Tag Archives: Lloyds of London

Creepy Things

It has been a while since I looked at the state of the reinsurance and specialty insurance markets. Recent market commentary and insurers’ narratives at recent results have suggested market rates are finally firming up, amidst talk of reserve releases drying up and loss creep on recent events.

Just yesterday, Bronek Masojada the CEO of Hiscox commented that “the market is in a better position than it has been for some time”. The Lancashire CEO Alex Maloney said he was “encouraged by the emerging evidence that the (re)insurance market is now experiencing the long-anticipated improvements in discipline and pricing”. The Chubb CEO Evan Greenberg said that “pricing continued to tighten in the quarter while spreading to more classes and segments of business, particularly in the U.S. and London wholesale market”.

A look at the historical breakdown of combined ratios in the Aon Benfield Aggregate portfolio from April (here) and Lloyds results below illustrate the downward trend in reserve releases in the market to the end of 2018. The exhibits also indicate the expense disadvantage that Lloyds continues to operate under (and the reason behind the recently announced modernisation drive).

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

In the Willis Re mid-year report called “A Discerning Market” their CEO James Kent said “there are signs that the longstanding concern over the level of reserve redundancy in past year reserves is coming to fruition” and that in “some classes, there is a clear trend of worsening loss ratios in recent underwriting years due to a prolonged soft market and an increase in loss severity.

 In their H1 presentation, Hiscox had an exhibit that quantified some of the loss creep from recent losses, as below.

click to enlarge

The US Florida hurricane losses have been impacted by factors such as assignment of benefits (AOB) in litigated water claims and subsequently inflating repair costs. Typhoon Jebi losses have been impacted by overlapping losses and demand surge from Typhoon Trami, the Osaka earthquake and demand from Olympics construction. Arch CEO Marc Grandisson believes that the market missed the business interruption and contingent BI exposures in Jebi estimates.

The fact that catastrophic losses are unpredictable, even after the event, is no surprise to students of insurance history (this post on the history of Lloyds is a testament to unpredictability). Technology and advances in modelling techniques have unquestionably improved risk management in insurance in recent years. Notwithstanding these advances, uncertainty and the unknown should always be considered when model outputs such as probability of loss and expected loss are taken as a given in determining risk premium.

To get more insight into reserve trends, it’s worth taking a closer look at two firms that have historically shown healthy reserve releases – Partner Re and Beazley. From 2011 to 2016, Partner Re’s non-life business had an average reserve release of $675 million per year which fell to $450 million in 2017, and to $250 million in 2018. For H1 2019, that figure was $15 million of reserve strengthening. The exhibit below shows the trend with 2019 results estimated based upon being able to achieve reserve releases of $100 million for the year and assuming no major catastrophic claims in 2019. Despite the reduction in reserve releases, the firm has grown its non-life business by double digits in H1 2019 and claims it is “well-positioned to benefit from this improved margin environment”.

click to enlarge

Beazley is one of the best insurers operating from London with a long history of mixing innovation with a balanced portfolio. It has doubled its net tangible assets (NTA) per share over the past 10 years and trades today at a 2.7 multiple to NTA. Beazley is also predicting double digit growth due to an improving rating environment whilst predicting “the scale of the losses that we, in common with the broader market, have incurred over the past two years means that below average reserve releases will continue this year”.

click to enlarge

And that’s the rub. Although reserves are dwindling, rate improvements should help specialty (re)insurers to rebuild reserves and improve profitability back above its cost of capital, assuming normal catastrophe loss levels. However, market valuations, as reflected by the Aon Benfield price to book exhibit below, look like they have all that baked in already.

click to enlarge

And that’s a creepy thing.

A naughty or nice 2019?

They say if you keep making the same prediction, at some stage it will come true. Well, my 2018 post a year ago on the return of volatility eventually proved prescient (I made the same prediction for 2017!). Besides the equity markets (multiple posts with the latest one here), the non-company specific topics covered in this blog in 2018 ranged from the telecom sector (here), insurance (here, here, and here), climate change (here and here), to my own favourite posts on artificial intelligence (here, here and here).

