Here we review GC Capital Ideas posts on the challenge for (re)insurers to identify their exposure to emerging risks and deal with the potential risk aggregation.
Here we review GC Capital Ideas posts on the challenge the peril of cyber risk poses for (re)insurers and rating agencies and how the management of this risk is evolving.
The aggregation of risk is ever more present because cyber insurance is a global class of business with losses emanating from any part of the world. The non-physical nature of cyber risk makes it possible for (re)insurers to suffer losses from a vast number of insureds spread across different geographies as a result of a single event. That creates aggregation risk, for which an insurer or reinsurer could find itself burdened with catastrophic losses.
Businesses and (re)insurers should be concerned by risk aggregation, given the possibility of single attacks leading to losses across a large number of firms, which can create counter-party risk for the insured and potential failure for the insurer. At the moment, a large systemic event has not materialized, but that does not mean that the risk is not present.
A cursory reading of just a few of the publications on the topic of emerging risks quickly resembles a crash-course in risk aversion therapy. We have been subjected to a bewildering and ever lengthening series of lists of emerging risks. Swiss Re recently identified 26 such risks (1), Hannover Re has an ongoing list of 14 while the World Economic Forum in its Global Risks 2014 (2) lists 31 global risks (3).
A cursory reading of just a few of the publications on the topic of emerging risks quickly resembles a crash-course in risk aversion therapy. We have been subjected to a bewildering and ever lengthening series of lists of emerging risks. Swiss Re recently identified 26 such risks (1), Hannover Re has an ongoing list of 14 while the World Economic Forum in its Global Risks 2014 (2) lists 31 global risks (3).
Janis Berger, Managing Director and Spencer Gluck, Senior Vice President
Contact
The convergence of a variety of pressure points at this time is leading to a set of unique circumstances that present opportunities around business strategy and capital allocations for the insurance industry. Future inflation is one of the pressure points. Inflation and uncertainty about its extent and timing is a function of untested but powerful monetary and fiscal policy actions. In addition to inflation’s potential effect on insurer liability management there is also an impact on the volatility of assets backing the liabilities. A reignition of the kind of severe inflation last seen in the 1970s is most likely not factored into any current insurer management practices for establishing reserves or setting capital levels.
Eddy Vanbeneden, Managing Direcor
Contact
With casualty reserves, it can be difficult to determine how much is too much. Unlike property reserves, which are mostly for specific known events, casualty reserves have to be sufficient to cover events that may unfold well into the future. A lot can happen in 15 or 20 years, which only serves to compound the uncertainty that casualty carriers face. Further complicating matters, there has been a dearth of viable ways to mitigate the plethora of risks that could converge on a casualty portfolio, leaving risk-bearers to learn that reserves are lacking years after they have accepted a risk.
