Tag Archives: risk adjusted returns

Beautiful Models

It has been a while since I posted on dear old Solvency II (here). As highlighted in the previous post on potential losses, the insurance sector is perceived as having robust capital levels that mitigates against the current pricing and investment return headwinds. It is therefore interesting to look at some of detail emerging from the new Solvency II framework in Europe, including the mandatory disclosures in the new Solvency and Financial Condition Report (SFCR).

The June 2017 Financial Stability report from EIOPA, the European insurance regulatory, contains some interesting aggregate data from across the European insurance sector. The graph below shows solvency capital requirement (SCR) ratios, primarily driven by the standard formula, averaging consistently around 200% for non-life, life and composite insurers. The ratio is the regulatory capital requirement, as calculated by a mandated standard formula or a firm’s own internal model, divided by assets excess liabilities (as per Solvency II valuation rules). As the risk profile of each business model would suggest, the variability around the average SCR ratio is largest for the non-life insurers, followed by life insurers, with the least volatile being the composite insurers.

click to enlarge

For some reason, which I can’t completely comprehend, the EIOPA Financial Stability report highlights differences in the SCR breakdown (as per the standard formula, expressed as a % of net basic SCR) across countries, as per the graph below, assumingly due to the different profiles of each country’s insurance sector.

click to enlarge

A review across several SFCRs from the larger European insurers and reinsurers who use internal models to calculate their SCRs highlights the differences in their risk profiles. A health warning on any such comparison should be stressed given the different risk categories and modelling methodologies used by each firm (the varying treatment of asset credit risk or business/operational risk are good examples of the differing approaches). The graph below shows each main risk category as a percentage of the undiversified total SCR.

click to enlarge

By way of putting the internal model components in context, the graph below shows the SCR breakdown as a percentage of total assets (which obviously reflects insurance liabilities and the associated capital held against same). This comparison is also fraught with difficulty as an (re)insurers’ total assets is not necessarily a reliable measure of extreme insurance exposure in the same way as risk weighted assets is for banks (used as the denominator in bank capital ratios). For example, some life insurers can have low insurance related liabilities and associated assets (e.g. for mortality related business) compared to other insurance products (e.g. most non-life exposures).

Notwithstanding that caveat, the graph below shows a marked difference between firms depending upon whether they are a reinsurer or insurer, or whether they are a life, non-life or composite insurer (other items such as retail versus commercial business, local or cross-border, specialty versus homogeneous are also factors).

click to enlarge

Initial reactions by commentators on the insurance sector to the disclosures by European insurers through SFCRs have been mixed. Some have expressed disappointment at the level and consistency of detail being disclosed. Regulators will have their hands full in ensuring that sufficiently robust standards relating to such disclosures are met.

Regulators will also have to ensure a fair and consistent approach across all European jurisdictions is adopted in calculating SCRs, particularly for those calculated using internal models, whilst avoiding the pitfall of forcing everybody to use the same assumptions and methodology. Recent reports suggest that EIOPA is looking for a greater role in approving all internal models across Europe. Systemic model risk under the proposed Basel II banking regulatory rules published in 2004 is arguably one of the contributors to the financial crisis.

Only time will tell if Solvency II has avoided the mistakes of Basel II in the handling of such beautiful models.

Divine Diversification

There have been some interesting developments in the US insurance sector on the issue of systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). Metlife announced plans to separate some of their US life retail units to avoid the designation whilst shareholder pressure is mounting on AIG to do the same. These events are symptoms of global regulations designed to address the “too big to fail” issue through higher capital requirements. It is interesting however that these regulations are having an impact in the insurance sector rather than the more impactful issue within the banking sector (this may have to do with the situation where the larger banks will retain their SIFI status unless the splits are significant).