The most popular post (by far thanks to a repost by InsuranceLinked)) this year was on the Lloyds’ of London market (here) and I again undertake to try to post more on insurance specific topics in 2019. My company specific posts in 2018 centered on CenturyLink (CTL), Apple (AAPL), PaddyPowerBetfair (PPB.L), and Nvidia (NVDA). Given that I am now on the side-lines on all these names, except CTL, until their operating results justify my estimate of fair value and the market direction is clearer, I hope to widen the range of firms I will post on in 2019, time permitting. Although this blog is primarily a means of trying to clarify my own thoughts on various topics by means of a public diary of sorts, it is gratifying to see that I got the highest number of views and visitors in 2018. I am most grateful to you, dear reader, for that.

In terms of predictions for the 2019 equity markets, the graph below shows the latest targets from market analysts. Given the volatility in Q4 2018, it is unsurprising that the range of estimates for 2019 is wider than previously. At the beginning of 2018, the consensus EPS estimate for the S&P500 was $146.00 with an average multiple just below 20. Current 2018 estimates of $157.00 resulted in a multiple of 16 for the year end S&P500 number. The drop from 20 to 16 illustrates the level of uncertainty in the current market

click to enlarge

For 2019, the consensus EPS estimate is (currently) $171.00 with an average 2019 year-end target of 2,900 implying a 17 multiple. Given that this EPS estimate of 9% growth includes sectors such as energy with an assumed healthy 10% EPS growth projection despite the oil price drop, it’s probable that this EPS estimate will come down during the upcoming earnings season as firms err on the conservative side for their 2019 projections.

The bears point to building pressures on top-line growth and on record profit margins. The golden boy of the moment, Michael Wilson of Morgan Stanley, calls the current 2019 EPS estimates “lofty”. The bulls point to the newly established (as of last Friday) Powell Put and the likely resolution of the US-China trade spat (because both sides need it). I am still dubious on a significant or timely relaxation of global quantitative tightening and don’t feel particularly inclined to bet money on the Orange One’s negotiating prowess with China. My guess is the Chinese will give enough for a fudge but not enough to satisfy Trump’s narcissistic need (and political need?) for a visible outright victory. The NAFTA negotiations and his stance on the Wall show outcomes bear little relation to the rhetoric of the man. These issues will be the story of 2019. Plus Brexit of course (or as I suspect the lack thereof).

Until we get further insight from the Q4 earnings calls, my current base assumption of 4% EPS growth to $164 with a multiple of 15 to 16 implies the S&P500 will be range bound around current levels of 2,400 – 2,600. Hopefully with less big moves up or down!

Historically, a non-recessionary bear market lasts on average 7 months according to Ed Clissold of Ned Davis Research (see their 2019 report here). According to Bank of America, since 1950 the S&P 500 has endured 11 retreats of 12% or more in prolonged bull markets with these corrections lasting 8 months on average. The exhibit below suggests that such corrections only take 5 months to recover peak to trough.

click to enlarge

To get a feel for the possible direction of the S&P500 over 2019, I looked at the historical path of the index over 300 trading days after a peak for 4 non-recessionary and 4 recessionary periods (remember recessions are usually declared after they have begun), as below.

Note: These graphs have been subsequently updated for the S&P500 close to the 18th January 2019. 

click to enlarges&p500 q42018 drop compared to 4 nonrecession drops in 1962 1987 1998 & 2015 updated

 

click to enlarges&p500 q42018 drop compared to 4 recession drops in 1957 1974 1990 & 2000 updated

 

I will leave it to you, dear reader, to decide which path represents the most likely one for 2019. It is interesting that the 1957 track most closely matches the moves to date  (Ed: as per the date of the post, obviously not after that date!) but history rarely exactly rhymes. I have no idea whether 2019 will be naughty or nice for equity investors. I can predict with 100% certainty that it will not be dull….

