Posts Tagged ‘Models’
Here we review recent GC Capital Ideas posts on new product development as an emerging risk.
In addition to internal risk management, models are typically used in risk transfer negotiations. Both traditional and alternative risk markets require extensive analysis of portfolios when considering risk transfer. Sharing a portfolio’s standardized model output is critical to imparting the loss potential of a particular portfolio from which risk-capital can be unlocked to support the risk financing needs of a reinsurance buyer. Using technology is critical when partnering governments with the private sector. Whether partnering with developed or emerging economies, these tools bring together the risk knowledge and historical data of the public sector with risk management techniques of the insurance industry. The result is an enhanced understanding of risk that provides stability and attracts partners.
Public sector-related data can be expansive, containing census data, property risk characteristics, historical loss information, risk rating matrices and natural hazard event scientific tracking. In order to facilitate packaging the sometimes unwieldy data in a way that is useful for risk decision making, utilizing outside resources to improve data transparency can be valuable. Public sector resources devoted to building tools that measure risks that are perceived as “uninsurable” can unlock private sector funding.
In realizing the goal of profitable growth, (re)insurers require a trusted partner to help them manage a rapidly evolving regulatory and rating agency environment.
The insurance industry relies to a large extent on catastrophe models to manage catastrophe risk. Regulators and rating agencies recognize this fact by asking companies to justify their modeling approach. The underlying objective of such rules is to encourage companies to have a robust and consistent process to use modeling tools responsibly.
Addressing Own Risk and Solvency Assessment/Enterprise Risk Management and Insurance Capital Standard Globally
In accordance with the objectives of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and European Insurance and Occupational Pension Authority (EIOPA), Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) is “people and risk-centric,” primarily employing a principles-based approach, as opposed to a rules-based approach. This means that decisions on matters related to risks are largely based on the judgment of individuals relying on underlying facts, as opposed to decisions being made mostly by following intricate sets of rules. This is similar to the principles-based approach taken by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Although the calculation of the Solvency Capital Requirements (SCR) under Solvency II is rules based, like Insurance Capital Standard (ICS), Solvency II can be a “one size fits all” rules-based approach to capital, especially if the standard formula is used. (Re)insurers will need to find a way to incorporate ICS into their ORSA processes and the vehicle to accomplish this may be through the internal model.
The modeling of emerging and casualty catastrophe risks remains challenging and the models continue to vary in their approach, level of development and industry acceptance. With the potential scenarios numerous, diverse and constantly changing, there is no single model or approach that could contemplate all of them. Furthermore, the various disaster scenarios with which carriers are being increasingly confronted needs to be prioritized and synthesized within their enterprise risk management framework. By their very definition, there may be limited data on hand on which to base any modeling. As a result, much of the industry continues to rely on multiple models and actuarial approaches that encompass model applications, probable maximum loss (PML) estimates, realistic disaster scenarios, experience and exposure ratings to create a broad set of scenarios and deterministic views.
Once the risks have been identified and ranked, the next step is how to quantify the likely impact on the financial results of the firm. The first and most obvious question is what available quantification techniques are available for each risk on the list. This will depend on the availability of relevant data and commercially produced models.
Casualty (re)insurers do not cover standalone emerging risks. A product defect (with recall) or a latent bodily injury resulting from new technological nano-products or Unmanned Aerial Systems risks, could lead to class action lawsuits and ultimately large liability claims including products liability as well as professional liability. This emergent reality, however, is difficult to address. A carrier would need to identify and model several possible epicenters of a liability chain reaction and follow their rapidly spreading implications throughout a portfolio. Without new powerful casualty modeling capabilities as well as highly granular data on the products and subcomponents that each of their insureds manufacture and sell globally, this process would be time-consuming, impossible to complete and likely to miss key threats and underlying exposures.
The impacts to society from changes in longevity and life expectancy will be wide-ranging and incredibly difficult issues to grapple with. A 2012 International Monetary Fund (IMF) study revealed that if individuals lived three years longer than expected the cost of aging could increase by 50 percent. This translates to 50 percent of 2010 gross domestic product (GDP) in advanced economies and 25 percent of 2010 GDP in emerging economies. Globally that amounts to tens of trillions of US dollars. The United Nations expects the aggregate expenses of the elderly will double over the period between 2010 and 2050. The figure below shows the projected trend of rising life expectancy to continue in all regions of the globe regardless of economic advancement.