catastrophe funds & catastrophic risk in new york state public/private partnerships in the era...
TRANSCRIPT
Catastrophe Funds & Catastrophic Risk in
New York State
Public/Private Partnershipsin the Era of Mega-Disasters
New York Insurance AssociationLake Placid, NY
June 1, 2006
Robert P. Hartwig, Ph.D., CPCU, Senior Vice President & Chief EconomistInsurance Information Institute 110 William Street New York, NY 10038
Tel: (212) 346-5520 Fax: (212) 732-1916 [email protected] www.iii.org
Presentation Outline
• P/C Profit Overview• Catastrophe Loss Management• Catastrophic Loss and Insurer Impairment• Overview of National Catastrophe Plan Proposals
State CAT Funds: Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Funds• 2006 Hurricane Season Forecast• Hurricane Risk in New York State: A Serious Threat?• Pricing Trends• Capacity Trends• National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)• TRIA: A Federal CAT Program That Works• Summary• Q & A
P/C FINANCIALOVERVIEW
Do Insurers Need a Shock Absorber?
P/C Net Income After Taxes1991-2005 ($ Millions)
$14,178
$5,840
$19,316
$10,870
$20,598$24,404
$36,819
$30,773
$21,865
-$6,970
$3,046
$30,029
$43,013
$20,559
$38,501
-$10,000
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05*ROE figures are GAAP; **Return on avg. surplus. ROAS = 9.8% after adj. for one-time special dividend paid by the investment subsidiary of one company. Sources: A.M. Best, ISO, Insurance Information Inst.
2001 ROE = -1.2%
2002 ROE = 2.2%
2003 ROE = 8.9%
2004 ROE = 9.4%
2005 ROAS** = 10.5%
2005 Net Income only now exceeding levels of mid-1990s
Andrew Sept. 11
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
US P/C Insurers All US Industries P/C excl. Hurricanes
ROE: P/C vs. All Industries 1987–2005
Source: Insurance Information Institute; Fortune
Andrew Northridge
Hugo Lowest CAT losses in 15 years
Sept. 11
2004/5 ROEs excl. hurricanes
4 Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, Wilma
115.8
107.4
100.198.3
92.7
100.9
97.7
90
100
110
120
01 02 03 04 05H1 05 06F IIIForecast*
P/C Industry Combined Ratio
Sources: A.M. Best; ISO, III. *III forecast for 2006
2005 figure reflects heavy use of reinsurance which
lowered net losses, but still a substantial deterioration
from first half 2005
Expectation is for an underwriting
profit in 2006
($55)
($50)
($45)
($40)
($35)
($30)
($25)
($20)
($15)
($10)
($5)
$0
$5
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
Underwriting Gain (Loss)1975-2005
Source: A.M. Best, Insurance Information Institute
$ B
illi
ons
Insurers sustained a $5.9 billion underwriting loss in 2005. Before
Katrina, p/c insurers were on track for only the second
underwriting profit in 27 years; U/W profit in 2006 is likely.
110.
3
110.
2
107.
6
103.
9
109.
7
112.
3
111.
1
122.
3
110.
1
102.
3
101
99
101.
9
112.
5
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05E 06F
Commercial Lines Combined Ratio, 1993-2006E*
Source: A.M. Best; Insurance Information Institute *Fitch estimate for 2005. Actual 1H05 combined ratio all lines was 92.7.
Outside CAT-affected lines, commercial
insurance is doing fairly well. Caution is
required in underwriting long-
tail commercial lines.
2006 results dependent on a return to “normal” catastrophe loss levels
103.
9
104.
5
103.
5
104.
9
99.8 10
2.7
104.
5
109.
9
110.
9
105.
3
98.4
94.3
101.
0
95.9
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05E 06F
Personal LinesCombined Ratio, 1993-2006E
Source: A.M. Best; Insurance Information Institute. 2006 forecast from Fitch Ratings as of 12/7/05.
A very strong 2006 is expected in personal lines assuming “normal”
catastrophe loss activity
110
.5
10
5.0 11
3.6 11
9.2
10
4.8
10
0.8
10
0.5
114
.3
10
6.5
12
5.8
111
.0
12
4.6
12
9
10
8.8 11
5.8
10
6.9
10
8.5
10
6.7
10
6.0
10
1.9
10
5.9
10
8.0
110
.1 115
.8
10
7.4
10
0.1
98
.3
10
0.9
16
2.4
12
6.5
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
Reinsurance All Lines Combined Ratio
Combined Ratio: Reinsurance vs. P/C Industry
Source: A.M. Best, ISO, Reinsurance Association of America, Insurance Information Institute
HurricaneAndrew
Sept. 11
2004/5 Hurricanes
Distribution of Katrina Losses by Market ($Billions)
Market Percentage Amount
Insurers 47% - 53% $18.8 - $28.9
Reinsurers 52% - 44% $20.7 - $24.0
Capital Markets 1% - 3% $0.4 - $1.6
TOTAL 100% $39.9 - $54.6
Source: Hurricane Katrina: Analysis of the Impact on the Insurance Industry, Tillinghast, October 2005.
97.5
100.6 100.198.3
92.7
100.9
9.4%
10.5%
15.3%14.3%
15.9%
9.4%
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
1978 1979 2003Actual
2004 2005:H1 2005
Co
mb
ine
d R
ati
o
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Re
tru
n o
n E
qu
ity
*
Combined Ratio ROE*
* 2005 figure is return on average statutory surplus.Source: Insurance Information Institute from A.M. Best and ISO data.
A 100 Combined Ratio Isn’t What it Used to Be: 95 is Where It’s At
Combined ratios today must be below
95 to generate Fortune 500 ROEs
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
19
70
19
71
19
72
19
73
19
74
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
F2
00
7F
20
08
F2
00
9F
20
10
F
Note: Shaded areas denote hard market periods.Source: A.M. Best, Insurance Information Institute
Strength of Recent Hard Markets by NWP Growth*
1975-78 1984-87 2001-04
*2006-10 figures are III forecasts/estimates. 2005 growth of 0.4% equates to 1.8% after adjustment for a special one-time transaction between one company and its foreign parent.
2006-2010 (post-Katrina) period will resemble 1993-97
(post-Andrew)
2005: biggest real drop in premium since early 1980s
CATASTROPHE LOSS
MANAGEMENT
Can Insurers Manage this Catastrophe & Meet Demand?
Most of US Population & Property Has Major CAT Exposure
Is Anyplace Safe?
U.S. InsuredCatastrophe Losses ($ Billions)*
$7.5
$2.7
$4.7
$22.
9
$5.5 $1
6.9
$8.3
$7.4
$2.6 $1
0.1
$8.3
$4.6
$26.
5
$5.9 $1
2.9 $2
7.5
$57.
7
$100
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
20??
*Excludes $4B-$6b offshore energy losses from Hurricanes Katrina & Rita.Note: 2001 figure includes $20.3B for 9/11 losses reported through 12/31/01. Includes only business and personal property claims, business interruption and auto claims. Non-prop/BI losses = $12.2B.Source: Property Claims Service/ISO; Insurance Information Institute
$ Billions
2005 was by far the worst year ever for insured
catastrophe losses in the US, but the worst has yet to come.