Given that Brightwater’s pure Alpha fund has reportingly returned an impressive 14.6% for 2018 net of fees, I will leave the last word to Ray Dalio, who has featured regularly in this blog in 2018, as per his recent article (which I highly recommend):

Typically at this phase of the short-term debt cycle (which is where we are now), the prices of the hottest stocks and other equity-like assets that do well when growth is strong (e.g., private equity and real estate) decline and corporate credit spreads and credit risks start to rise. Typically, that happens in the areas that have had the biggest debt growth, especially if that happens in the largely unregulated shadow banking system (i.e., the non-bank lending system). In the last cycle, it was in the mortgage debt market. In this cycle, it has been in corporate and government debt markets.

When the cracks start to appear, both those problems that one can anticipate and those that one can’t start to appear, so it is especially important to identify them quickly and stay one step ahead of them.

So, it appears to me that we are in the late stages of both the short-term and long-term debt cycles. In other words, a) we are in the late-cycle phase of the short-term debt cycle when profit and earnings growth are still strong and the tightening of credit is causing asset prices to decline, and b) we are in the late-cycle phase of the long-term debt cycle when asset prices and economies are sensitive to tightenings and when central banks don’t have much power to ease credit.

A very happy and healthy 2019 to all.

The New Normal (Again)

I expect that next week’s reinsurance jamboree in Monte Carlo will be full of talk of innovative and technology streaming-lining business models (as per this post on AI and insurance). This recent article from the FT is just one example of claims that technology like blockchain can reduce costs by 30%. The article highlights questions about whether insurers are prepared to give up ownership of data, arguably their competitive advantage, if the technology is really to be scaled up in the sector.

As a reminder of the reinsurance sector’s cost issues, as per this post on Lloyds’, the graph below illustrates the trend across Lloyds’, the Aon Benfield Aggregate portfolio, and Munich’s P&C reinsurance business.

click to enlarge

Until the sector gets serious about cutting costs, such as overpaid executives on luxury islands or expensive cities and antiquated business practises such as holding get togethers in places like Monte Carlo, I suspect expenses will remain an issue. In their July review, Willis stated that a “number of traditional carriers are well advanced in their plans to reduce their costs, including difficult decisions around headcount” and that “in addition to cost savings, the more proactively managed carriers are applying far greater rigor in examining the profitability of every line of business they are accepting”. Willis highlighted the potential difficulties for the vastly inefficient MGA business that many have been so actively pursuing. As an example of the type of guff executives will trot out next week, Swiss Re CEO, Christian Mumenthaler, said “we remain convinced that technology will fundamentally change the re/insurance value chain”, likely speaking from some flash office block in one of the most expensive cities in the world!

On market conditions, there was positive developments on reinsurance pricing at the January renewals after the 2017 losses with underlying insurance rates improving, as illustrated by the Marsh composite commercial rate index (example from US below).

click to enlarge

However, commentators have been getting ever more pessimistic as the year progresses, particularly after the mid-year renewals. Deutsche Bank recently called the reinsurance pricing outlook “very bleak”. A.M. Best stated that “the new normal for reinsurers appears to be one with returns that are less impressive and underwriting and fee income becoming a larger contributor to profits” and predicts, assuming a normal large loss level, an 8% ROE for 2018 for the sector. Willis, in their H1 report, puts the sectors ROE at 7.7% for H1 2018. S&P, in the latest report that is part of their Global Highlights series, also expects a ROE return for 2018 around 6% to 8% and estimates that “reinsurers are likely to barely cover their cost of capital in 2018 and 2019”.

S&P does question why “the market values the industry at a premium to book value today (on average at 1.24x at year-end 2017), and at near historical highs, given the challenges” and believes that potential capital returns, M&A and interest rate rises are all behind elevated valuations.  The recent Apollo PE deal for Aspen at 1.12 times book seems a large way off other recent multiples, as per this post, but Aspen has had performance issues. Still its interesting that no other insurer was tempted to have a go at Aspen with the obvious synergies that such a deal could have achieved. There is only a relatively small number of high quality players left for the M&A game and they will not be cheap!

