We also own, through various of our subsidiaries, the following properties: 1) two apartments in Guildford, England; 2) a building in Norwich, U.K. and 3) an apartment in New York, NY.
The following selected historical financial information of Enstar for each of the past five fiscal years has been derived from our audited historical financial statements. This information is only a summary and should be read in conjunction with management’s discussion and analysis of results of operations and financial condition of Enstar and the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this annual report.
Since its inception, we have made several acquisitions which impact the comparability of the information reflected in the Enstar Summary Historical Financial Data. See “Business - Recent Acquisitions” beginning on page 6 for information about our acquisitions.
Earnings per share is a measure based on net earnings divided by weighted average ordinary shares outstanding. Basic earnings per share is defined as net earnings available to ordinary shareholders divided by the weighted average number of ordinary shares outstanding for the period, giving no effect to dilutive securities. Diluted earnings per share is defined as net earnings available to ordinary shareholders divided by the weighted average number of shares and share equivalents outstanding calculated using the treasury stock method for all potentially dilutive securities. When the effect of dilutive securities would be anti-dilutive, these securities are excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings per share.
The weighted average ordinary shares outstanding shown for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003 reflect the conversion of Class A, B, C and D shares to ordinary shares on January 31, 2007, as part of the recapitalization completed in connection with the Merger, as if the conversion occurred on January 1, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003. As a result both the book value per share and the earnings per share calculations, previously reported, have been amended to reflect this change.
Basic book value per share is defined as total shareholders’ equity available to ordinary shareholders divided by the number of ordinary shares outstanding as of the end of the period, giving no effect to dilutive securities. Diluted book value per share is defined as total shareholders’ equity available to ordinary shareholders divided by the number of ordinary shares and ordinary share equivalents outstanding at the end of the period, calculated using the treasury stock method for all potentially dilutive securities. When the effect of dilutive securities would be anti-dilutive, these securities are excluded from the calculation of diluted book value per share.
Since our formation we have acquired a number of insurance and reinsurance companies and are now administering those businesses in run-off. We derive our net earnings from the ownership and management of these companies primarily by settling insurance and reinsurance claims below the recorded loss reserves and from returns on the portfolio of investments retained to pay future claims. In addition, we have formed other businesses that provide management and consultancy services, claims inspection services and reinsurance collection services to our affiliates and third-party clients for both fixed and success-based fees.
In the sale of a run-off company, a purchaser, such as ourselves, typically pays a discount to the book value of the company based on the risks assumed and the relative value to the seller of no longer having to manage the company in run-off. Such a transaction can be beneficial to the seller because it receives an up-front payment for the company, eliminates the need for its management to devote any attention to the disposed company and removes the risk that the established reserves related to the run-off business may prove to be inadequate. The seller is also able to redeploy its management and financial resources to its core businesses.
Alternatively, if the insurer or reinsurer hires a third party, such as us, to manage its run-off business, the insurer or reinsurer will, unlike in a sale of the business, receive little or no cash up front. Instead, the management arrangement may provide that the insurer or reinsurer will share in the profits, if any, derived from the run-off with certain incentive payments allocated to the run-off manager. By hiring a run-off manager, the insurer or reinsurer can outsource the management of the run-off business to experienced and capable individuals, while allowing its own management team to focus on the insurer’s or reinsurer’s core businesses. Our desired approach to managing run-off business is to align our interests with the interests of the owners through both fixed management fees and certain incentive payments. Under certain management arrangements to which we are a party, we only receive a fixed management fee and do not receive any incentive payments.