$100 Billion CAT year is coming soon
Global Number of Catastrophic Events, 1970–2005
0
50
100
150
200
250
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
Natural catastrophes Man-made disasters
Man-made disasters: without road disasters. Source: Swiss Re, sigma No. 1/2005 and 2/2006.
The number of natural and man-made
catastrophes has been increasing on a global
scale for 20 years
Record 248 man-made CATs &
record 149 natural CATs in 2005
Insured Property Catastrophe Losses as % Net Premiums Earned, 1983–2005E
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05E
USWorldwideUS average: 1984-2004
*Insurance Information Institute figure of 13.8% for 2005 based estimated 2005 DPE of $417.7B and insured CAT losses of $57.7B.
Sources: ISO, A.M. Best, Swiss Re Economic Research & Consulting; Insurance Information Institute.
US CAT losses were a record 13.8% of
net premiums earned in 2005 and were 4.2 times the 1984-2004 average
of 3.3%
Percentage of California Homeowners with Earthquake
Insurance, 1994-2004*
32.9% 33.2%
19.5%17.4%
14.6% 13.3% 13.8%15.8%15.7%
16.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
94 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04*Includes CEA policies beginning in 1996.Source: California Department of Insurance; Insurance Information Institute.
The vast majority of California homeowners forego earthquake
coverage & play Russian Roulette with their most valuable asset.
Number of Tornados & Associated Deaths, 1985-2005p
68
4
65
6
70
2
85
6
1,1
33 1,2
97
1,1
73
1,2
34
1,1
73
1,4
24
1,3
45
1,0
71 1,2
16
94
1
1,3
76
1,8
19
1,2
00
76
5
1,1
32
1,1
48
1,0
82
94
5950
3930
130
40 40
54
36 3953
15
69 67
94
5532 3933
25
500
700
900
1,100
1,300
1,500
1,700
1,900
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
99
01
03
05
E
Nu
mb
er o
f T
orn
ados
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Tor
nad
o D
eath
s
Number of Tornados Tornado DeathsSource: III from National Weather Service data.
There appears to be an upward trend in the number of tornados, though not deaths. Detection Increase?
2005 Was a Busy, Destructive, Deadly & Expensive Hurricane Season
Source: WeatherUnderground.com, January 18, 2006.
All 21 names were used for the first
time ever, so Greek letters were used for the final 6
storms: Alpha though Zeta
2005 set a new record for the number of hurricanes &
tropical storms at 27, breaking the old record set in 1933.
Number of Major (Category 3, 4, 5) Hurricanes Striking the US by Decade
4
6
65
4
6
88
5
8
6
9
1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
*Figure for 2000s is extrapolated based on data for 2000-2005 (6 major storms: Charley, Ivan, Jeanne (2004) & Katrina, Rita, Wilma (2005)).Source: Tillinghast from National Hurricane Center: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastint.shtm.
10
1930s – mid-1960s:
Period of Intense Tropical Cyclone Activity
Mid-1990s – 2030s?
New Period of Intense Tropical Cyclone Activity
Tropical cyclone activity in the mid-1990s entered the active
phase of the “multi-decadal signal” that could last into the 2030s
Already as many major storms in
2000-2005 as in all of the 1990s
Top 10 Most Costly Hurricanes in US History, (Insured Losses, $2005)
$3.5 $3.8 $4.8 $5.0$6.6 $7.4 $7.7
$9.4
$21.6
$40.0
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
Georges(1998)
Jeanne(2004)
Frances(2004)
Rita (2005)
Hugo(1989)
Ivan (2004)
Charley(2004)
Wilma(2005)
Andrew(1992)
Katrina(2005)
$ B
illi
ons
Sources: ISO/PCS; Insurance Information Institute.
Seven of the 10 most expensive hurricanes in US history
occurred in the 14 months from Aug. 2004 – Oct. 2005:
Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Charley, Ivan, Frances & Jeanne
Top 11 Insured PropertyLosses in US ($2005)
$3.8 $4.8 $5.0 $6.6 $7.4 $7.7 $9.4
$16.5$20.7 $21.6
$40.0
$0$5
$10$15$20$25$30$35$40$45
Hurr
icane J
eanne (
2004
)
Hurr
icane F
rance
s (20
04)
Hurr
icane R
ita (2
005)
Hurr
icane H
ugo (1
989)
Hurr
icane I
van (2
004)
Hurr
icane C
harley
(200
4)
Hurr
icane W
ilma (
2005
)
North
ridge
Ear
thquak
e (19
94)
Sept.
11 T
erro
r Atta
ck (2
001)
Hurr
icane A
ndrew (1
992)
Hurr
icane K
atrin
a (20
05)
$ B
illio
ns
Note: 9/11 loss figure is for property claims only. Total insured losses ($2004) are approximately $34B.Sources: ISO/PCS; Insurance Information Institute.
Eight of the 11 most expensive disasters is US history occurred within
the past 4 years
Insured Loss & Claim Count for Major Storms of 2005*
$1.1
$38.1
$9.4$5.0
104
381
1,025
1,752
$0.000$5.000
$10.000$15.000
$20.000$25.000
$30.000$35.000
$40.000$45.000
Dennis Rita Wilma Katrina
Size of Industry Loss ($ Billions)
Ins
ure
d L
os
s ($
Bill
ion
s)
02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000
Cla
ims
(th
ou
sa
nd
s)
Insured Loss Claims
*Property and business interruption losses only. Excludes offshore energy & marine losses.
Source: ISO/PCS as of February 8, 2006 for Dennis, Rita, Katrina and March 27, 2006 for Wilma; Insurance Information Institute.
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma & Dennis produced a record 3.3
million claims
Inflation-Adjusted U.S. Insured Catastrophe Losses By Cause of Loss,
1985-2004¹
Utility Disruption0.1%
Terrorism9.7% All Tropical
Cyclones3
34.6%
Tornadoes2
30.4%
Water Damage0.2%
Civil Disorders0.5%
Fire6
2.9%
Wind/Hail/Flood5
3.4%
Earthquakes4
8.4%
Winter Storms9.7%
Source: Insurance Information Institute estimates based on ISO data.
1 Catastrophes are all events causing direct insured losses to property of $25 million or more in 2004 dollars. Catastrophe threshold changed from $5 million to $25 million beginning in 1997. Adjusted for inflation by the III.2 Excludes snow. 3 Includes hurricanes and tropical storms. 4 Includes other geologic events such as volcanic eruptions and other earth movement. 5 Does not include flood damage covered by the federally administered National Flood Insurance Program. 6 Includes wildland fires.
Insured disaster losses totaled $221.3 billion from
1984-2004 (in 2004 dollars). After 2005 season, tropical
cyclones will account for about 45% of the total.
