk environment underscores the value of the insurer, broker and buyer getting together to figure out the exposures they have, and the best ways to manage them — through risk control, claims management and a strategic risk management program,” said David Perez, executive vice president and general manager, Commercial Insurance Specialty at Liberty Mutual.
While analytics and data are key drivers to the underwriting process, the complete picture of a company’s risk profile is never fully painted by numbers alone. This perspective is not universally understood and is a key differentiator between an experienced underwriter and a simple analyst.
“We have the ability to influence underwriting decisions based on experience with the customer, knowledge of that customer, and knowledge of how they handle their own risks — things that aren’t necessarily captured in the analytical environment,” said Moitoso.
Mark Moitoso suggests looking at GL spend like one would look at total cost of risk.
Several other factors are critical in choosing an insurance partner that can help manage the total cost of your GL program:
Clear, concise contracts: The policy contract language often determines the outcome of a GL case. Investing time up-front to strategically address risk transfer through contractual language can control GL claim costs.
“A lot of the efficacy we find in claims is driven by the clear intent that’s delivered by the policy,” said Perez.
Legal cost management: Two other key drivers of GL claim outcomes are settlement and trial. The best GL programs include sophisticated legal management approaches that aggressively contain legal costs while also maximizing success factors.
“Buyers and brokers must understand the value an insurer can provide in managing legal outcomes and spending,” noted Perez. “Explore if and how the insurer evaluates potential providers in light of the specific jurisdiction and injury; reviews legal bills; and offers data-driven tools that help negotiations by tracking the range of settlements for similar cases.”
David Perez on managing legal costs.
Specialized claims approach: Resolving claims quickly and fairly is best accomplished by knowledgeable professionals. Working with an insurer whose claims organization is comprised of professionals with deep expertise in specific industries or risk categories is vital.
“We have the ability to influence underwriting decisions based on experience with the customer, knowledge of that customer, and knowledge of how they handle their own risks, things that aren’t necessarily captured in the analytical environment.”
— Mark Moitoso, executive vice president and general manager, National Accounts Casualty, Liberty Mutual
“When a claim comes in the door, we assess the situation and determine whether it can be handled as a general claim, or whether it’s a complex case,” said Moitoso. “If it’s a complex case, we make sure it goes to the right professional who understands the industry segment and territory. Having that depth and ability to access so many points of expertise and institutional knowledge is a big differentiator for us.”
While the GL insurance market cycle appears to be flattening, basic risk management continues to be essential in managing total GL costs. Close partnership between buyer, broker and insurer is critical to identifying all the GL risks faced by a company and developing a strategic risk management program to effectively mitigate and manage them.
This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Liberty Mutual Insurance. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.