As you are likely aware, I have been vocal on the impact the ILS sector has had in recent years (most recently here and here). With so-called alternative capital (at what size does it stop being alternative!) now at the $95 billion-mark according to Aon, A.M. Best makes the obvious point that “any hope for near-term improvement in the market is directly correlated to the current level of excess capacity in the overall market today, which is being compounded by the continued inflow of alternative capacity”. Insurers and reinsurers are not only increasing their usage of ILS in portfolio optimisation but are also heavily participating in the sector. The recent purchase by Markel of the industry leading and oldest ILS fund Nephila is an interesting development as Markel already had an ILS platform and is generally not prone to overpaying.

I did find this comment from Bob Swarup of Camdor in a recent Clear Path report on ILS particularly telling – “As an asset class matures it inevitably creates its own cycle and beta. At this point you expect fees to decline both as a function of the benefits of scale but also as it becomes more understood, less of it becomes alpha and more of it becomes beta” and “I do feel that the fees are most definitely too high right now and to a large extent this is because people are trying to treat this as an alternative asset class whereas it is large enough now to be part of the general mix”. Given the still relatively small size of the ILS sector, it’s difficult for ILS managers to demonstrate true alpha at scale (unless they are taking crazy leveraged bets!) and therefore pressure on current fees will become a feature.

A.M. Best articulated my views on ILS succinctly as follows: “The uncorrelated nature of the industry to traditional investments does appear to have value—so long as the overall risk-adjusted return remains appropriate”. The graph below from artemis.bm shows the latest differential between returns and expected cost across the portfolio they monitor.

click to enlarge

In terms of the returns from ILS funds, the graph below shows the underlying trend (with 2018 results assuming no abnormal catastrophic activity) of insurance only returns from indices calculated by Lane Financial (here) and Eurekahedge (here). Are recent 5 year average returns of between 500 and 250 basis points excess risk free enough to compensation for the risk of a relatively concentrated portfolio? Some think so. I don’t.

click to enlarge

Whether reinsurers and specialty insurers will be able to maintain superior (albeit just above CoC) recent returns over ILS, as illustrated in this post, through arbitrating lower return ILS capital or whether their bloated costs structures will catch them out will be a fascinating game to watch over the coming years. I found a section of a recent S&P report, part of their Global Highlights series, on cat exposures in the sector, amusing. It stated that in 2017 “the reinsurance industry recorded an aggregate loss that was assessed as likely to be incurred less than once in 20 years” whilst “this was the third time this had happened in less than 20 years“.

So, all in all, the story is depressingly familiar for the sector. The new normal, as so many commentators have recently called it, amounts to overcapacity, weak pricing power, bloated cost structures, and optimistic valuations. Let’s see if anybody has anything new or interesting to say in Monte Carlo next week.

As always, let’s hope there is minimal human damage from any hurricanes such as the developing Hurricane Florence or other catastrophic events in 2018.

Befuddled Lloyd’s

Lloyd’s of London always provides a fascinating insight into the London insurance market and beyond into the global specialty insurance market, as this previous post shows. It’s Chairman, Bruce Carnegie-Brown, commented in their 2017 annual report that he expects “2018 to be another challenging year for Lloyd’s and the Corporation continues to refine its strategy to address evolving market conditions”. Given the bulking up of many of its competitors through M&A, Willis recently called it a reinvigoration of the “big balance sheet” reinsurance model, Lloyd’s needs to get busy sharpening its competitive edge. In a blunter message Brown stressed that “the market’s 2017 results are proof, if any were needed, that business as usual is not sustainable”.

