1. Are Your Opinions and Actuarial Reports Meeting Expectations of Regulators and Others Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar September 18 - 19 2008 Moderator: M. Wendy Germani, FCAS Panelists: Joseph A. Herbers, ACAS Richard Marcks, FCAS P. Sean O’Donnell

2. Meeting Expectations of Regulators Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar September 2008 By: Richard Marcks Property Casualty Actuary Connecticut Insurance Department

3. Overview Opinion History Regulator Observations Recommendations Resources 2

4. Opinion History Pre-2004 2004: From Boilerplate to Specific Characteristics of the Company Current Emphasis Opinion Summary Supporting Report Annual Guidance 3

5. Regulator Observations ASOP No. 9 vs. ASOP No. 41 ASOP No. 36 vs. ASOP No. 43 How many is too many? Company vs. Consulting Actuary Opinion vs. Report Quality Caveats 4

6. ASOP No. 9 vs.. ASOP No. 41 “… sufficient for another actuary practicing in the same field to evaluate the work. The documentation should describe clearly the sources of data, material assumptions, and methods.” “… ensuring that the parties addressed are aware of the significance of the actuary's opinion or findings.” “Any material changes in sources of data, assumptions, or methods from the last analysis should be documented. The actuary should explain the reason(s) for and describe the impact of the changes. 5

7. ASOP No. 36 vs. ASOP No. 43 … relevant characteristics of the entity’s exposures to the extent that they are likely to have a material effect on the results of the actuary’s reserve analysis… influenced by the methods used to sell or provide coverages, the distribution channels from which the entity’s business is obtained, the general underwriting practices and pricing philosophy of the entity, and the marketing objectives and strategies of the entity. The appropriate type and extent of reserve analysis will vary with the nature of the claims and exposures… …likely to have a material impact on the estimate… 6

8. How Many Is Too Many? 2007  2500 SAOs by 526 actuaries 13% by actuaries who signed < __ ? 14% by actuaries who signed > __ ? 7

9. Caveats & Disclaimers Is it consistent with the analysis? Does it appear to be a denial of responsibility? Does it provide meaningful context? 8

10. Recommendations Address the Statutory Entity in the Report Peer Review  informed skepticism Read other opinions Have your opinion and report scrutinized Consistent with Other Information Talk to the Regulator of Domicile 9

11. Resources www.naic.org/committees_c_catf.htm Regulatory Guidance Links to State web sites www.casact.org Statement of Principles Publications, Research, Professional Ed www.actuary.org COPLFR Practice Note Boot Camp 10

12. Q & A

13. Meeting Expectations Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar September 2008 By: Joseph A. Herbers Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, Inc.

14. OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION Background on Herbers General Observations & NAIC CATF Guidance Others’ Review of My Work My Review of Others’ Work General Comments 13

15. Background on Herbers COPLFR Member since 1998 Faculty for AAA Seminar on Effective P/C Loss Reserve Opinions Practice Note Subcommittee Appointed Actuary for 24 domestic P/C companies / RRG’s in 2007 Loss Reserve Specialist / AA for dozens of captives CAS paper on Materiality and SAOs (2004) 14

16. Background on Herbers 23 years consulting experience SAOs, feasibility studies Funding/reserve studies commonly reviewed by regulators, auditors, reinsurers, fronting carriers, competitors Audit Support experience Financial Examination feedback 15

17. General Observations Focus of my comments are on actuarial reports – not on SAOs or AOS NAIC CATF – Regulatory Guidance Memo on Actuarial Report noted three notable weaknesses in documentation of many actuarial reports: -Expected Loss Ratio -Actuarial Judgment -Entity 16

18. General Observations Report should contain exhibit summarizing changes in estimates from prior analysis, with extended discussion of significant factors underlying the changes – in order to improve transparency of disclosures Exhibit comparing held reserve amounts with actuarial indications Reconciliation exhibit between financial statement and data provided to actuary Added disclosures for “roll forward” type analyses 17

19. Others’ Review of My Work Document judgments underlying important assumptions – “What are the soft spots” -annual trend rates -benchmark loss development patterns – source and reasonableness given situation at hand -implied loss ratios -ratios of ceded to direct -changes from prior years Schedule P Reconciliation 18

20. Benchmark Loss Development Patterns by Line / Subline [GL – OL&T/M&C/Products versus Prof. Liability] Primary v Excess by Sector (trucking, contractors, staffing, manufacturers) specialty lines (garage, D&O, warranty, professional liability) Sources 19

21. Schedule P Reconciliation paid amounts gross/net of salvage/subrogation loss v DCC reconcile A&O expenses by calendar year A&O as % of gross v net reconcile to held IBNR? by line v by program 20

22. My Review of Other’s Work Document judgments underlying important assumptions -preponderance of optimistic v pessimistic assumptions -client confidential “benchmarks” -selected values compared with actuarial indications -perpetuation of “prior year” values when data shows movement -changes since prior year? 21

23. My Review of Other’s Work Independent Review - Use same structure but use my own assumptions - Truly independent review - May impact only a portion of overall reserves Peer Review - ASOP 41 (Actuarial Communications) states 22

24. Review Template Form Is the client requesting the performance of the actuarial analysis clearly identified? Is the actuary or actuaries responsible for the actuarial report clearly identified? Is the project scope clearly defined? Is the work product clear? 23

25. Review Template Content Are all assumptions and methods specified? Are the assumptions and methods reasonable for this assignment? Are the data sources identified and appropriate for their use in the analysis? Are the resulting calculations correct? Are the results, findings and recommendations reasonable and adequately supported by the analysis? Does the work product meet actuarial standards of practice or other professional standards? Are any reliances and limitations appropriate and clearly delineated? Is the potential variability of results adequately discussed? 24

26. General Comments Documentation of assumptions is often sparse - Background section of report with info on retentions, deductibles, unique program features is invaluable - Are LAE included in losses? Was A&O LAE considered? Footnotes to exhibits leave something to be desired Data limitations are often significant and need discussion Tables, charts and graphs can add immeasurably to understanding of report 25

27. Annual Trend Rates -2.5% WC loss cost trend? 0% severity trend for nonstandard auto? +20% trend for nursing home professional liability? Were exposure trends contemplated? Sources -Masterson Indices -Rate Filings -Special Studies -Fast Track 26

28. Q & A

29. Risk Retention Groups Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar September 2008 By: Sean O’Donnell Director of Financial Examination Risk Finance Bureau D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking

30. Actuarial Requirements for Risk Retention Groups 29

31. D. C. Domestic Risk Retention Groups Overview 30

32. D. C. Experience with Risk Retention Groups Statement of Actuarial Opinions 31

33. Suggested Areas for Improvement Risk Retentions Groups Actuarial Opinions 32

34. Q & A