Total Value of Insured Coastal Exposure (2004, $ Billions)
$1,901.6$740.0
$662.4$505.8
$404.9$209.3
$148.8$129.7$117.2$105.3
$75.9$73.0
$46.4$45.6$44.7$43.8
$12.1
$1,937.3
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500
FloridaNew York
TexasMassachusetts
New JerseyConnecticut
LouisianaS. Carolina
VirginiaMaine
North CarolinaAlabamaGeorgia
DelawareNew Hampshire
MississippiRhode Island
Maryland
Source: AIR Worldwide
Florida & New York lead the way for insured coastal property at more
than $1.9 trillion each
Insured Coastal Exposure as a % of Statewide Insured Exposure (2004, $ Billions)
63.1%60.9%
57.9%54.2%
37.9%33.6%33.2%
28.0%25.6%25.6%
23.3%13.5%
12.0%11.4%
8.9%5.9%
1.4%
79.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
FloridaConnecticut
New YorkMaine
MassachusettsLouisiana
New JerseyDelaware
Rhode IslandS. Carolina
TexasNH
MississippiAlabamaVirginia
NCGeorgia
Maryland
Source: AIR Worldwide
After FL, many Northeast states have
among the highest coastal exposure as a share of all insured
exposure in the state.
Value of Insured Residential Coastal Exposure (2004, $ Billions)
$512.1$306.6$302.2
$247.4$205.5
$88.0$65.1$64.5$60.0$60.0
$36.5$29.7$26.6$25.9$24.8$20.9
$5.4
$942.5
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000
FloridaNew York
MassachusettsTexas
New JerseyConnecticut
LouisianaS. Carolina
MaineVirginia
North CarolinaAlabamaGeorgia
DelawareRhode Island
NewMississippi
Maryland
Source: AIR
New York is second only to Florida in insured residential exposure
Value of Insured Commercial Coastal Exposure (2004, $ Billions)
$994.8$437.8
$355.8$258.4
$199.4$121.3
$83.7$69.7
$52.6$45.3$43.3$39.4
$23.8$20.9$19.9$17.9$6.7
$1,389.6
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600
New YorkFlorida
TexasMassachusetts
New JerseyConnecticut
LouisianaS. Carolina
VirginiaMaine
North CarolinaGeorgia
AlabamaMississippi
New HampshireDelaware
Rhode IslandMaryland
Source: AIR
Commercial property exposure also implies significant business interruption losses.
CATASTROPHIC LOSS & INSURER
IMPAIRMENT
Is a Fund Needed to Keep Insurers Solvent?
P/C Company Insolvency Rates,1993 to 2004
Source: A.M. Best; Insurance Information Institute *1993-2003
1.20%
0.58%
0.21%0.28%
0.79%
0.60%
0.23%
1.02% 1.03%
1.33%
0.85%
0.42%
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
•Insurer insolvencies are decreasing•12-yr industry failure rate: 0.71%
•Failure rating for B+ or better rating: 0.49%*•Failure rate for D through B rating: 1.29%*
383030
12-yr Failure Rate
= 0.71%
21
10
Reason for P/C Insolvencies(218 Insolvencies, 1993-2002)
Unidentified17%
Impaired Affiliate3%
Overstated Assets2%
Change in Business3%
CAT Losses3%
Reinsurer Failure0%
Rapid Growth10%
Discounted Ops8%
Alleged Fraud3%
Deficient Loss Reserves
51%
Source: A.M. Best, Insurance Information Institute
Reserve deficiencies account for
more than half of all p/c insurers
insolvencies
So far, Katrina appears to have claimed just 1 victim—Rosemont Re—expected
to go into run-off
FY2005 Loss as a Percentage ofFirst Half 2005 Shareholder Equity*
22%32%
31%13%
32%26%
32%30%
15%76%
36%31%
10%106%
22%19%
9%21%
24%
49%
-10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 110%
IPCPartnerRe
RenaissanceReCLASS OF 1993
ArchAspen
AWACAxis
EnduranceMax Re
MontpelierPlatinum
CLASS OF 2001Ace
PXREXL
CLASS OF 1985-86White Mountains
QuantaTOTAL
Many smaller reinsurers lost 30%+ of their equity
(surplus) as a result of record CAT losses in 2005
Storms of 2004/5 have claimed a few small reinsurers and 3 mono-state home insurers
Reasons for US P/C Insurer Impairments, 1969-2005
*Includes overstatement of assets.
Source: A.M. Best: P/C Impairments Hit Near-Term Lows Despite Surging Hurricane Activity, Special Report, Nov. 2005;
Rapid Growth
8.6%
Affiliate Problems
8.6%
Deficient Loss
Reserves/In-adequate Pricing62.8%
Alleged Fraud11.4%
Catastrophe Losses8.6%
2003-2005 1969-2005
Deficient reserves,
CAT losses are more important factors in
recent years
Reinsurance Failure3.5%
Rapid Growth16.5%
Misc.9.2%
Affiliate Problems
5.6%
Sig. Change in Business
4.6%
Deficient Loss
Reserves/In-adequate Pricing38.2%
Investment Problems*
7.3%
Alleged Fraud8.6%
Catastrophe Losses6.5%
Historical Ratings Distribution,US P/C Insurers, 2000 vs. 2005
A/A-52.3%
A++/A+9.2%
B++/B+26.4%
Vulnerable*12.1%
Source: A.M. Best: Rating Downgrades Slowed but Outpaced Upgrades for Fourth Consecutive Year, Special Report, November 8, 2004 for 2000; 2006 Review & Preview for 2005 distribution. *Ratings ‘B’ and lower.
A/A-48.4%
D0.2%C++/C+
1.9%
E/F2.3% A++/A+
11.5%
C/C-0.6%
B++/B+28.3%
B/B-6.9%
2000 2005 A++/A+ shrinkage
Ratings agencies increasing emphasis on multiple
eventsrequire more capital
Ratings Agencies Tightening Requirements for CATs
2006 SRQ CAT Model Reqs.*•All Property Exposure•Auto Physical Damage•Reinsurance Assumed•Pools & Assessments•All Flood Exposure•WC Losses from Quake•Fire Following•Storm Surge•Demand Surge•Secondary Uncertainty
ALSO “A.M. Best will perform additional “stress-tested” risk-adjusted capital analysis for a second event in order to determine the potential financial condition of an entity post a severe event.”IMPLICATION: Some insurers may be required to carry more capital to maintain the same rating.
*SRQ = Supplemental Rating QuestionnaireSource: A.M. Best Review & Preview, January 2006.
Best currently estimates PML for
100-yr. wind & 250-yr. quake to determine capital
adequacy
Overview of Plans for a National
Catastrophe Insurance Plan
Government Aid After Major Disasters (Billions)*
$104.4
$43.9
$17.7 $15.5 $15.0
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
Hurricane Katrina(2005)
Sept. 11 TerroristAttack (2001)
Hurricane Andrew(1992)
NorthridgeEarthquake (1994)
Hurricanes Charley,Frances, Ivan &Jeanne (2004)
$ B
illi
ons
*In 2005 dollars.Source: United States Senate Budget Committee, Insurance Information Institute as of 12/31/05.
Hurricane Katrina aid will dwarf aid following
all other disasters. Congress may authorize
$150-$200 billion ultimately (about
$400,000 for each of the 500,000 displaced
families). Is the incentive to buy insurance and
insure to value diminished?
