Posts Tagged ‘Reinsurance’



February 27th, 2017

Managing Volatility Key To Solvency II Transition: Part II

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

paire-eric-sm1Eric Paire, Head of Global Partners & Strategic Advisory, EMEA

Contact

“To remain competitive, smaller companies simply cannot afford to operate at 200 percent. This volatility on multiple fronts means that establishing the solvency level that will provide a sufficiently robust capital buffer to withstand these fluctuations is extremely difficult. Is it 130 percent, 150 percent, 170 percent or higher?” notes Eric Paire, Head of Global Partners & Strategic Advisory, EMEA at Guy Carpenter.

Continue reading…

February 22nd, 2017

Solvency II Equivalence In The International (Re)insurance Landscape: Part IV: Asia Pacific Solvency II Equivalence

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

andrew-cox-953graham-jones-102x1173lobel_myra-sm-1174eddy-vanbeneden-sm-1175sumner-sm-1173Andrew Cox, Managing Director; Graham Jones, Senior Vice President; Myra E. Lobel, Managing Director; Eddy Vanbeneden, Managing Director and Steven Sumner, Oliver Wyman, Actuarial Consulting

Contact

Solvency II’s reach and influence extends to Asia Pacific, as Japan and Australia attained provisional third country equivalence status for Group Solvency (Article 227). This status is valid for ten years and reduces the administrative burden for the Solvency II calculation of subsidiaries in the European Economic Area (EEA).

Continue reading…

February 21st, 2017

Solvency II Equivalence In The International (Re)insurance Landscape: Part III: The US and Solvency II Equivalency

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

andrew-cox-952graham-jones-102x1172lobel_myra-sm-1172eddy-vanbeneden-sm-1172sumner-sm-1172Andrew Cox, Managing Director; Graham Jones, Senior Vice President; Myra E. Lobel, Managing Director; Eddy Vanbeneden, Managing Director and Steven Sumner, Oliver Wyman, Actuarial Consulting

Contact

Separate but related negotiations continue between the EC, European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, and in the United States, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and the Federal Insurance Office (FIO).

Continue reading…

February 20th, 2017

Solvency II Equivalence In The International (Re)insurance Landscape: Part II

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

andrew-cox-951graham-jones-102x1171lobel_myra-sm-1171eddy-vanbeneden-sm-1171sumner-sm-1171Andrew Cox, Managing Director; Graham Jones, Senior Vice President; Myra E. Lobel, Managing Director; Eddy Vanbeneden, Managing Director and Steven Sumner, Oliver Wyman, Actuarial Consulting

Contact

The Solvency II Directive sets out three distinct areas for equivalence:

  1. Reinsurance
  2. Group Solvency
  3. Group Supervision

Continue reading…

February 13th, 2017

Expanding Range Of Capital Sources Offers Benefits: Part II

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

priebe_david-sm-198cory-anger-small-1991David Priebe, Vice Chairman and Cory Anger, Global Head of ILS Origination and Structuring at GC Securities*

Contact

“Historically, traditional reinsurers increase their premium rates after industry catastrophe events in order to replenish capital and attract new capital, with the goal of reaching overall premium rate adequacy and restoring returns on equity to levels more consistent with what is expected of equity capital,” David Priebe, Vice Chairman at Guy Carpenter, explains. “However, GC Securities has found that significant pricing increases will be difficult to sustain for short periods because of the inflow of new capital that typically follows catastrophe events. Alternative capital is already making contingency plans with funds created so that they can inflow new capital rapidly post-event. The difficulty in sustaining price increases means that premium rate adequacy is even more critical in soft markets when capital is abundant. (Re)insurers need to evolve by reassessing business models for more efficient allocation of risk to capital sources.”

Continue reading…

February 9th, 2017

Expanding Range Of Capital Sources Offers Benefits: Part I

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

priebe_david-sm-198cory-anger-small-1991David Priebe, Vice Chairman and Cory Anger, Global Head of ILS Origination and Structuring at GC Securities*

Contact

Industry Must Adapt to Emerging Segmentation Phase

Pricing declines continued in the insurance-linked securities (ILS) segment of alternative capital. In turn, this has prompted questions about the sustainability of lower pricing and capacity post-catastrophe event, suggesting that traditional reinsurers’ models and the traditional reinsurance and alternative capital mix of capital sources still need to evolve. Maintaining premium rate adequacy and stable capacity requires better access to the expanding sources of capital and awareness of the benefits of better risk syndication and segmentation, according to David Priebe, Vice Chairman at Guy Carpenter and Cory Anger, Global Head of ILS Origination and Structuring at GC Securities.

Continue reading…

February 7th, 2017

Public Sector Risk Financing Perspectives – Sharing Visual Intelligence for Disaster Response: Part I

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

beverley-adams-sm2Dr. Beverley Adams, Head of CAT Planning and Response

Contact

As governments and emergency responders focus on search and rescue in the hours and days following catastrophic events, the (re)insurance industry is autonomously responding with visual technologies for loss assessment.

Continue reading…

February 2nd, 2017

Public Sector Risk Financing Perspectives – Terror Risk: Part IV

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

emma-karhan-sm1Emma Karhan, Managing Director

Contact

Insurance is about the pooling of risk and providing support for impacted economies. Expanding insurance coverages to achieve these objectives against terror losses requires a more granular level of insight into the impacts of terrorist attacks. We have a relatively high level of loss impact knowledge for mature lines of business, such as property catastrophe coverages; this has been driven by losses and the ensuing needs for modeling and pricing improvements. However, the terrorism market is a less mature market that has not suffered a frequency of significantly large insured losses that would otherwise assist in a better understanding of the nature of the peril and its direct and indirect impacts on an economy. Additionally, this peril has the added complexity of unpredictable behavioral factors of terrorists that are very difficult to sensibly and consistently be included in pricing models. Consequently, the (re)insurance industry needs to devise improved transparency through innovative modeling and pricing methodologies to ensure that capital continues to support this line of business - underpinning further product development.

Continue reading…

January 31st, 2017

Public Sector Risk Financing Perspectives – Terror Risk: Part III

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

emma-karhan-smEmma Karhan, Managing Director

Contact

The (re)insurance industry needs to be more proactive in understanding and defining the boundary and extent of insured loss along with understanding the types of targets that have a higher probability of attack. Data in the Global Terrorism Database (1) identifies small businesses, retailers, tourist attractions and transportation hubs as increasingly likely targets, not iconic targets such as New York’s World Trade Center, in 2001. These smaller and less iconic targets are typically more vulnerable to the evolving type of terrorism attack (marauding arms, small explosives) that, while causing smaller direct physical damage and losses, still have the potential for significant contingent losses.

Continue reading…

January 30th, 2017

Public Sector Risk Financing Perspectives – Terror Risk: Part II

Posted at 1:00 AM ET

emma-karhan-smEmma Karhan, Managing Director

Contact

The dynamic of pricing decrease and oversupply of capital has also been driven by the industry’s need to diversify into non-natural catastrophe lines of business in the current economic environment, and the fact that the terror market has a loss ratio of almost zero percent. In 2015, Swiss Re’s Sigma report calculated that 27 terrorist events resulted in 1082 fatalities, but no insured losses. Unlike other lines of business, recent pricing and capacity trends have not been driven by a better technical understanding of the impact of losses that normally translates into improved peril understanding or advances in pricing or modeling techniques. This has generally inhibited the industry from expanding its product base for terrorism in line with the evolution of the peril, concentrating more on supporting the pools and the current established bounds of insurable loss.

Continue reading…