Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Risk Securitization vs. Traditional Reinsurance

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Risk Securitization vs. Traditional Reinsurance"— Presentation transcript:

1 Risk Securitization vs. Traditional Reinsurance
Patrick Sullivan Vice President Marsh & McLennan Securities Corp. Gary Prestia Senior Vice President, Property Zurich Re (North America) October 23, 1998

2 Agenda Insurance and the Financial Markets
Convergence of insurance/reinsurance and financial markets Narrowing the many choices available (traditional reinsurance, CBOT, contingent surplus notes, CATEX, BCOE) Complimentary solutions of traditional reinsurance and securitizations Case Study Company profile of product lines, geographic spread and loss experience Catastrophe modeling analysis based on 5 digit zip unicede information. Discussion of expected loss curve profile Traditional and Non-Traditional Solutions

3 Key Risk Problem with Case Study
Primarly Exposed to Texas Gulf Possibility of loss from very large, but very rare event Is single-year insurance the best choice? Price stability over time Capacity stability over time Credit risk of counterparties

4 Risk Profile Catastrophe Protection Analysis
Est Dollar Loss Return Period Year Limits (in millions) 1250 1.22 b 250 1.13 b 200 980 m 150 912 m 100 541 m 50 50 1998

5 Possible Solutions Options Reason
Quota Share Surplus relief & ground-up risk & cat loss sharing Aggregate Excess of Loss Reduce frequency of losses Catastrophe Excess Reduce moderate to severe cat of loss losses Top end catastrophe coverage in form of Cat Bond Securitization or Contingent Surplus Note Reduce severe cat loss activity

6 Traditional Reinsurance Solution Catastrophe Protection Analysis
Est Dollar Loss Return Period Year Limits (in millions) 1250 1.22 b 250 Traditional Cat Reinsurance $1b xs $250m (3 layers) 1.13 b 200 980 m 150 912 m 100 541 m 50 250 250 m 20 50% QS Aggregate Catastrophe $65m xs $60m Franchise Deductible - $30m 1998 50% Net Retention

7 Traditional Reinsurance
Advantages Traditional solution, easy to understand and explain. Accustomed to traditional approaches Less complicated, generally more quickly accomplished When supply is plentiful, pricing/terms will be very attractive Known regulatory and accounting treatment Broad coverage (WC, ECO/XPL, reinstatement) Historical track record and known entities. Longevity of commitment by professional reinsurers to the insurance marketplace Disadvantages Credit quality May not be best solution for sophisticated/complex or large risks Market cycles When demand exceeds supply, pricing/terms may be unattractive Limited size of reinsurance market capacity

8 Risk Profile and Capital Markets Solutions Objectives
Integrate with other risk management methods, e.g. insurance, mitigation Capacity (size and new sources) Cost effective Credit quality Stability over time

9 Forms of Insurance Securitization
Exchange-traded derivative contracts Over-the-counter derivatives (swaps) Catastrophe bonds

10 Exchange Traded Derivative Contracts Contracts - Exchange Traded
Key considerations Exchange volumes: (6/1-10/15 at risk) CBOT: $10.8 mm BCOE: $12.5 mm Basis risk Credit quality Open price discovery

11 Insurance Transformer
Swap Basic Structure Collateral or Guarantee Premium Swap Insurance Cedent Swap Counterparty Insurance Transformer

12 Catastrophe Bonds Basic Structure
Swap Counterparty LIBOR Investment Income Highly Rated Short-term Investments in trust Investors $’s LIBOR Remaining Funds Par Amount Interest Payments Premium at maturity & liquidation Investors Insured Insurance Premiums SPV

13 Summary Structures and Issues
Swap vs. Mitsui XL Mid Ocean Issues Credit risk Enforceability More flexible Provides potential leverage for investor More limited investor group Cat Bond USAA Trinity Re Parametric Re Issues Higher cost No credit risk No investor leverage Larger investor group

14 Summary Structures and Issues
UNL-linked vs. USAA Trinity Re XL Mid Ocean Issues Heavy disclosure Custom hedge Investor concerns Index-linked Parametric SR Earthquake Fund Mitsui Issues Little disclosure Basis risk Indexes Attractive to investors

15 Basis Risk/Transparency Tradeoff
Event Parameter Standard Index Custom Index Transparency Reference Loss Ult. Net Loss Basis Risk

16 Summary Structures and Issues
Single year vs. Cost of issuance Expense Time Multi-year Changing exposure profile Reset mechanisms Amortize cost of issuance Lock in price and capacity

17 Capital Markets Solution Recommended Structure
Bond or Swap large capacity regulatory issues High-level attachment Maximize investor pool Competes most effectively with insurance Risk metric: actual loss Index not appropriate

18 Capital Markets Solution Recommended Structure (cont.)
Term: multiple years Price and capacity stabilized Transaction costs minimized Expected loss value for bond held constant Annual modeled resets Model version held in escrow at inception Price stays constant

19 Capital Markets Solution Catastrophe Protection Analysis
Est Dollar Loss Return Period Year Limits (in millions) 10 % Co 1250 Capital Markets Solution 1.22 b 250 1.13 b 200 980 m 150 912 m 100 Traditional Cat Reinsurance $650m xs $250m (3 layers) 541 m 50 250 250 m 20 50% QS Aggregate Catastrophe $65m xs $60m Franchise Deductible - $30m 1998 50% Net Retention

20 Capital Markets Solution Structure highlights (cont.)
Integrated with insurance program Insurance program designed to change with reset Co-participation Issued through an offshore SPV Tax deductible insurance premium Funds held in trust Not issued directly as corporate debt

21 Capital Markets Solution Benefits of this Structure
Simple Maximizes investor interest Cost Cost effective Multi-year amortizes cost over time Reduced management time

22 Securitization General Advantages
High credit quality Integrates well with insurance structure Low correlation - attractive investment Huge potential capacity No insurance market cycles Pricing driven by exposure analysis Intangible benefits

23 Securitization General Disadvantages
Untested market – no loyalty Costs - size constraints Often complicated structure Effect of market turmoil? Statutory accounting and regulatory issues

24 Conclusions No single right answer - a myriad of choices available today that should be explored Search for the best fit based on your needs, risk appetite and ability to afford reinsurance Complimentary solution of a mix of traditional reinsurance and risk securitization

25 Marsh & McLennan Securities Corp Who we are
An investment bank focused on the insurance industry and insurance related risk transfer products Primary lines of business Corporate Finance Advisory Capital Markets NASD Licensed Broker - Dealer

26 Zurich Financial Services Group Who we are
Zurich Reinsurance (North America) Inc., with $809 million of Statutory Surplus (as of 12/31/97), is the North American Reinsurance arm of Zurich Financial Services, a global financial services company. We are rated “A” by A.M. Best Within ZRNA, traditional property/casualty reinsurance is written, and through the Centre Re Division we write non-traditional and financial products ZRNA Treaty Property Division is a leading reinsurer in Property Catastrophe, Specialty Property Lines and weather related products

27 This information was prepared by Marsh McLennan Securities Corp
This information was prepared by Marsh McLennan Securities Corp. (MMSC) & Zurich Re for use in marketing presentations. It is intended for the exclusive use of the recipients and not for dissemination. Information contained herein is believed to be reliable, but MMSC & Zurich Re do not warrant its completeness or accuracy. Opinions and estimates constitute our judgment and are subject to change without notice. This material is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. MMSC & Zurich Re may have a business relationship with any of the companies described herein.

Download ppt "Risk Securitization vs. Traditional Reinsurance"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google