Within 3 weeks of Katrina’s LA landfall, the federal government
had authorized $75B in aid—more than all the federal aid for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 2004’s
4 hurricanes and Hurricane Andrew combined! $29B more
was authorized in Dec. 2005. At least $80B more is sought.
NAIC’s Comprehensive National Catastrophe Plan
• Proposes Layered Approach to Risk• Layer 1: Maximize resources of private
insurance & reinsurance industry Includes “All Perils” Residential Policy Encourage Mitigation Create Meaningful, Forward-Looking Reserves
• Layer 2: Establishes system of state catastrophe funds (like FHCF)
• Layer 3: Federal Catastrophe Reinsurance Mechanism
Source: Insurance Information Institute
Guiding Principles of NAIC’s National Catastrophe Plan
• National program should promote personal responsibility among policyholders
• National program should support reasonable building codes, development plans & mitigation tools
• National program should maximize risk-bearing capacity of private markets, and
• National plan should provide quantifiable risk management to the federal government
Source: Insurance Information Institute from NAIC, Natural Catastrophe Risk: Creating a Comprehensive National Plan, Dec. 1, 2005.
Comprehensive National Catastrophe Plan Schematic
Personal Disaster Account
Private Insurance
State Regional Catastrophe Fund
National Catastrophe Contract Program
Source: NAIC, Natural Catastrophe Risk: Creating a Comprehensive National Plan, Dec. 1, 2005; Insurance Information. Inst.
State Attachment
1:50 Event
1:500 Event
Legislation: Comprehensive National Catastrophe Plan
• H.R. 846: Homeowners Insurance Availability Act of 2005 Introduced by Representative Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) Requires Treasury to implement a reinsurance program offering contracts
sold at regional auctions
• H.R. 4366: Homeowners Insurance Protection Act of 2005 Also worked on by Rep. Brown-Waite Establishes national commission on catastrophe preparation and protection Authorizes sale of federally-backed reinsurance contracts to state catastrophe
funds
• H.R. 2668: Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2005 Backed by Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) Amends IRS code to permit insurers to establish tax-deductible reserve funds
for catastrophic events 20-year phase-in for maximum reserve Use limited to declared disasters
Source: NAIC, Insurance Information Institute
Legislation: Comprehensive National Catastrophe Plan (cont’d)
• S. 3114: Nelson-Landrieu Bill (2006) Introduced by Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL) Mary Landrieu
(D-LA)
Calls for creation of bipartisan panel of experts to examine specific proposals before Congress to create federal disaster reinsurance program & that would allow homeowners to set aside tax-exempt cash reserves to pay deductibles and other out-of-pocket disaster-related expenses
Source: Insurance Information Institute
Layer 1: The Insurance Contract, Enhancing Capacity & Shaping the Risk
• All Perils PolicyNo exclusion except acts of warContains standard deductibles of $500 - $1000 but requires
separate CAT deductible of 2% – 10% of insured value; Consumer could buy down the deductible to non-CAT fixed dollar amount
• Encouraging Mitigation Policy will provide meaningful discounts for effective
mitigation measures• Creating Meaningful, Forward-Looking Reserves
Change tax law to allow insurers to set aside a share of premiums paid by policyholders as a reserve for future events
Amount set aside would be actuarially basedPhased-in to maximum reserve over 20 yearsUse limited to declared disasters
Source: NAIC, Natural Catastrophe Risk: Creating a Comprehensive National Plan, Dec. 1, 2005; Insurance Information. Inst.
Layer 2: State Level Public/Private Partnership (State CAT Fund)
• Requirement to Create FundTo participate in national fund, states must establish state
CAT fund or participate in regional CAT fundFunds responsible for managing capacity of their funds up to
costs expected for combined 1-in-50 year CAT loss level• Operation of State/Regional CAT Funds
Operating structures left to states’ discretion, including– Financing mechanism (e.g., debt, pool etc.)– Trigger point for qualifying loss (if any)– Amount of retention between private insurers & state fund– Participation by surplus lines & residual markets
Requirement that rates are actuarially soundRequirement that fund will finance a level of mitigation
education and implementation
Source: NAIC, Natural Catastrophe Risk: Creating a Comprehensive National Plan, Dec. 1, 2005; Insurance Information. Inst.
Schematic of Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (2006)
Source: FHCF, September 2005.
Layer 2: State Level Public/Private Partnership (State CAT Fund) [Cont’d]
• Building CodesParticipating states expected to establish effective (enforced)
building codes that properly reflect their CAT exposures as well as the latest in accepted science and engineering
States also required to develop high land use plans where appropriate
• Anti-Fraud MeasuresState funds and DOIs maintain rigorous anti-fraud programs
to ensure losses paid actaully due to insured CAT loss
• MitigationDOIs required to establish & implement effective mitigation
plansReview of mitigation plans will be considered as part of an
NAIC certification process
Source: NAIC, Natural Catastrophe Risk: Creating a Comprehensive National Plan, Dec. 1, 2005; Insurance Information. Inst.
Layer 3:The Role of a National Mechanism
• The National Catastrophe Plan MechanismFederal legislation is needed to create a National Catastrophe
Insurance Commission (NCIC) NCIC purpose is to serve as conduit between state funds and US
Treasury for purpose of providing reinsurance to state funds for insured losses resulting from catastrophic events beyind the state-mandated 1-in-50 year exposure
States & NCIC will enter into National Catastrophe Financing Contracts Reinsurance will attach at 1-in-50 year level and provide protection
through the 1-in-500 year level event
Source: NAIC, Natural Catastrophe Risk: Creating a Comprehensive National Plan, Dec. 1, 2005; Insurance Information. Inst.
Layer 3: [Cont’d]
The Role of a National Mechanism
• The National Catastrophe Insurance Commission Structure & Duties NCIC would annually establish actuarially sound rates, with no profit
factor, for each state’s aggregate catastrophic exposure State fund responsible for collecting premium and remitting to NCIC. NCIC remits premiums to US Treasury general revenues
No separate fund is created, nor are any funds accumulated In the event of a loss, US Treasury provides funds pursuant to catastrophe
financing contract
NCIC will consist of 11 members serving 6-year terms 1 member from each of 4 NAIC zones, 1 US Treasury rep., remainder are to be
experts in actuarial science, engineering, meteorological/seismic science, consumer affairs & p/c insurance
Members are selected by the President & confirmed by the Senate with chair appointed by the President
Source: NAIC, Natural Catastrophe Risk: Creating a Comprehensive National Plan, Dec. 1, 2005; Insurance Information. Inst.
Interaction of State Funds, National Commission & US Treasury
StateFunds Pay Premium to the Commission
National Commission
US Treasury
$
$
$
$$$ to General Revenue
Reimbusements Under the Catastrophe Contract
State Fund A
State Fund BState Fund C
Source: NAIC, Natural Catastrophe Risk: Creating a Comprehensive National Plan, Dec. 1, 2005; Insurance Information. Inst.