Following the purchase of a run-off company or the engagement to manage a run-off company or portfolio of business, it is incumbent on the new owner or manager to conduct the run-off in a disciplined and professional manner in order to efficiently discharge liabilities associated with the business while preserving and maximizing its assets. Our approach to managing our acquired companies in run-off as well as run-off companies or portfolios of businesses on behalf of third-party clients includes negotiating with third-party insureds and reinsureds to commute
With respect to our U.K. and Bermuda insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries, we are able to pursue strategies to achieve complete finality and conclude the run-off of a company by promoting solvent schemes of arrangement. Solvent schemes of arrangement, or a Solvent Scheme, have been a popular means of achieving financial certainty and finality, for insurance and reinsurance companies incorporated or managed in the U.K. and Bermuda by making a one-time full and final settlement of an insurance and reinsurance company’s liabilities to policyholders. Such a Solvent Scheme is an arrangement between a company and its creditors or any class of them. For a Solvent Scheme to become binding on the creditors, a meeting of each class of creditors must be called, with the permission of the local court, to consider and, if thought fit, approve the Solvent Scheme. The requisite statutory majority of creditors of not less than 75% in value and 50% in number of those creditors actually attending the meeting, either in person or by proxy, must vote in favor of a Solvent Scheme. Once a Solvent Scheme has been approved by the statutory majority of voting creditors of the company it requires the sanction of the local court. While a Solvent Scheme provides an alternative exit strategy for run-off companies it is not our strategy to make such acquisitions with this strategy solely in mind. Our preferred approach is to generate earnings from the disciplined and professional management of acquired run-off companies and then consider exit strategies, including a Solvent Scheme, when the majority of the run-off is complete. To understand risks associated with this strategy, see “Risk Factors - Risks Relating to Our Business - Exit and finality opportunities provided by solvent schemes of arrangement may not continue to be available, which may result in the diversion of our resources to settle policyholder claims for a substantially longer run-off period and increase the associated costs of run-off of our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries” beginning on page 36.
See Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of our segments.
We generate consulting fees based on a combination of fixed and success-based fee arrangements. Consulting income will vary from period to period depending on the timing of completion of success-based fee arrangements. Success-based fees are recorded when targets related to overall project completion or profitability goals are
achieved. Our consulting segment, in addition to providing services to third parties, also provides management services to the reinsurance segment based on agreed terms set out in management agreements between the parties. The fees charged by the consulting segment to the reinsurance segment are eliminated against the cost incurred by the reinsurance segment on consolidation.
Our net investment income is principally derived from interest earned primarily on cash and investments offset by investment management fees paid. Our investment portfolio currently consists of the following: (1) bond portfolios that are classified as both trading and held-to-maturity and carried at fair value and amortized cost, respectively; (2) cash and cash equivalents; (3) other investments that are accounted for on the equity basis; and (4) fixed and short-term investments that are classified as trading and are carried at fair value.
Net loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities are reviewed by our management each quarter and by independent actuaries annually. Reserves reflect management’s best estimate of the remaining unpaid portion of these liabilities. Prior period estimates of net loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities may change as our management considers the combined impact of commutations, policy buy-backs, settlement of losses on carried reserves and the trend of incurred loss development compared to prior forecasts.
Policy buy-backs provide an opportunity for us to settle individual policies and losses usually at a discount to carried advised loss reserves. As part of our routine claims settlement operations, claims will settle at either below or above the carried advised loss reserve. The impact of policy buy-backs and the routine settlement of claims updates historical loss development information to which actuarial methodologies are applied often resulting in revised estimates of ultimate liabilities. Our actuarial methodologies include industry benchmarking which, under certain methodologies (discussed further under “- Critical Accounting Policies” below), compares the trend of our loss development to that of the industry. To the extent that the trend of our loss development compared to the industry changes in any period it is likely to have an impact on the estimate of ultimate liabilities. Additionally,
consolidated net reductions, or potentially increases, in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities include reductions, or potentially increases, in the provisions for future losses and loss adjustment expenses related to the current period’s run-off activity. Net reductions in net loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities are reported as negative expenses by us in our reinsurance segment. The unallocated loss adjustment expenses paid by the reinsurance segment comprise management fees paid to the consulting segment and are eliminated on consolidation. The consulting segment costs in providing run-off services are classified as salaries and general and administrative expenses. For more information on how the reserves are calculated, see “- Critical Accounting Policies - Loss and Loss Adjustment Expenses” below.
On September 15, 2006, our board of directors and shareholders adopted the Enstar Group Limited 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, or the Equity Incentive Plan, and the Enstar Group Limited 2006-2010 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, or the Annual Incentive Plan, which is administered by a Compensation Committee appointed by our board of directors, or the Plan Committee.
For information on the awards made under both the Annual and Equity Incentive plans for the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, see Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
With the exception of the expense relating to the Annual Incentive Plan, which is allocated to both the reinsurance and consulting segments, the costs of all of our employees are accounted for as part of the consulting segment.
