1 / 40

FAS 113 Considerations on Risk Transfer Testing

FAS 113 Considerations on Risk Transfer Testing. Gary Venter & Paul Brehm CLRS 2002. Introduction. Overview of FAS 113. Overview of FAS 113. Establishes the conditions required for a Contract with a reinsurer to be accounted for as reinsurance and

kennan-dunn
Download Presentation

FAS 113 Considerations on Risk Transfer Testing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. FAS 113Considerations on Risk Transfer Testing Gary Venter & Paul Brehm CLRS 2002

  2. Introduction

  3. Overview of FAS 113

  4. Overview of FAS 113 • Establishes the conditions required for a • Contract with a reinsurer to be accounted for as reinsurance and • Prescribes accounting and reporting standards • Note “conditions” and “standards” but not methodology

  5. Risk Transfer Essence • “Contracts that do not result in the reasonable possibility that the reinsurer may realize a significant loss from the insurance risk assumed generally do not meet the conditions for reinsurance accounting and are to be accounted for as deposits.”

  6. Key Issues • Test is on reinsurer gaining risk, not on insurer reducing risk • Reasonable possibility • Significant loss • These are terms that invite informed judgment • VFIC did not look to draw a line, but rather explore different methods of measuring risk to provide a consistent framework for such judgments

  7. Reasonable and Significant • FASB only defines them through opposites • Insignificant = having little or no importance; trivial • Reasonable = probability is more than remote (from FAS 5) • Test not met if the probability of a significant variation in either the amount or timing of payments by the reinsurer is remote • Scheduled payments fail this test • Reinsurer loss not required here, only uncertainty

  8. Reasonably Possible to Have Significant Loss • Based on present value of all cash flows • Under reasonably possible outcomes • Seems to ask for a scenario generator • Irrelevant if cash flows are identified as premiums, loss shares, profit shares, etc. • Interest rates not to vary across outcomes • Significance of loss is relative to amounts ceded to reinsurer

  9. Evaluating Reasonable, Significant • “Reasonable possibility” and “significant loss” appear closely intertwined • For a smaller loss to qualify, it would have to be more likely to occur • A 5% chance of a 100% loss might be more convincing than a 10% probability of a 25% loss

  10. An Exception • Substantially all the insurance risk relating to the reinsured portions of the underlying insurance contracts has been assumed by the reinsurer • E.g., fronting • Possibly any simple quota share • Depends on interpretation of “reinsured portions”

  11. Reinsured Portions • A percentage of all the writings in a line of business would seem to be a reinsured portion • But a capped quota share, such as excluding cat losses, would not appear to take all of the insurance risk for the reinsured portion • It could still meet reasonable and significant tests, but not the exception

  12. Related Statements

  13. Related statements • NAIC Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual for Property and Casualty Insurance Companies • Promulgated after FAS 113; draws heavily from GAAP • “Unless the so-called contract contains this essential element of risk transfer, no credit whatsoever shall be allowed on account thereof in any accounting financial statement of the ceding insurer”

  14. Related statements • SSAP 62 • [§12] “Indemnification of the entity company against loss or liability relating to insurance risk in reinsurance requires both of the following: • a.The reinsurer assumes significant risk under the reinsured portions of the underlying insurance agreements; and • b.It is reasonably possible that the reinsurer may realize a significant loss from the transaction.”

  15. Related statements • IASB • Principles for accounting for insurance contracts (draft only) • Principle 1.2 defines an insurance contract. Reinsurance is simply treated as a sub-set. • Principle 1.3 defines the uncertainty required for a contract to qualify as an (re)insurance contract. • Introduces the word “material” in describing uncertainty • Does not distinguish between underwriting risk and timing

  16. Current Risk Transfer Testing

  17. Response 1 Response 2 Response 3 Response 4 Response 5 Official Policy? No No Yes Don’t know Don’t know Probability 5% or 10% 10% or 20% Reasonable worst case chance 20% 10% Significance 5% or 10% 10% or 20% 10% 20% 10% Method Probability distribution of E[ NPV losses], compare to the present value of premium. Compare E[NPV loss] to E[NPV premiums] by scenario Scenario testing NA Net present value of all cash flows. Practitioner survey

  18. Cat example • Hypothetical cat exposure (left) • Cat program: • $15M retention (1 in 10 years) • $50M layer (1 in 100 years) • Gross AAL = $6M; ceded layer = $1.625 M • Assume 50% target loss ratio • Distribution used to calculate the distribution of reinsurer profit/loss • NPV calculated at 4%, assuming premiums collected at inception and losses paid at year end

  19. Cat example

  20. Finite example • Assume: • E[AY LR] = 75%, with a c.v. = 10%, distributed lognormally • ER = 32% • Payout pattern at right (industry average) • Finite Program: • Cede $15M deposit prem. • 65% AP • If LR>75%, cede: • (LR-75%)/(1-.65) • S.t. max of 5%/(1-.65)

  21. Finite example – sample cash flows

  22. Finite example

  23. Considerations • Burden of proof is on the cedant; “proof” is that the reinsurer can lose money, not that cedant risk is reduced • Analysis should include: • Distribution of possible results • Cash flow estimates • Appropriate, common discount rate • Thorough understanding of contract terms • Analysis does not include: • Taxes • Reinsurer expenses • The 10-10 rule, or VaR tests in general are “sufficient, but not necessary.” Risk assessment could/should consider the whole distribution…other risk metrics can be considered.

