Tag Archives: catastrophic insured losses

Historical CAT Insured Losses – an update.

I was recently doing some research on the specialty insurance sector again, a topic I posted regularly on in the past. I googled historical insured catastrophe losses and a response from Google’s AI model Gemini included an old exhibit I had posted on this blog in 2013. I am in two minds about the result, chuffed that something I posted 12 years ago is still being used but perplexed why an exhibit that was so out of date would be relevant! A subject for another day…..

Anyway, the below exhibit updates the inflated insured catastrophe losses from 1990 to 2024 (with Swiss Re’s estimate for 2025). The trend is clearly upwards with the new 10-year average at $130 billion and the 5-year average at $140 billion. This is a significant change from the $60 billion 10 year average in the 2013 post!

As I have highlighted many times previously here, inflated losses (i.e. bringing historical costs into today’s value) are not a true indicator of current risks as the historical losses need to be exposure adjusted (i.e. historical events run through models with today’s exposure date).

An excellent recent example of this is from a recent paper by Karen Clark & Co called “The $100 Billion Hurricane” which runs each historical US hurricane through 2025 exposures, as below.

The paper concludes that “there is no significant upward trend in hurricane losses, and the US has been lucky over the past few decades”.

Two different angles of looking at historical data albeit that it’s undeniable that catastrophe losses, both by economic and insured value, in aggregate each year are only going in one direction.

Let’s hope the remainder of the 2025 US hurricane season doesn’t show us that the single $100 billion hurricane loss was overdue!

​​​​

ILS price check: 20% more for 20% less

Guy Carpenter issued an update today on the Cat Bond market stating that the “influence from direct capital market participation in reinsurance programs, coupled with catastrophic insured losses well below historical averages in 2013, put significant pressure on global catastrophic reinsurance pricing”. They also made the point that “spreads have tightened between indemnity and other trigger types, sponsors were inclined to take advantage of investors’ openness to indemnity triggers to reduce coverage basis risk without a material increase in pricing relative to non-indemnity trigger pricing”.

The always interesting Global Property Catastrophe ROL index showed an 11% fall at January 2014.

I find it informative to compare current pricing to the past and the latest deal from Chubb covering US wind and quake risk from the NorthEast is hot off the press. East Lane Re VI increased in size to $270 million due to demand and got pricing at the bottom of the (already revised) pricing range at 275 bps. Thus the “20% more for 20% less” of the title of this post. The deal attaches in excess of $3 billion, above any historical storms (the largest of which is the 1938 New York storm at $2.9 billion), with a modelled 0.87% attachment and 0.77% exhaustion probability.

Although I am not sure if all of the conditions are exactly the same, it looks like Chubb got a good deal (for 4 years) compared to Class A of the East Lane IV Ltd, their expiring 2011 deal, which also covered US wind and quake risk in the NorthEast in excess of $3 billion. That one paid a 575 bps coupon, a whole 300 bps above the pricing they got this month!