The developments also fly in the face of the risk management argument articulated by the insurance industry that diversification is the answer to the ills of failure. This is the case AIG are arguing to counter calls for a breakup. Indeed, the industry uses the diversification of risk in their defences against the sector being deemed of systemic import, as the exhibit below from a report on systemic risk in insurance from an industry group, the Geneva Association, in 2010 illustrates. Although the point is often laboured by the insurance sector (there still remains important correlations between each of the risk types), the graph does make a valid point.

click to enlargeEconomic Capital Breakdown for European Banks and Insurers

The 1st of January this year marked the introduction of the new Solvency II regulatory regime for insurers in Europe, some 15 years after work begun on the new regime. The new risk based solvency regime allows insurers to use their own internal models to calculate their required capital and to direct their risk management framework. A flurry of internal model approvals by EU regulators were announced in the run-up to the new year, although the amount of approvals was far short of that anticipated in the years running up to January 2016. There will no doubt be some messy teething issues as the new regime is introduced. In a recent post, I highlighted the hoped for increased disclosures from European insurers on their risk profiles which will result from Solvency II. It is interesting that Fitch came out his week and stated that “Solvency II metrics are not comparable between insurers due to their different calculation approaches and will therefore not be a direct driver of ratings” citing issues such as the application of transitional measures and different regulator approaches to internal model approvals.

I have written many times on the dangers of overtly generous diversification benefits (here, here, here, and here are just a few!) and this post continues that theme. A number of the large European insurers have already published details of their internal model calculations in annual reports, investor and analyst presentations. The graphic below shows the results from 3 large insurers and 3 large reinsurers which again illustrate the point on diversification between risk types.

click to enlargeInternal Model Breakdown for European Insurers and Reinsurers

The reinsurers show, as one would expect, the largest diversification benefit between risk types (remember there is also significant diversification benefits assumed within risk types, more on that later) ranging from 35% to 40%. The insurers, depending upon business mix, only show between 20% and 30% diversification across risk types. The impact of tax offsets is also interesting with one reinsurer claiming a further 17% benefit! A caveat on these figures is needed, as Fitch points out; as different firms use differing terminology and methodology (credit risk is a good example of significant differences). I compared the diversification benefits assumed by these firms against what the figure would be using the standard formula correlation matrix and the correlations assuming total independence between the risk types (e.g. square root of the sum of squares), as below.

click to enlargeDiversification Levels within European Insurers and Reinsurers

What can be seen clearly is that many of these firms, using their own internal models, are assuming diversification benefits roughly equal to that between those in the standard formula and those if the risk types were totally independent. I also included the diversification levels if 10% and 25% correlations were added to the correlation matrix in the standard formula. A valid question for these firms by investors is whether they are being overgenerous on their assumed diversification. The closer to total independence they are, the more sceptical I would be!

Assumed diversification within each risk type can also be material. Although I can understand arguments on underwriting risk types given different portfolio mixes, it is hard to understand the levels assumed within market risk, as the graph below on the disclosed figures from two firms show. Its hard for individual firms to argue they have material differing expectations of the interaction between interest rates, spreads, property, FX or equities!

click to enlargeDiversification Levels within Market Risk

Diversification within the life underwriting risk module can also be significant (e.g. 40% to 50%) particularly where firms write significant mortality and longevity type exposures. Within the non-life underwriting risk module, diversification between the premium, reserving and catastrophe risks also add-up. The correlations in the standard formula on diversification between business classes vary between 25% and 50%.

By way of a thought experiment, I constructed a non-life portfolio made up of five business classes (X1 to X5) with varying risk profiles (each class set with a return on equity expectation of between 10% and 12% at a capital level of 1 in 500 or 99.8% confidence level for each), as the graph below shows. Although many aggregate profiles may reflect ROEs of 10% to 12%, in my view, business classes in the current market are likely to have a more skewed profile around that range.

click to enlargeSample Insurance Portfolio Profile

I then aggregated the business classes at varying correlations (simple point correlations in the random variable generator before the imposition of the differing distributions) and added a net expense load of 5% across the portfolio (bringing the expected combined ratio from 90% to 95% for the portfolio). The different resulting portfolio ROEs for the different correlation levels shows the impact of each assumption, as below.

click to enlargePortfolio Risk Profile various correlations

The experiment shows that a reasonably diverse portfolio that can be expected to produce a risk adjusted ROE of between 14% and 12% (again at a 1 in 500 level)with correlations assumed at between 25% and 50% amongst the underlying business classes. If however, the correlations are between 75% and 100% then the same portfolio is only producing risk adjusted ROEs of between 10% and 4%.

As correlations tend to increase dramatically in stress situations, it highlights the dangers of overtly generous diversification assumptions and for me it illustrates the need to be wary of firms that claim divine diversification.