  24. Alternatives to VaR Tests

  25. Alternative Measures of Risk • Expected Deficit • Tail Value at Risk • Other Coherent Measures • Exponential Transforms • Transforming the 10-10 Rule

  26. Expected Deficit • Loss x Probability • Single loss: 10-10 ~ 5-20 ~ 2-50 etc. • Or average deficit: expected value over all scenarios of the reinsurers loss in the losing scenarios = E(P – L)+ • From examples: • Property Catastrophe = -40% • Quota Share = -3% • Finite = -3%

  27. Coherent Risk Measures 1.Sub-additivity: r(X+Y)  r(X) + r(Y) 2.Monotonicity: If X  Y, r(X) r(Y) 3.Positive Homogeneity: for 0 l, r(lX) = lr(X) 4. Translation Invariance: r(X+a) = r(X)+a • Examples: • Means under transformed probabilities, i.e., E*(X) = xf*(x)dx, where f* is a transformation of f • TVaR

  28. Tail Value at Risk • TVaRa = E[X |x > VaRa ] = x(a)xf(x)dx/(1–a) • That is, expected losses when loss exceed threshold • = E*(X) where f* is 0 below x(a) and f/(1–a) above • Examples at 90th percentile • Property Catastrophe = -319% • Quota Share = -42% • Finite = -23% • Distinguishes last two, which deficit did not • Maybe 20% – 25% right target range

  29. Problems with and Alternatives to TVaR • Problems • No risk attributed to losses below the threshold • Linear impact above the threshold • Alternatives • E* with some other f* • E.g., F*(x) = F(bF–1(F(x))+a) = Wang transform where F is the standard normal distribution

  30. Example of Wang Transform Original Transformed

  31. Measuring Risk with Wang Transform • Determine transform parameters • Test different parameters with known treaties • Look at expected reinsurer profit under transformed distribution • If negative, there is risk

  32. Risk with Parameters from Example, i.e., 0.7u – 1.3 • From examples: • Property Catastrophe = -440% (P = $3.25M) • Property Catastrophe = -2% (P = $25M) • Quota Share = -19% • Cat treaty that is too expensive won’t pass risk transfer by this test • Reinsurance premium levels: • Good deal • Bad deal • So bad it doesn’t qualify for risk transfer • No risk at all

  33. Van Slyke – Kreps Approach • Uses a market pricing approach to find the market risk load to retrocede the entire contract P & L • Uses an exponential risk-adjusted value of losses: RAV = c ln{E[exp(X/c)]} with capital c • Then they show the risk load p should obey: p = E[Y] + (p/s) ln E[e – sY/p], where s is an industry parameter (they suggest about 0.4) and Y is return on premium • Solve for p and use c = p/s to find RAV • Set a cutoff like RAV(Y)>–70% for risk transfer

  34. Van Slyke – Kreps Test • From examples: • Property Catastrophe = 75% (P = $3.25M) • Property Catastrophe = -67% (P = $25M) • Quota Share = 25% • Again if cat pricing gets too high, risk transfer fails • Initial cat price looks small by market risk • Quota share has a good deal of risk

  35. Transformed 10-10 Rule • Transforms normal distribution to make rule more applicable for heavy tails • Let X be ROP– i.e., ROP if negative, else 0 • F is distribution of X; define F*: • 1. For a pre-selected security level =10%, let = 1()= 1.282, which is the -th percentile of the standard normal distribution • 2. Apply the Wang Transform: F*(x) = [1(F(x)) ]. • 3. Calculate the expected value underF*: WT() = E*[X] • 4. If WT() < 10%, it passes the test, otherwise it fails

  36. Application • For normal distributions this gives the 10-10 rule • For the cat example, risk transfer fails at a premium of $35M • For the quota share, WT(0.10) = 14.39% < 10%, so it passes

  37. Risk Transfer Tests Summary • All based on measures of risk • All have to be calibrated to judgment level • All work on regular and finite deals • Can calibrate using contracts where risk transfer can be more confidently judged

  38. Conclusions

  39. Conclusions • FAS 113 is a standard, not a methodology; requires: • A reasonable possibility • Of a significant loss • FAS 113 does dictate some considerations: • Cash flows between parties • Appropriate, common discount rate • Thorough understanding of contract terms • Risk associated with “possibility” and “significance” are typically measured with a VaR measure using 10% and 10% as the critical values

  40. Conclusions • Other risk measures exist and could be applied to the risk transfer question -- EPD, TVaR, and distributional transforms • Regardless of risk measure, critical values need to be established – judgment will still be required • There is a disconnect between FAS 113 (reinsurer loss) and risk testing for Index Securitization (reduction in cedant risk)

More Related