General and administrative expenses include rent and rent-related costs, professional fees (legal, investment, audit and actuarial) and travel expenses. We have operations in multiple jurisdictions and our employees travel frequently in connection with the search for acquisition opportunities and in the general management of the business. While certain general and administrative expenses, such as rent and related costs and professional fees, are incurred directly by the reinsurance segment, the remaining general and administrative expenses are incurred by the consulting segment. To the extent that such costs incurred by the consulting segment relate to the management of the reinsurance segment, they are recovered by the consulting segment through the management fees charged to the reinsurance segment.
Our reporting and functional currency is U.S. dollars. Through our subsidiaries, however, we hold a variety of foreign (non-U.S.) currency assets and liabilities, the principal exposures being Euros and British pounds. At each balance sheet date, recorded balances that are denominated in a currency other than U.S. dollars are adjusted to reflect the current exchange rate. Revenue and expense items are translated into U.S. dollars at average rates of exchange for the period. The resulting exchange gains or losses are included in our net income. We seek to manage our exposure to foreign currency exchange by broadly matching our foreign currency assets against our foreign currency liabilities.
The acquisitions of Hillcot Re Limited (formerly Toa-Re Insurance Company (UK) Limited) in March 2003 and of Brampton Insurance Company Limited (formerly Aioi Insurance Company of Europe Limited) in March 2006 were effected through Hillcot Holdings Limited, or Hillcot, a Bermuda-based company in which we have a 50.1% economic interest. The results of operations of Hillcot are included in our consolidated statements of operations with the remaining 49.9% economic interest in the results of Hillcot reflected as a minority interest.
Negative goodwill represents the excess of the fair value of businesses acquired by us over the cost of such businesses. In accordance with FAS 141 “Business Combinations,” this amount is recognized upon the acquisition of the businesses as an extraordinary gain. The fair values of the reinsurance assets and liabilities acquired are derived from probability-weighted ranges of the associated projected cash flows, based on actuarially prepared information and our management’s run-off strategy. Any amendment to the fair values resulting from changes in such information or strategy will be recognized when they occur. For more information on how the goodwill is determined, see “- Critical Accounting Policies - Goodwill” below.
Certain amounts in our consolidated financial statements require the use of best estimates and assumptions to determine reported values. These amounts could ultimately be materially different than what has been provided for in our consolidated financial statements. We consider the assessment of loss reserves and reinsurance recoverable to be the values requiring the most inherently subjective and complex estimates. In addition, the assessment of the possible impairment of goodwill involves certain estimates and assumptions. As such, the accounting policies for these amounts are of critical importance to our consolidated financial statements.
As of December 31, 2007, the IBNR reserves (net of reinsurance balances receivable) accounted for $570.7 million, or 49.1%, of our total loss reserves. The reserve for IBNR (net of reinsurance balance receivable) accounted for $359.4 million, or 41.2%, of our total loss reserves at December 31, 2006.
The ranges of gross loss and loss adjustment expense reserves implied by the various methodologies used by each of Enstar’s insurance subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 were:
Our asbestos claims are primarily products liability claims submitted by a variety of insureds who operated in different parts of the asbestos distribution chain. While most such claims arise from asbestos mining and primary asbestos manufacturers, we have also been receiving claims from tertiary defendants such as smaller manufacturers, and the industry has seen an emerging trend of non-products claims arising from premises exposures. Unlike products claims, primary policies generally do not contain aggregate policy limits for premises claims, which, accordingly, remain at the primary layer and, thus, rarely impact excess insurance policies. As the vast majority of Enstar’s policies are excess policies, this trend has had only a marginal effect on our asbestos exposures thus far.
Asbestos reform efforts have been underway at both the federal and state level to address the cost and scope of asbestos claims to the American economy. While congressional efforts to create a federal trust fund that would replace the tort system for asbestos claims failed, several states, including Texas and Florida, have passed reforms based on “medical criteria” requiring certain levels of medically documented injury before a lawsuit can be filed, resulting in a drop of year-on-year case filings in those states adopting this reform measure.
Asbestos claims primarily fall into two general categories: impaired and unimpaired bodily injury claims. Property damage claims represent only a small fraction of asbestos claims. Impaired claims primarily include individuals suffering from mesothelioma or a cancer such as lung cancer. Unimpaired claims include asbestosis and
We employ approximately 32 full time equivalent employees, including two U.S. attorneys, actuaries, and experienced claims-handlers to directly administer our A&E liabilities. We have estimated a provision for future expenses of $29.8 million, which reflects the total anticipated costs to administer these claims to expiration.