Pros/Cons of Federal CAT(Re) Insurance Facility
• Rationale FOR Federal Involvement Insurance was not meant to handle mega-catastrophes Such risks are fundamentally uninsurable Federal government already heavily involved in insuring against weather-
related mega-catastrophes (e.g., flood, crop) Insurers are not allowed to charge risk appropriate rates (including rising
reinsurance costs) Price/availability of private reinsurance is volatile
• Rationale AGAINST Federal Involvement Crowds-out pvt. insurance/reinsurance markets; stifles innovation Relationship between price and risk assumed is diminished since fed
insurance programs are seldom actuarially sound Increases federal involvement and regulatory authority in p/c insurance
(not a negative for some market participants) Cost to US Treasury (esp. taxpayers in less disaster prone states) Diminishes incentives for mitigation, tougher building codes and wiser land
use policies if Fed rate are politically influenced
Proponents/Opponents ofNational Catastrophe Plan
• Proponents of a National Catastrophe Plan Some major personal lines insurers: Allstate, State Farm Insurance regulators from some CAT-prone states: FL, CA as well as NY
(but not TX) Some elected officials in state legislatures & Congress, esp. from disaster-
prone states like FL Coalition building on-going (ProtectingAmerica.org)
• Opponents of a National Catastrophe Plan Reinsurers, American Insurance Association, numerous large insurers
both domestic and foreign, mutual and stock Many smaller insurers concerned about federal intrusion into the p/c
regulatory arena Many insurers operating outside areas prone to major CAT risk Some/many regulators in states not prone to major catastrophic risk Likely opposition among legislators and policymakers in Washington
opposed to deeper involvement of government in p/c insurance sector
Notable & Quotable…
“People who willingly and knowingly live in catastrophe-prone areas should assume the risk, and cost, of doing so; government-subsidized insurance just loads the risk, and cost, on average taxpayers.”Edmund F. Kelly, CEO, Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company (Wall Street Journal, May 31, 2006)
Regional Natural Disaster Pool(s)
• KEY ELEMENTS Share of property premiums in certain states (homeowners, commercial
property) premiums collected would be ceded to pool and used to finance mega-catastrophes in participating states
Funds would earn investment income tax-free to speed accumulation Federal government would provide a backstop to the pool as:
Reinsurance purchased by pool from the government Line of credit offset by assessing authority
• KEY CHALLENGES Is participation by insureds mandatory or optional? If optional, significant adverse selection problem Determination of “actuarially sound” rates Maintaining role for private reinsurance Keeping rates free of political influence and manipulation Formula for assessing shortfalls in pool (including taxpayer share) Attracting support of states not prone to mega-catastrophes Appeasing deficit hawks, advocates of small government
Federal Reinsurance Program
• KEY ELEMENTSInsurers purchase CAT reinsurance from federal
government
• KEY CHALLENGESDetermination of “actuarially sound” ratesMaintaining significant role for private reinsurersMaintaining significant role for ART and risk
securitization Keeping rates free of political influence and manipulationAppeasing advocates of small governmentKeeping natural disaster risk programs separate and
distinct from terrorism risk
Tax-Preferred Treatment ofPre-Event Catastrophe Reserving
• KEY ELEMENTSInsurers would be allowed to deduct from their taxable
income amounts set aside in reserve for natural disaster risks in advance of the occurrence of the actual event
Presently, US tax law does not allow for such treatment Most other countries already permit pre-event reserving
• KEY CHALLENGESDetermination of appropriate reserve levelsOvercoming criticism of impact on US Treasury receipts
Note that impact on Treasury is limited to time value of tax receipts
The 2006 Hurricane Season:
Preview to Disaster?
Outlook for 2006 Hurricane Season
Average* 2005 2006F
Named Storms 9.6 26 17
Named Storm Days 49.1 115.5 85
Hurricanes 5.9 14 9
Hurricane Days 24.5 47.5 45
Intense Hurricanes 2.3 7 5
Intense Hurricane Days 13 7 13
Net Tropical Cyclone Activity 100% 275% 195%
*Average over the period 1950-2000.Source: Dr. William Gray, Colorado State University, May 31, 2006.
Probability of Major Hurricane Landfall (CAT 3, 4, 5) in 2006
Average* 2006F
Entire US Coast 52% 82%
US East Coast Including Florida Peninsula
31% 69%
Gulf Coast from FL Panhandle to Brownsville, TX
30% 38%
ALSO…Above-Average Major Hurricane
Landfall Risk in Caribbean for 2006
*Average over past century.
Source: Dr. William Gray, Colorado State University, May 31, 2006.
Probability of Major Hurricane Landfall (CAT 3, 4, 5) in 2006
NOAA CSU
2005 Actual
Number Named Storms 13-16 17 28
Number of Hurricanes 8-10 9 15
Number of Major Hurricanes (Category 3+) 4-6 5 7
Source: Dr. William Gray, Colorado State University, May 31, 2006; NOAA (May 2006).
CAT Models for 2006 Show Increase in Hurricane Frequency & Severity
40%
60%
20%
40%
30%
40%
25%
10% 10%15%
25%
15%
25% 25%25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Total/Average
FL Only Gulf ofMexico, excl.
FL
GA, NC &SC
VA to NY
Increase in FrequencyIncrease in Severity: 1-in-50 Year EventIncrease in Severity: 1-in-100 Year Event
Source: EQECAT
Expected frequency and severity are up
in every region
Frequency in the Northeast is up
30% and severity 10-15%
Hurricane Risk in New York
Is it Real?
Some Measures Insurers are Reported to be Taking in Coastal NY
• Rating Actions: 5% - 30% Increases Reported
• Non-renewals
• Limiting Number of New Policies Written
• No New Business in One or More of (or Parts of):
Long Island, Westchester & NYC
• Writing Only in Selected Tiers
• Won’t Write Within 1 Mile of Shore
• Won’t Write Within 1000 ft. of Shore
Historical Hurricane Strikes in Nassau County, NY, 1900-2002
Source: NOAA Coastal Services Center, http://hurricane.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/pop.jsp; Insurance Info. Institute.
Historical Hurricane Strikes in Suffolk County, NY, 1900-2002
Source: NOAA Coastal Services Center, http://hurricane.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/pop.jsp; Insurance Info. Institute.
Population in Suffolk County is 4.5 times what it was in the 1940s
Historical Hurricane Strikes in Westchester County, NY, 1900-2002
Source: NOAA Coastal Services Center, http://hurricane.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/pop.jsp; Insurance Info. Institute.
Historical Hurricane Strikes in New York County (Manhattan) 1900-2002
Source: NOAA Coastal Services Center, http://hurricane.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/pop.jsp; Insurance Info. Institute.
NY Hurricane Risk Data in a More Realistic Context
Expected Return Periods for a Categories 2 & 3 Hurricanes in NY City as a Function of Distance from Storm Center: 1870-2004
550
450
220
400
150
7550
150
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
NMi
Exp
ecte
d R
etu
rn P
erio
d (
Yea
rs)
Category 3
Category 2
Source: Based on data provided by the NOAA Tropical Prediction Center
HURISK Results for Hurricanes Passing Within 75 NM of NYC: 1870 - 2004
Source: Graph courtesy of Colin McAdie, NOAA Tropical Prediction Center
Track of “Long Island Express” Storm of 1938
Source: WeatherUnderground.com, accessed February 4, 2006.