A looked at the past 15 years of underwriting results gives an indicator of current market trends since the underwriting quality control unit, called the Franchise Board, was introduced at the end of 2002 after the disastrous 1990’s for the 330-year-old institution.

click to enlarge

The trend of increasing non-CAT loss ratios after years of soft pricing coupled with declining prior year reserve releases is clear to see. That increases the pressure on the insurance sector to control expenses. To that end, Inga Beale, Lloyd’s CEO, is pushing modernisation via the London Market Target Operating Model programme hard, stating that electronic placement will be mandated, on a phased basis, “to speed up the adoption of the market’s modernisation programme, which will digitise processes, reduce unsustainable expense ratios, and make Lloyd’s more attractive to do business with”.

The need to reduce expenses in Lloyd’s is acute given its expense ratio is around 40% compared to around 30% for most of its competitors. Management at Lloyd’s promised to “make it cheaper and easier to write business at Lloyd’s, enabling profitable growth”. Although Lloyd’s has doubled its gross premium volumes over the past 15 years, the results over varying timeframes below, particularly the reducing underwriting margins, show the importance of stressing profitable growth and expense efficiencies for the future.

click to enlarge

A peer comparison of Lloyd’s results over the past 15 years illustrates further the need for the market to modernise, as below. Although the 2017 combined ratio for some of the peer groupings have yet to finalised and published (I will update the graph when they do so), the comparison indicates that Lloyd’s has been doing worse than its reinsurance and Bermudian peers in recent years. It is suspicious to see, along with the big reinsurers and Bermudians, Lloyd’s included Allianz, CNA, and Zurich (and excluded Mapfe) in their competitor group from 2017. If you can’t meet your target, just change the metric behind the target!

click to enlarge

A recent report from Aon Benfield shows the breakdown of the combined ratio for their peer portfolio of specialist insurers and reinsurers from 2006 to 2017, as below.

click to enlargeAon Benfield Aggregate Combined Ratio 2006 to 2017

So, besides strong competitors, increasing loss ratios and heavy expense loads, what does Lloyd’s have to worry about? Well, in common with many, Lloyd’s must contend with structural changes across the industry as a result of, in what Willis calls in their latest report, “the oversupply of capital” from investors in insurance linked securities (ILS) with a lower cost of capital, whereby the 2017 insured losses appears to have had “no impact upon appetite”, according to Willis.

I have posted many times, most recently here, on the impact ILS has had on property catastrophe pricing. The graph of the average multiple of coupon to expected loss on deals monitored by sector expert Artemis again illustrates the pricing trend. I have come up with another angle to tell the story, as per the graph below. I compared the Guy Carpenter rate on line (ROL) index for each year against an index of the annual change in the rolling 10-year average global catastrophe insured loss (which now stands at $66 billion for 2008-2017). Although it is somewhat unfair to compare a relative measure (the GC ROL index) against an absolute measure (change in average insured loss), it makes a point about the downward trend in property catastrophe reinsurance pricing in recent years, particularly when compared to the trend in catastrophic losses. To add potentially to the unfairness, I also included the rising volumes in the ILS sector, in an unsubtle finger point.

click to enlarge

Hilary Weaver, Lloyd’s CRO, recognises the danger and recently commented that “the new UK ILS regulation will, if anything, increase the already abundant supply of insurance capital” and “this is likely to mean that prices remain low for many risks, so we need to remain vigilant to ensure that the prices charged for them are proportionate to the risk”.

The impact extends beyond soft pricing and could impact Lloyd’s risk profile. The loss of high margin (albeit not as high as it once was) and low frequency/high severity business means that Lloyd’s will have to fish in an already crowded pond for less profitable and less volatile business. The combined ratios of Lloyd’s main business lines are shown below illustrating that all, except casualty, have had a rough 2017 amid competitive pressures and large losses.