Lancashire finds the love

After going ex-dividend in November, investors went mega bearish on Lancashire (LRE.L) when it nearly dropped below the 500p level, as the graph below shows. A previous post highlighted the reasons behind the change in sentiment over the first half of 2014 on the once darling of the specialty insurance sector.

click to enlargeLancashire Insurance Group 2014 Share Price

The firm released its Q4 today and announced another special dividend of $0.50 on top of the regular $0.10 dividend. Driven by stable results, as per the graph below, and by the chatter that Lancashire could be an M&A target, the price today reflects a respectable 160% multiple to diluted tangible book. It was odd that although the firm’s executives joked about having prepared an answer to the M&A question, no analyst actually asked the question in the conference call today!

click to enlargeLancashire Historical Combined Loss 2008 to 2014

One of the big positives from the call today was the news that the firm has restructured their reinsurance programme that protects their book to give them more event coverage with reinstatements (away from previous aggregate cover). This provides more protection to Lancashire from multiple events. The PMLs as at January expressed as a percentage of the calendar year earned premiums (estimated figures for 2015) show the reduced net risk profile of this arbitrage strategy.

click to enlargeLancashire PMLs January 2015

It’s nice to see Lancashire recover some of its shine and it will be intriguing to see if it does become an M&A target in the coming months.

Lancashire is looking unloved

With exposure adjusted rates in the specialty insurance and reinsurance sector continually under pressure and founder/former CEO, Richard Brindle, making an unseemly quick exit with a generous pay-out, Lancashire’s stock has been decidedly unloved with the price trading well below the key £7 threshold highlighted in my last post on the subject in February. Although we remain in the middle of the US hurricane season (and indeed the Napa earthquake is a reminder that its always earthquake season), I thought it was a good time to have a quick look over Lancashire’s figures again, particularly as the share price broke below the £6 threshold earlier this month, a level not seen since early 2011. The stock has clearly now lost its premium valuation compared to others in the London market as the graph below shows.

click to enlargeLondon Market Specialty Insurers Tangible Book Value Multiples August 2014

Results for H1-2014, which include full numbers from the November 2013 acquisition of Cathedral, show a continuing trend on the impact of rate reductions on loss ratios, as per the graph below.

click to enlargeLancashire Historical Combined Loss 2006 to H12014

The impact of the Cathedral deal on reserve levels are highlighted below. The graph illustrates the consistent relative level of IBNR to case reserves compared to the recent past which suggests a limited potential for any cushion for loss ratios from prior year reserve releases.

click to enlargeLancashire Historical Net Loss Reserves

The management at Lancashire have clearly stated their strategy of maintaining their discipline whilst taking advantage of arbitrage opportunities “that allow us to maintain our core insurance and reinsurance portfolios, whilst significantly reducing net exposures and enhancing risk adjusted returns”. In my last post, I looked at post Cathedral gross and net PMLs as a percentage of earned premiums against historical PMLs. More applicable figures as per July for each year, against calendar year gross and net earned premiums (with an estimate for 2014), are presented below. They clearly show that the net exposures have reduced from the 2012 peak. It is important to note however that the Gulf of Mexico net 1 in 100 figures are high at 35%, particularly compared to many of its peers.

click to enlargeLancashire PMLs July 2010 to July 2014

There is of course always the allure of the special dividend. Lancashire has indicated that in the absence of attractive business opportunities they will look at returning most, if not all, of their 2014 earnings to shareholders. Assuming the remainder of 2014 is relatively catastrophe free; Lancashire is on track to make $1-$1.10 of EPS for the full year. If they do return, say, $1 to shareholders that represents a return of just below 10% on today’s share price of £6.18. Not bad in today’s environment! There may be a short term trade there in October after the hurricane season to take advantage of a share pick-up in advance of any special dividend.

Others in the sector are also holding out the prospect of special dividends to reward patient shareholders. The fact that other firms, some with more diverse businesses and less risky risk profiles, offer potential upside through special dividends may also explain why Lancashire has lost its premium tangible book multiple, as per the first graph in this post.

Notwithstanding that previously Lancashire was a favorite of mine due to its nimble and focused approach, I cannot get past the fact that the sector as a whole is mired in an inadequate risk adjusted premia environment (the impact of which I highlighted in a previous post). In the absence of any sector wide catalyst to change the current market dynamic, my opinion is that it is expedient to pass on Lancashire here, even at this multi-year low.