The influence of each of these factors is not easily quantifiable and our historical asbestos loss development is of limited value in determining future asbestos loss development using traditional actuarial reserving techniques.
Finally, the issue of lead paint liability represents a potential emerging trend in latent claim activity that could potentially result in future reserve adjustments. After a series of successful defense efforts by defendant lead pigment manufacturers in lead paint litigation, in 2005, a Rhode Island court ruled in favor of the government in a nuisance claim against the defendant manufacturers. Although the damages portion of the case has yet to be decided, the plaintiff could receive a significant award. Further, there are similar pending claims in several jurisdictions including California and Ohio. Insureds have yet to meet policy terms and conditions to establish coverage for lead paint public nuisance claims as opposed to traditional bodily injury and property damage claims but there is the potential for significant impact to excess insurers should plaintiffs prevail in successive nuisance claims pending in other jurisdictions and coverage is established.
1. Paid Survival Ratio Method. In this method, our expected annual average payment amount is multiplied by an expected future number of payment years to get an indicated reserve. Our historical calendar year payments are examined to determine an expected future annual average payment amount. This amount is multiplied by an expected number of future payment years to estimate a reserve. Trends in calendar year payment activity are considered when selecting an expected future annual average payment amount. Accepted industry benchmarks are used in determining an expected number of future payment years. Each year, annual payments data is updated, trends in payments are re-evaluated and changes to benchmark future payment years are reviewed. This method has advantages of ease of application and simplicity of assumptions. A potential disadvantage of the method is that results could be misleading for portfolios of high excess exposures where significant payment activity has not yet begun.
1. $65 billion Ultimate Industry Asbestos losses - This level of industry-wide losses and its comparison to industry-wide paid, incurred and outstanding case reserves is the base benchmarking assumption applied to Paid Market Share, Reserve-to-Paid, IBNR: Case Ratio and the Ultimate-to-Incurred asbestos reserving methodologies.
2. $35 billion Ultimate Industry Environmental losses - This level of industry-wide losses and its comparison to industry-wide paid, incurred and outstanding case reserves is the base benchmarking assumption applied to Paid Market Share, Reserve-to-Paid, IBNR: Case Ratio and the Ultimate-to-Incurred environmental reserving methodologies.
Industry publications indicate that the range of ultimate industry asbestos losses is estimated to be between $55 billion and $65 billion. Based on management’s experience of substantial loss development on our asbestos exposure portfolios, we have selected the upper end of the range as the basis for our asbestos loss reserving. Although the industry publications suggest a low end of the range of industry ultimate losses of $55 billion, we consider that unlikely and believe that it is more reasonable to assume that the lower end of this range of ultimate losses could be $60 billion.
Non-latent claims are less significant to us, both in terms of reserves held and in terms of risk of significant reserve deficiency. For non-latent loss exposure, a range of traditional loss development extrapolation techniques is applied. Incremental paid and incurred loss development methodologies are the most commonly used methods. Traditional cumulative paid and incurred loss development methods are used where inception-to-date, cumulative paid and reported incurred loss development history is available.
In addition, loss development is examined separately for each of our relevant subsidiaries. While the most significant exposures for most of our subsidiaries are latent A&E exposures, there are differing profiles to the exposure across our subsidiaries. Companies can differ in their exposure profile due to the mix of insurance versus reinsurance, the mix of primary versus excess insurance, the underwriting years of participation and other criteria. These differing profiles lead to different expectations for quarterly and annual loss development by company.
We follow FAS No. 142 “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” which requires that recorded goodwill be assessed for impairment on at least an annual basis. In determining goodwill, we must determine the fair value of the assets of an acquired company. The determination of fair value necessarily involves many assumptions. Fair values of reinsurance assets and liabilities acquired are derived from probability-weighted ranges of the associated projected cash flows, based on actuarially prepared information and our management run-off strategy. Fair value adjustments are based on the estimated timing of loss and loss adjustment expense payments and an assumed interest rate, and are amortized over the estimated payout period, as adjusted for accelerations on commutation settlements, using the constant yield method options. Interest rates used to determine the fair value of gross loss reserves are based upon risk free rates applicable to the average duration of the loss reserves. Interest rates used to determine the fair value of reinsurance receivables are increased to reflect the credit risk associated with the reinsurers from who the receivables are, or will become, due. If the assumptions made in initially valuing the assets change significantly in the future, we may be required to record impairment charges which could have a material impact on our financial condition and results of operations.