“Great New England Hurricane” of 1938 a.k.a.“Long Island
Express” caused severe damage through much of the Northeast, including
Long Island.
600+ Deaths
$308 million
Damage Caused by “Long Island Express” Hurricane of 1938
• 700 deaths, 708 injured • 4,500 homes, cottages, farms destroyed; 15,000 damaged • 26,000 destroyed automobiles • 20,000 miles of electrical power and telephone lines
downed • 1,700 livestock and up to 750,000 chickens killed • $2,610,000 worth of fishing boats, equipment, docks, and
shore plants damaged or destroyed • Half the entire apple crop destroyed at a cost of $2 million
Source SUNY Suffolk: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/38hurricane/damage_caused.html
Storm Season of 1944:A Busy one for the Northeast
Three storms affected NY, NJ and New England in 1944, including “Great
Atlantic Hurricane”
46 deaths
$100 million damage
109mph gusts in Hartford
Source: WeatherUnderground.com, accessed May 31, 2006; NOAA loss & fatality figures.
Storm Season of 1954:The Northeast Hit Again
NY/New England areas hit by Carol & Edna two
weeks apart
Carol: 8-10 ft. floodwaters in
Providence
Edna hits Cape Cod
Combined: 80 deaths, $501 million losses
Source: WeatherUnderground.com, accessed May 31, 2006; NOAA loss & fatality figures.
Storm Season of 1960:Brenda & Donna Came to Visit
NY/New England areas were hit twice in 1960.
Donna killed 50, $387 million damage along East Coast
Source: WeatherUnderground.com, accessed May 31, 2006; NOAA loss & fatality figures.
After a 25 Hiatus, Hurricane Gloria Hit in 1985
Source: WeatherUnderground.com, accessed May 31, 2006; NOAA loss & fatality figures.
NY/New England areas were hit by Gloria 9/27/85
8 deaths
$900 million damage
Hurricane Seasonof 2005
Its Place in History
Hurricane Katrina Insured Loss Distribution by State ($ Millions)*
Mississippi, $12,105 , 31.8%
Louisiana, $24,275 , 63.7%
Tennessee, $59.0 , 0.2%Florida, $543.0 , 1.4%
Georgia, $27.0 , 0.1%Alabama, $1,102 ,
2.9%
*As of February 8, 2006Source: PCS division of ISO.
Louisiana accounted for
64% of the insured losses
paid and 56% of the claims filed
Total Insured Losses =
$38.111 Billion
Hurricane Katrina Loss Distribution by Line ($ Billions)*
Homeowners, $17,694.0 , 46%
Commercial Property & BI, $18,278.0 , 48%
Vehicle, $2,139.0 , 6%
Total insured losses are
estimated at $38.1 billion from 1.7518
million claims. Excludes $2-
$3B in offshore energy losses
*As of February 8, 2006Source: PCS division of ISO.
Hurricane Katrina Claim Count Distribution by State*
Mississippi, 515,000 , 29.4%
Tennessee, 15,000 , 0.9%
Louisiana, 975,000 , 55.7%
Florida, 115,000 , 6.6%
Georgia, 7,800 , 0.4%
Alabama, 124,000 , 7.1%
*As of February 8, 2006Source: PCS division of ISO.
Louisiana accounted for 64%of insured
losses paid and 56% of claims filed
Total # Claims = 1,751,800
Hurricane Rita Loss Distribution, by Line ($ Millions)*
Homeowners, $2,944.0 , 59%
Commercial Property & BI, $1,846.2 , 37%
Vehicles, $186.0 , 4%Total insured
losses are estimated at $5.0
billion (excl. offshore energy of $2-$3B) from 381,000 claims.
*As of February 8, 2006Source: PCS division of ISO.
Hurricane Rita Claim Count Distribution by State*
Texas, 169,000 , 44.4%
Tennessee, 3,500 , 0.9%
Louisiana, 185,000 , 48.6%
Arkansas, 5,500 , 1.4%
Florida, 6,000 , 1.6%
Alabama, 5,000 , 1.3%
Mississippi, 7,000 , 1.8%
*As of February 8, 2006Source: PCS division of ISO.
Louisiana accounted for 48.6% of the
insured losses, Texas 44.4%.
Excludes offshore energy losses of $2-3BTotal # Claims
= 381,000
Hurricane Wilma Loss Distribution by Line ($ Millions)*
Homeowners, $6,600 , 71%
Commercial Property & BI, $2,000 , 21%
Vehicle, $750 , 8%Total insured
losses are estimated at $9.35 billion from 1.025
million claims
*As of March 27, 2006. All losses are in FL.Source: PCS division of ISO.
Hurricane Wilma Claim Count Distribution by Line ($ Millions)*
Homeowners, 680,000 , 66% Commercial
Property & BI, 80,000 , 8%
Vehicle, 265,000 , 26%
Total insured losses are
estimated at $9.35 billion from 1.025
million claims
*As of March 27, 2006. All losses are in FL.Source: PCS division of ISO.
PRICING
Can Discipline be Maintained?
$418$440 $455
$481 $488$508
$536
$593
$668$693
$711$739
$400
$450
$500
$550
$600
$650
$700
$750
$800
95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04* 05* 06*
Average Expenditures on Homeowners Insurance
*Insurance Information Institute Estimates/ForecastsSource: NAIC, Insurance Information Institute
Countrywide home insurance expenditures are expected to rise 4%
in 2006
Percent of Commercial Accounts Renewing w/Positive Rate Changes, 1st Qtr. 2006
54%
26%
20%15%
50%
26%23%
16% 15%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Southeast Northeast Pacific NW Southwest Midwest
Commercial Property Business Interruption
Source: Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers
Largest increases for Commercial Property & Business Interruption are in the Southeast, smallest in Midwest
-5%
-11%-9% -8%
-4%
2%
16%
21%
11%
-4%-6%
25%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
94 95 96 97 98 99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 05E 06F
0
25
50
75
100
125
rate changes [left] index level [right]Sources: Swiss Re, Cat Market Research; Insurance Information Institute estimate for 2006.
Reinsurance Prices Surged in 2006 Following Record CATs in 2005
US cat reinsurance price index:
1994 = 100
In hurricane-prone areas, property CAT
reinsurance prices are up 100-300%+
Percent of Commercial Property Accounts Renewing Negative, 1st Qtr. 2006
40%
89%
100%
95%
91%
63%
80%
61%
90%
91%
89%
91%
88%
86%
53%
47%
65% 75
%
77%
94%
94%
91%
81%
40% 48
%
89%
79%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
04Q1 04Q2 04Q3 04Q4 05Q1 05Q2 05Q3 05Q4 06Q1
Midwest Northwest Southwest
Source:; Insurance Information Institute from Council of Insurance Agents and Broker data.
Little evidence suggesting that insurers fleeing CATs are leading to
a non-hurricane state softening
CAPACITY
Is There Enough Capital to Fund Mega-Losses?