As reinsurance business is commoditised further by ILS, in a prelude to an increase in machine/algorithm underwriting, Lloyd’s business will become less volatile and as a result less profitable. To illustrate, the lower graph below shows Lloyd’s historical weighted average combined ratio, using the 2017 business mix, versus the weighted average combined ratio excluding the reinsurance line. For 2003 to 2017, the result would be an increase in average combined ratio, from 95.8% to 96.5%, and a reduction in volatility, the standard deviation from 9.7% to 7%.

click to enlarge

To write off Lloyd’s however would be a big mistake. In my view, there remains an important role for a specialist marketplace for heterogeneous risks, where diverse underwriting expertise cannot be easily replicated by machines. Lloyd’s has shown its ability in the past to evolve and adapt, unfortunately however usually when it doesn’t have any choice. Hopefully, this legendary 330-year-old institution will get ahead of the game and dictate its own future. It will be interesting to watch.

 

Epilogue – Although this analogy has limitations, it occurs to me that the insurance sector is at a stage of evolution that the betting sector was at about a decade ago (my latest post on the sector is here). Traditional insurers, with over-sized expenses, operate like old traditional betting shops with paper slips and manual operations. The onset of online betting fundamentally changed the way business is transacted and, as a result, the structure of the industry. The upcoming digitalisation of the traditional insurance business will radically change the cost structure of the industry. Lloyd’s should look to the example of Betfair (see an old post on Betfair for more) as a means of digitalising the market platform and radically reducing costs.

Follow-on 28th April – Many thanks to Adam at InsuranceLinked for re-posting this post. A big welcome to new readers, I hope you will stick around and check out some other posts from this blog. I just came across this report from Oliver Wyam on the underwriter of the future that’s worth a read. They state that the “commercial and wholesale insurance marketplaces are undergoing radical change” and they “expect that today’s low-price environment will continue for the foreseeable future, continuing to put major pressure on cost“.

Cloudfall

More and more business is moving to the cloud and, given the concentration of providers and their interlinkages, it’s creating security challenges. In the US, 15 cloud providers account for 70% of the market.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) describes the cloud as a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.

 A cloud solution is typically architected with multiple regions, where a region is a geographical location where users can run their resources, and is typically made up of multiple zones. All major cloud providers have multiple regions, located across the globe and within the US. For example, Rackspace has the fewest number of regions at 7 whereas Microsoft Azure has the most at 36.

The industry is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 36% between 2014 and 2026, as per the graph below. Software as a service (SaaS), platform as a service (PaaS), and infrastructure as a service (IaaS) are the types of cloud services sold.

click to enlarge

Control of the underlying cloud infrastructure of networks, servers, operating systems, and storage is the responsibility of the cloud provider, with the user having control over the deployed applications and possibly configuration settings for the application-hosting environment.

Amazingly however, the main responsibility for protecting corporate data in the cloud lies not with the cloud provider but with the cloud customer, unless specifically agreed otherwise. Jay Heiser of Gartner commented that “we are in a cloud security transition period in which focus is shifting from the provider to the customer” and businesses “are learning that huge amounts of time spent trying to figure out if any particular cloud service provider is secure or not has virtually no payback”.

An organisation called the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) issued its report on the security threats to the cloud.  These include the usual threats such as data breaches, denial of service (DoS), advanced persistent threats (APTs) and malicious insiders. For the cloud, add in threats including insufficient access management, insecure user interfaces (UIs) and application programming interfaces (APIs), and shared technology vulnerabilities.

Cyber security is an important issue today and many businesses, particularly larger business are turning to insurance to mitigate the risks to their organisations, as the graph below on cyber insurance take-up rates shows.

click to enlarge

Lloyds of London recently released an interesting report called Cloud Down that estimated the e-business interruption costs in the US arising from the sustained loss of access to a cloud service provider. The report estimates, using a standard catastrophic modelling framework from AIR, a cyber incident that takes a top 3 cloud provider offline in the US for 3-6 days would result in ground-up loss central estimates between $7-15 billion and insured losses between $1.5-3 billion. By necessity, the assumptions used in the analysis are fairly crude and basic.

Given the number of bad actors in the cyber world, particularly those who may intend to cause maximum disruption, security failings around the cloud could, in my view, result in losses of many multiples of those projected by Lloyds if several cloud providers are taken down for longer periods. And that’s scary.