FAS No. 141 “Business Combinations” also requires that negative goodwill be recorded in earnings. During 2004, 2006 and 2007, we took negative goodwill into earnings upon the completion of the acquisition of certain companies and presented it as an extraordinary gain.
In September 2006, the FASB issued FAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurement, or FAS 157. This Statement provides guidance for using fair value to measure assets and liabilities. Under this standard, the definition of fair value focuses on the price that would be received to sell the asset or paid to transfer the liability (an exit price), not the price that would be paid to acquire the asset or received to assume the liability (an entry price). FAS 157 clarifies that fair value is a market based measurement, not an entity-specific measurement, and sets out a fair value hierarchy with the highest priority being quoted prices in active markets and the lowest priority being unobservable data. Further, FAS 157 requires tabular disclosures of the fair value measurements by level within the fair value hierarchy. FAS 157 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. The adoption of FAS 157 is not expected to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2008 (January 1, 2009 for calendar year-end companies). We are currently evaluating the provisions of FAS 141(R) and its potential impact on future financial statements.
Internal management fees of $27.5 million and $20.6 million were paid in 2007 and 2006, respectively, by our reinsurance companies to our consulting companies. The increase in fees paid by the reinsurance segment was due primarily to the fees paid by reinsurance companies that were acquired in 2007 along with those companies acquired during 2006.
Net realized gains (losses) for the year ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 were $0.2 million and $(0.1) million, respectively. Based on our current investment strategy, in respect of our fixed maturity portfolios, we do not expect net realized gains and losses to be significant.
(ii) net favorable incurred loss development of $29.0 million, comprising net paid loss recoveries, relating to another one of our reinsurance companies, offset by increases in net IBNR loss reserves of $29.0 million, resulting in no ultimate gain or loss. This reinsurance company has retrocessional arrangements providing for full reinsurance of all risks assumed; and
(iii) net favorable incurred loss development of $6.6 million in our remaining insurance and reinsurance entities together with reductions in IBNR reserves of $26.3 million. The net favorable incurred loss development in our remaining insurance and reinsurance entities of $6.6 million, whereby net advised case and LAE reserves of $2.6 million were settled for net paid loss recoveries of $4.0 million, arose from the settlement of non-commuted losses in the year below carried reserves and approximately 57 commutations of assumed and ceded exposures at less than case and LAE reserves. We adopt a disciplined approach to the review and settlement of non-commuted claims through claims adjusting and the inspection of underlying policyholder records such that settlements of assumed exposures may often be achieved below the level of the originally advised loss and settlements of ceded receivables may often be achieved at levels above carried balances. The net reduction in the estimate of IBNR loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities relating to our remaining insurance and reinsurance companies amounted to $26.3 million and results from the application of our reserving methodologies to (i) the reduced historical incurred loss development information relating to remaining exposures after the 57 commutations, and (ii) reduced case and LAE reserves in the aggregate. Of the 57 commutations completed during 2007 for our remaining reinsurance and insurance companies, five were among their top ten cedant and/or reinsurance exposures. The remaining 52 were of a smaller size, consistent with our approach of targeting significant numbers of cedant and reinsurer relationships, as well as targeting significant individual cedant and reinsurer relationships.
Mr. Nimrod T. Frazer, totaling $2.0 million, in recognition of their contributions to the successful completion of the Merger.
We expect that staff costs will increase in 2008 due primarily to the approximately 30 new employees that will be retained or hired upon completion of the Gordian acquisition. Bonus accrual expenses will be variable and dependent on our overall profit.
General and administrative expenses attributable to the consulting segment increased by $9.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2007, as compared to the year ended December 31, 2006 due primarily to the following: 1) increased professional fees of $4.2 million relating to legal, accounting and filing costs associated with our reporting obligations as a public company; 2) a one-time expense of $1.6 million relating to the over-recovery by us of current and prior years value added taxes; and 3) increased rent costs of $1.4 million as a result of one of our U.K. subsidiaries moving to new offices.
For 2007, this amount relates to the interest on new loans from a London-based bank to partially assist with the financing of the acquisitions of Inter-Ocean Reinsurance Company Ltd, or Inter-Ocean, and Marlon, along with interest charges from prior years loans that were made to partially assist with the financing of the acquisitions of Brampton Insurance Company Limited, or Brampton, and Cavell Holdings Limited (UK), or Cavell.
We recorded foreign exchange gains of $7.9 million and $10.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, respectively.