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 0405*
U.S. Policyholder Surplus: 1975-2005*
Source: A.M. Best, ISO, Insurance Information Institute *As of 12/31/05.
$ B
illi
ons
“Surplus” is a measure of underwriting capacity. It is analogous to “Owners Equity” or “Net Worth” in non-insurance organizations
Capacity TODAY is $427.1B, 9.2% above year-end 2004, 47% above its 2002 trough and
22% above its mid-1999 peak. Sufficient capacity exists to pay all hurricane claims.
Foreign reinsurance and residual market mechanisms absorbed $27-$32B (57%-67%) of 2005
CAT losses of $57.7B
Announced Insurer Capital Raising*($ Millions, as of December 1, 2005)
$1,500
$38
$400$450$600
$710
$300$100$140
$600
$129$297
$620
$124$202$150$299
$490
$3,200
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$ M
illi
ons
*Existing (re) insurers. Announced amounts may differ from sums actually raised. Sources: Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Company Reports; Insurance Information Institute.
As of Dec. 1, 19 insurers announced plans to raise $10.35 billion in new capital. Fourteen start-ups plan to raise as much as $9.75 billion more for a total of $20.1 billion. Actual total higher as Lloyd’s syndicates
have added capacity for 2006.
Announced Capital Raising by Insurance Start-Ups($ Millions, as of April 15, 2006)
$1,500
$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000$1,000
$750
$500 $500 $500 $500
$220 $180$100
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$ M
illi
ons
*Chubb, Trident are funding Harbor Point. Announced amounts may differ from sums actually raised. **Stated amount is $750 million to $1 billion. ***XL Capital/Hedge Fund venture. Arrow Capital formed by Goldman Sachs.Sources: Morgan Stanley, Company Reports; Insurance Information Institute.
As of April 15, 14 start-ups plan to raise as
much as $9.75 billion.
INSURANCE-TO-VALUE:
Ending the Blame Game is aWin-Win Situation Deal
Insurance-to-Value in HO is a National Problem, Improved Recently
73%
64%61% 59%
22%
25%27%
35%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2002 2003 2004 2005
Proportion of Home Undervalued Average Undervaluation*According MS/B.Source: Marshall & Swift/Boeckh
Less than ITV means homeowners insurers left $8 billion on the table in 2003*
Who’s Responsibility Is It to Keep Homeowners Policy Up-to-Date?
Other/Don't Know3%
Agent19%
Insurer7%
Homeowner71%
Source: September 2004 poll of 800 Californians conducted for the Insurance Information Network ofCalifornia by Public Opinion Strategies. Margin of error = +/- 3.46%.
Nearly 3 out 4 people, even fire-weary Californians, believe it is the homeowner’s responsibility to keep insurance up-to-date
BUT 26% believe it’s the agent’s or insurer’s responsibility
This substantial minority is wrong, but gets heard (CA, FL) and comments reflect badly on insurers
Media, regulators and legislators join fray
Time Since Homeowner Last Updated HO Policy
3 - 5 Years12%
Don’t Know/Refused
9%
6 Mos. - 1 Yr.12%
More than 5 Yrs.25%
1 - 2 Years24%
Last 6 Months18%
Source: September 2004 poll of 800 Californians conducted for the Insurance Information Network ofCalifornia by Public Opinion Strategies. Margin of error = +/- 3.46%.
Nearly 40% of people haven’t updated their homeowner’s policy within the last 3 years
Huge potential for problems, especially in disaster-prone states
Leads automatically to large under-insurance problems
Why People Don’t Increase Homeowners Coverage
Didn't Know Needed To
25%
Other18%
Too Expensive5%
Didn't Have Time30%
Agent Said I'm Covered
26%
Don’t Want Rates to Go Up
17%
22% cite expense as reason they don’t adjust they’re HO coverage
25% don’t realize they need to
30% say they’re too busy (to think about protecting their most valuable asset)
25% say their agent said there’s nothing to worry about
Source: Harris interactive poll conducted for Fireman’s Fund, July 2004.See: http://www.firemansfund.com/dcmssites/about/pdf/firemansfundtoplinerev2.pdf
National Flood Insurance Program
Does the NFIP Help or Hurtthe CAT Problem?
Property Damage from Hurricane Katrina Flood & Storm Surge ($ Millions)*
LA Storm Surge Loss, $16,200 , 36.8%
New Orleans Flood Loss, $22,600 , 51.3%
FL Storm Surge Loss, $32 , 0.1%
AL Storm Surge Loss, $793 , 1.8%
MS Storm Surge Loss, $4,400 , 10.0%
*Value of property damage by flood and storm surge whether or not insured.Source: AIR Worldwide, September 29, 2005.
Hurricane Katrina caused $44 billion in flood and storm
surge damage, most of it uninsured, 88.1% of it in
Louisiana
Flood Insurance Penetration Rates:Top 25 Counties/Parishes in US*
81.5%80.0%
78.7%77.1%
74.1%69.6%
68.4%68.1%
66.7%65.9%65.5%
62.4%59.0%
56.2%51.6%
49.6%48.0%
46.3%44.4%
42.8%42.8%42.0%41.9%
40.1%
84.0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
JEFFERSON/LAWALTON/FL
BROWARD/FLCOLLIER/FL
LEE/FLGALVESTON/TX
GLYNN/GAST. BERNARD/LAMIAMI-DADE/FL
ORLEANS/LACARTERET/NC
ST. CHARLES/LAST. JOHNS/FL
CHARLOTTE/FLST. TAMMANY/LA
HORRY/SCINDIAN RIVER/FL
BAY/FLBRUNSWICK/NC
NASSAU/FLBERKELEY/SC
PINELLAS/FLBRAZORIA/TXCHATHAM/GA
TERREBONNE/LA
Highest flood insurance penetration rates are in
LA and FL, but most are underinsured
No counties in the Northeast
are represented in Top 25
*As of 12/31/05.Source: New Orleans Times-Picayune, 3/19/06, from NFIP and US Census Bureau data.
Flood Insurance Penetration Rates:Counties/Parishes Ranked 26-50*
39.7%39.2%39.1%
38.7%37.2%
36.5%36.2%
34.2%33.0%
32.1%30.6%
28.3%27.6%
27.0%26.8%26.4%26.1%
25.4%25.3%25.2%
23.4%23.3%
22.1%21.7%
39.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
BALDWIN/ALSARASOTA/FL
PALM BEACH/FLCHARLESTON/SC
MANATEE/FLMARTIN/FL
ATLANTIC/NJLAFOURCHE/LA
OKALOOSA/FLGEORGETOWN/SC
FLAGLER/FLMAUI/HI
LIVINGSTON/LABREVARD/FL
SUSSEX/DEVOLUSIA/FL
ST. LUCIE/FLJEFFERSON/TX
HAMPTON CITY/VAOCEAN/NJ
HARRIS/TXPASCO/FL
BOSSIER/LANEW HANOVER/NC
BRONX/NY
Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Counties are
underrepresented
People along the eastern
seaboard have not gotten the
message
*As of 12/31/05.Source: New Orleans Times-Picayune, 3/19/06, from NFIP and US Census Bureau data.