The game of chicken that is unfolding across this sector is best viewed from the side-lines in my view.

When does one plus one equal more than two?

S&P released a thoughtful piece on Monday called “Hedge Fund Reinsurers: Are The Potential Rewards Worth The Added Risk?” I couldn’t find a direct link to the article but Artemis has a good summary here. They start by asking whether combining a reinsurer strategy with a hedge fund strategy can create higher risk adjusted returns than the two approaches could achieve separately. They conclude with the following:

“The potential crossover between hedge funds and reinsurers offers compelling possibilities. However, a commensurate focus on additional risks would have to supplement the singular focus on higher investment returns. Considering both is necessary in determining whether one plus one is truly greater than two. This depends on whether combining hedge funds and reinsurers can create additional diversification benefits that don’t occur in these two types of organisations independently, thus creating a more capital efficient vehicle. We believe it’s possible. However, in our view, closing the gap between reinsurer and hedge fund risk cultures and implementing prudent risk controls is necessary to realize these benefits.”

I have posted on this topic before. One of the hedge fund reinsurer strategies is to combine low volatility P&C business (primarily as a source of cheap “float”)with the alpha seeking asset business. My problem with this strategy is that every reinsurer is looking out for low volatility/stable return (re)insurance business (its the holy grail after all!), even more so in today’s highly efficient and competitive market. So what can clever chino wearing quants living on a tropical island offer that every other established reinsurer can’t? I suspect that the answer is to price the business with a higher discount rate based upon their higher expected return. S&P point out that this may create increased risks elsewhere such as liquidity risk in stress scenarios. Another strategy is to combine volatile property catastrophe risk with higher asset risk, essentially combining two tail risk strategies. This pushes the business model more towards the highly leveraged model as per that used by the monoline insurer, the ultimate “picking up pennies in front of a stream-roller” play.

To get an idea of the theory behind the various strategies, the graph below illustrates the diversification of each using the calculation in the Solvency II standard formula, with different concentrations for market, counterparty, life, health and non-life risks (selected for illustration purposes only).

click to enlargeHedge Fund Reinsurer Diversification

The graph shows that a hedge fund reinsurer with a low volatility liability strategy shows the least amount of diversification compared to a composite, non-life or a property cat reinsurer due to the dominance of market risk. Interesting, the high risk strategy of combining a hedge fund strategy on assets with property cat on the liability side shows diversification at a similar level (i.e. 78%) to that of a non-life reinsurer where non-life risk dominates.

Hedge fund reinsurers would no doubt argue that, through their alpha creating ability, the 25% correlation between market and non-life risk is too high for them. Reducing that correlation to 0% for the hedge fund reinsurers gives the diversification above, as per “Diversification 1” above. Some may even argue that the 25% correlation in the standard formula is too low for traditional players, as this post on Munich Re’s results excluding catastrophic losses illustrates, so I have shown the diversification for an illustrative composite, non-life or a property cat reinsurer with a 75% correlation between market and non-life risks, as per “Diversification 2” above.

In my opinion, one plus one is always two and under-priced risk cannot be justified by combining risk strategies. Risk is risk and combining two risks doesn’t change the fundamentals of each. One strategy that hasn’t re-emerged as yet is what I call the hedging reinsurer whereby liabilities are specifically hedged by asset strategies. Initially, the property cat reinsurers tried to use weather derivatives to hedge their risk but an illiquid market for weather derivatives and the considerable amount of basis risk resulted in difficulties with the strategy. The strategy is commonly used on the life side of the business with investment type business, particularly business with guarantees and options. Also the appetite for longevity risk by those reinsurers with significant mortality exposure that can significantly hedge the longevity risk is a major developing market trend. I do not see why the strategy could not be used more on the non-life side for economic related exposures such as mortgage indemnity or other credit type exposures.

In the immediate term, the best strategy that I see is the arbitrage one that those who have survived a few underwriting cycles are following, as per this post. On that point, I noticed that BRIT, in their results today, stated they have “taken advantage of current market conditions in reinsurance to significantly strengthen group wide catastrophe cover. These additional protections include a property aggregate catastrophe cover and some additional variable quota share protection”. When risk is cheap, arbitrating it makes the most sense to me as a strategy, not doubling up on risks.