The foreign exchange gain for the year ended December 31, 2007 arose primarily as a result of: 1) the holding of surplus British Pounds; and 2) the holding by Cavell of surplus net Canadian and Australian dollars, as required by local regulatory obligations, at a time when these currencies have been appreciating against the U.S. Dollar. The gain for the year ended December 31, 2006 arose primarily as a result of having surplus British Pounds that arose as a result of our acquisitions of Brampton, Cavell, and Unione Italiana (U.K.) Reinsurance Company, or Unione, at a time when the British Pound had strengthened against the U.S. Dollar.
As our functional currency is the U.S. Dollar, we seek to manage our exposure to foreign currency exchange by broadly matching foreign currency assets against foreign currency liabilities.
Our share of equity in earnings of partly owned companies for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 was $Nil and $0.5 million, respectively. These amounts represented our proportionate share of equity in the earnings of B.H.
We earned consulting fees of approximately $33.9 million and $22.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Included in these amounts was approximately $1.3 million in consulting fees charged to wholly-owned subsidiaries of B.H. Acquisition, a partly-owned equity affiliate, in both 2006 and 2005. The increase in consulting fees was due primarily to the increase of approximately $8.9 million in management and incentive-based fees earned by our U.S. subsidiaries along with increased incentive-based fees generated by our Bermuda management company.
Internal management fees of $20.6 million and $16.0 million were paid in 2006 and 2005, respectively, by our reinsurance companies to our consulting companies. The increase in fees paid by the reinsurance segment was due primarily to the fees paid by reinsurance companies that were acquired in 2006.
The average return on the cash and fixed maturities investments for the year ended December 31, 2006 was 4.40%, as compared to the average return of 3.23% for the year ended December 31, 2005. The increase in yield was primarily the result of increasing U.S. interest rates - the U.S. federal funds rate has increased from 2.25% on January 1, 2005 to 4.25% on December 31, 2005 and to 5.25% on December 31, 2006. The average Standard & Poor’s credit rating of our fixed income investments at December 31, 2006 was AAA.
offset by the amortization, over the estimated payout period, of fair value adjustments relating to companies acquired amounting to $10.9 million compared to $7.9 million in 2005, the increased charge reflecting amortization relating to companies acquired during 2006. The reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $21.4 million comprised of net adverse incurred loss development of $37.9 million offset by reductions in estimates of IBNR reserves of $59.3 million, of which an increase in estimates of ultimate losses of $3.4 million relating to one of our insurance entities was offset by reductions in estimates of net ultimate losses of $24.8 million in our remaining insurance and reinsurance entities.
The adverse incurred loss development of $37.9 million, whereby advised case and LAE reserves of $37.4 million were settled for net paid losses of $75.3 million, comprised adverse incurred loss development of $59.2 million relating to one of our insurance companies partially offset by favorable incurred loss development of $21.3 million relating to our remaining insurance and reinsurance companies.
Of the 35 commutations completed during 2006 for our remaining reinsurance and insurance companies, ten were among their top ten cedant and/or reinsurance exposures. The remaining twenty-five were of a smaller size, consistent with our approach of targeting significant numbers of cedant and reinsurer relationships, as well as targeting significant individual cedant and reinsurer relationships.
The table below provides a reconciliation of the beginning and ending reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred and paid are reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
Income taxes of $0.3 million and $(0.9) million were recorded for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The income taxes recovered (incurred) were in respect of our U.K and U.S subsidiaries.
The negative goodwill of $4.3 million (net of minority interest) relating to Brampton arose as a result of the income earned by Brampton between the date of the balance sheet on which the agreed purchase price was based, December 31, 2004 and the date the acquisition closed, March 30, 2006. The negative goodwill of $26.7 million relating to the purchases of Cavell and Unione arose primarily as a result of the strategic desire of the vendors to achieve an exit from such operations and, therefore, to dispose of the companies at a discount to fair value.
As we are a holding company and have no substantial operations of our own, our assets consist primarily of investments in subsidiaries. The potential sources of the cash flows to the holding company consist of dividends, advances and loans from our subsidiary companies.
Our capital management strategy is to preserve sufficient capital to enable us to make future acquisitions while maintaining a conservative investment strategy. We believe that restrictions on liquidity resulting from restrictions on the payments of dividends by our subsidiary companies will not have a material impact on our ability to meet our cash obligations.
insignificant decrease in the value of our cash and investments, reflecting the unrealized loss position of the held-to-maturity portfolio as of December 31, 2007.