Flood Insurance Penetration Rates:Counties/Parishes Ranked 51-75*
20.9%20.1%
19.1%18.3%
17.8%17.7%17.5%
16.7%16.3%
15.8%15.6%15.4%
14.5%14.0%
13.3%12.9%
12.6%11.7%11.6%
11.3%10.2%
9.3%9.1%
8.5%
21.6%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
CAMERON/TXFORT BEND/TX
SANTA ROSA/MSHARRISON/MS
JACKSON/MSNORFOLK CITY/VA
HILLSBOROUGH/FLLAFAYETTE/LA
EAST BATON ROUGE/LAVIRGINIA BEACH
ESCAMBIA/FLHONOLULU/HI
SACRAMENTO/CACALCASIEU/LA
MONTGOMERY/TXCITRUS/FL
MERCED/CACHESAPEAKE,
OSCEOLA/FLHUDSON/NJ
DUVAL/FLBARNSTABLE/MA
MARIN/CATULARE/CA
MONMOUTH/NJ
*As of 12/31/05.Source: New Orleans Times-Picayune, 3/19/06, from NFIP and US Census Bureau data.
MS coastal counties
rank abysmally
low
Barnstable is only county in all of New England among Top 75
Repeat NFIP Flood Losses Cost Taxpayers Big Bucks & Enable
Poor Building Decisions
Number Taxpayer Cost
Repetitive Loss Properties 122,000 $7.6 billion
Repetitive Loss Properties, Louisiana 25,000 $1.9 billion
Four or More Losses 22,500 $1.6 billion
Payments Exceeded Property Values 4,600 $400 million
Source: Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2006, p. A14, from National Wildlife Federation.
TRIA EXTENSION
The Burden Grows
Insurance Industry Retention Under TRIA ($ Billions)
$10.0$12.5
$15.0
$25.0$27.5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
Year 1(2003)
Year 2(2004)
Year 3(2005)
Year 4(2006)
Year 5(2007)
$ B
illi
ons
Source: Insurance Information Institute
•Individual company retentions rise to 17.5%
in 2006, 20% in 2007
•Above the retention, federal govt. pays 90% in
2006, 85% in 2007
Extension
Congress & Administration
want TRIA dead
Terrorism Coverage Take-Up Rate Rising
Source: Marsh, Inc.; Insurance Information Institute
23.5% 26.0%
32.7%
44.2% 46.2% 44.0%48.0%
55.0%
2003:II 2003:III 2003:IV 2004:I 2004:II 2004:III 2004:IV 2005August
Terrorism take-up rate for non-WC risk rose through
2003, 2004 and 2005
TAKE UP RATE FOR WC COMP TERROR
COVERAGE IS 100%!!
$169
$151
$140
$145
$150
$155
$160
$165
$170
$175
2004 2006E
$ B
illio
ns
Shrinkage in 2006 (-11%) surplus is due to elimination
of several lines covered under TRIA though 2005 but
dropped under the Act’s extension effective 1/1/06
*2006 figure uses 2005 estimated year-end surplus and premiums by line as basis for calculations.Source: Insurance Information Institute.
(Billions of Dollars)
Surplus Under TRIA/TRIEA Covered Lines
Insured Loss Estimates: Large CNBR Terrorist Attack ($ Bill)
Type of Coverage New York WashingtonSan
FranciscoDes
Moines
Group Life $82.0 $22.5 $21.5 $3.4
General Liability 14.4 2.9 3.2 0.4
Workers Comp 483.7 126.7 87.5 31.4
Residential Prop. 38.7 12.7 22.6 2.6
Commercial Prop. 158.3 31.5 35.5 4.1
Auto 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.4
TOTAL $778.1 $196.8 $171.2 $42.3
Source: American Academy of Actuaries, Response to President’s Working Group, Appendix II, April 26, 2006.
Insured Loss Estimates: Medium CNBR Terrorist Attack ($ Bill)
Type of Coverage New York WashingtonSan
FranciscoDes
Moines
Group Life $37.7 $22.5 $21.5 $3.4
General Liability 7.3 2.9 3.2 0.4
Workers Comp 313.2 126.7 87.5 31.4
Residential Prop. 10.3 12.7 22.6 2.6
Commercial Prop. 77.8 31.5 35.5 4.1
Auto 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.4
TOTAL $446.5 $106.2 $92.2 $27.3
Source: American Academy of Actuaries, Response to President’s Working Group, Appendix II, April 26, 2006.
Insured Loss Estimates: Truck Bomb Terrorist Attack ($ Bill)
Type of Coverage New York WashingtonSan
FranciscoDes
Moines
Group Life $0.3 $0.2 $0.3 $0.1
General Liability 1.2 0.4 0.7 0.2
Workers Comp 3.5 2.8 3.9 1.5
Residential Prop. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Commercial Prop. 6.8 2.1 3.9 1.2
Auto 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL $11.8 $5.5 $8.8 $3.0
Source: American Academy of Actuaries, Response to President’s Working Group, Appendix II, April 26, 2006.
NY PIP UPDATE
Is New York’s No-Fault System Truly Under
Control?
NY PIP Claim Frequency & Severity, (2000:04 – 2005:04)
$7,8
59
$8,3
27
$7,8
88
$7,5
07
$8,2
34
$8,7
27
$8,5
77
$7,7
73
$7,3
22
$6,9
63
$6,1
53
$5,8
12
$6,0
04
$5,6
30
$6,0
71
$5,9
13 $6,2
26
$6,2
59
$9,235
$6,0
45
$6,8
65
$5,000
$5,500
$6,000
$6,500
$7,000
$7,500
$8,000
$8,500
$9,000
$9,500
0:0
4
1:0
1
1:0
2
1:0
3
1:0
4
2:0
1
2:0
2
2:0
3
2:0
4
3:0
1
3:0
2
3:0
3
3:0
4
4:0
1
4:0
2
4:0
3
4:0
4
5:0
1
5:0
2
5:0
3
5:0
4
Avg
. Cla
im C
ost
1.5%
1.6%
1.7%
1.8%
1.9%
2.0%
2.1%
2.2%
2.3%
2.4%
Claim
Freq
uen
cy
Avg. Claim Severity
Frequency
Sources: Insurance Information Institute based on ISO Fast Track data.
NY PIP: An incredible success story!
Severity down 32% since 2002:01;
Frequency down 29% since 2000:04
Is PIP severity about to track upward again?
Summary• Industry results are fundamentally strong except in property lines
in CAT-prone areas• Premium growth is very sluggish/negative except for CAT-exposed
property lines/territories• NY has 2nd largest coastal property exposure in US & largest
exposure to terrorism • CAT Fund argument unlikely to be resolved by the current
Congress• States haven’t taken steps to form own CAT funds• Insurers, lawmakers, regulators deeply divided
Lack of unity, current profitability & rising capacity & Administration’s political philosophy hurt chances for a national fund in the near future
Insurance Information Institute On-Line
If you would like a copy of this presentation, please give me your business card with e-mail address