At December 31, 2006, total cash and investments were $1.26 billion, compared to $884.9 million at December 31, 2005. The increase of $376.2 million was due primarily to cash and investments of $570.5 acquired on the acquisition of subsidiaries offset by: 1) net paid losses relating to claims of $75.3 million; 2) purchase costs of acquisitions, net of external financing, of $80.8 million; and 3) dividends and share redemptions of $50.6 million.
Investing cash flows consist primarily of cash acquired and used for acquisitions along with net proceeds on the sale and purchase of investments. Net cash provided by investing activities was $475.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to $179.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2006. The increase in the year was due mainly to the sale and maturity of investments held by us.
Net cash used in financing activities was $13.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to $0.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2005. The increase in cash used in our financing activities was attributable primarily to the combination of redemption of shares and dividends paid and vendor loans offset by net loan finance receipts and capital contributions by the minority interest shareholder of a subsidiary.
On February 22, 2007, one of our subsidiaries, Oceania Holdings Ltd., or Oceania, entered into a facility loan agreement for $26.8 million with a London-based bank. On February 22, 2007, Oceania drew down $26.8 million from the facility, the proceeds of which were used to partially fund the acquisition of Inter-Ocean. The interest rate on the loan was LIBOR plus 2% and the loan was repayable within 4 years. On October 1, 2007, Oceania fully repaid outstanding principal and accrued interest totaling approximately $27.6 million.
We have made a capital commitment of up to $10 million in the GSC European Mezzanine Fund II, LP, or GSC. GSC invests in mezzanine securities of middle and large market companies throughout Western Europe. As of December 31, 2007, the capital contributed to GSC was $2.8 million, with the remaining commitment being $7.2 million. The $10 million represents 8.5% of the total commitments made to GSC.
We have committed to invest up to $100 million in J.C. Flowers II, L.P. , or the Flowers Fund. During 2007, we funded a total of $11.4 million of our commitment to the Flowers Fund which increased our total investment in the fund to $35.4 million as of December 31, 2007. As of January 14, 2008, we have funded an additional $20.9 million of our $100 million commitment. We intend to use cash on hand to fund our remaining commitment. During 2007, we received $1.2 million in management service fees from the Flowers Fund for advisory services performed for the period June 7, 2007 to June 6, 2008.
In December 2007, Enstar, in conjunction with JCF FPK I L.P., or “JCF FPK,” and a newly-hired executive management team, formed U.K.-based Shelbourne Group Limited, or Shelbourne, to invest in Reinsurance to Close or “RITC” transactions (the transferring of liabilities from one Lloyd’s Syndicate to another) with Lloyd’s of London insurance and reinsurance syndicates in run-off. JCF FPK is a joint investment program between Fox-Pitt, Kelton, Cochran, Caronia & Waller, or FPKCCW, and the Flowers Fund. Shelbourne is a holding company of a Lloyd’s Managing Agency, Shelbourne Syndicate Services Limited. Enstar owns 50.1% of Shelbourne, which in turn owns 100% of Shelbourne Syndicate Services Limited, the Managing Agency for Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008, a syndicate approved by Lloyd’s of London on December 16, 2007 to undertake RITC transactions with Lloyd’s syndicates in run-off. In February 2008, Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008 entered into RITC agreements with four Lloyd’s Syndicates with total gross insurance reserves of approximately $455.0 million. Since January 1, 2008, Enstar has committed capital of approximately £36.0 million (approximately $72.0 million) to Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008. Enstar’s capital commitment was financed by approximately £12.0 million (approximately $24.0 million) from bank finance; approximately £11.0 million (approximately $22.0 million) from the Flowers Fund (acting in its own capacity and not through JCF FPK), by way of a non-voting equity participation; and approximately £13.0 million (approximately $26.0 million) from available cash on hand. JCF FPK’s capital commitment to Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008 is approximately £14.0 million (approximately $28.0 million).
On December 10, 2007, Enstar entered into a definitive agreement for the purchase from AMP Limited, or AMP, of AMP’s Australian-based closed reinsurance and insurance operations, or Gordian. The purchase price, including acquisition expenses, of approximately AUS$440.0 million (approximately $417.0 million), will be financed by approximately AUS$301.0 million (approximately $285.0 million) from bank finance jointly with a London-based bank and a German bank, in which the Flowers Fund is a significant shareholder of the German bank; approximately AUS$42.0 million (approximately $40.0 million) from the Flowers Fund, by way of non-voting equity participation; and approximately AUS$97.0 million (approximately $92.0 million) from available cash on hand. Following approval of the transaction by Australian regulatory authorities on February 20, 2008, Enstar expects the transaction to close on March 5, 2008. The interest rate on the bank loan is LIBOR plus 2.2% and is repayable within six years.
On January 27, 2008, we were advised by J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC, or J.C. Flowers, that SLM Corporation, or Sallie Mae, had agreed to drop its previously announced lawsuit against J.C. Flowers and its partners seeking the payment of a $900 million termination fee. In addition, Sallie Mae and J.C. Flowers and its partners agreed to terminate the merger agreement. We are not and will not be obligated to make any payment of any kind to J.C. Flowers in respect of our share of the termination fee.
On January 30, 2008, we were advised by New NIB Partners L.P., or New NIB, that the previously announced sale of NIBC Bank N.V., or NIBC, to Kaupthing Bank hf, was no longer going to proceed due to the current instability in the financial markets. We own approximately 1.6% of New NIB which owns approximately 79% of NIBC.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Enstar Group Limited (formerly known as Castlewood Holdings Limited) and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Enstar Group Limited and subsidiaries at December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
The terms “FAS” and “FASB” used in these notes refer to Statements of Financial Standards issued by the United States Financial Accounting Standards Board.
Basis of consolidation - The consolidated financial statements include the assets, liabilities and results of operations of the Company as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005. Results of operations for subsidiaries acquired are included from the dates of their acquisition by the Company. Intercompany transactions are eliminated on consolidation.
Investment in partly owned company - Investment in a partly owned company, where the Company has significant influence, is carried on the equity basis whereby the investment is initially recorded at cost and adjusted to reflect the Company’s share of after-tax earnings or losses, unrealized investment gains and losses and reduced by dividends received.
Loss and loss adjustment expenses - The liability for loss and loss adjustment expenses includes an amount determined from loss reports and individual cases and an amount, based on historical loss experience and industry statistics, for losses incurred but not reported. These estimates are continually reviewed and are necessarily subject to the impact of future changes in such factors as claim severity and frequency. While management believes that the amount is adequate, the ultimate liability may be significantly in excess of, or less than, the amounts provided. Adjustments will be reflected as part of net increase or reduction in loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities in the periods in which they become known. Premium and commission adjustments may be triggered by incurred losses and any amounts are reflected in net loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities at the same time the related incurred loss is recognized.
The Company’s insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries establish provisions for loss adjustment expenses relating to run-off costs for the estimated duration of the run-off. These provisions are assessed at each reporting date and provisions relating to future periods adjusted to reflect any changes in estimates of the periodic run-off costs or the duration of the run-off. Provisions relating to the current period together with any adjustments to future run-off provisions are included in loss and loss adjustment expenses in the consolidated statements of earnings.
In February 2007, the FASB issued FAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities” (“FAS 159”). This standard permits an entity to irrevocably elect fair value on a contract-by-contract basis as the initial and subsequent measurement attribute for many financial instruments and certain other items
In December 2007, the FASB issued FAS No. 141(R) “Business Combinations” (“FAS 141(R)”). FAS 141(R) replaces FAS No. 141 “Business Combinations” (“FAS 141”) but retains the fundamental requirements in FAS No. 141 that the acquisition method of accounting be used for all business combinations and for an acquirer to be identified for each business combination. FAS 141(R) requires an acquirer to recognize the assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, and any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree at the acquisition date, measured at their fair values as of that date. FAS 141(R) also requires acquisition-related costs to be recognized separately from the acquisition, recognize assets acquired and liabilities assumed arising from contractual contingencies at their acquisition-date fair values and recognized goodwill as the excess of the consideration transferred plus the fair value of any noncontrolling interest in the acquiree at the acquisition date over the fair values of the identifiable net assets acquired. FAS 141(R) applies prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2008 (January 1, 2009 for calendar year-end companies). The Company is currently evaluating the provisions of FAS 141(R) and its potential impact on future financial statements.
The purchase price and fair value of assets acquired were as follows:
On February 23, 2007, Enstar repurchased 7,180 Enstar ordinary shares from T. Whit Armstrong for total consideration of $0.7 million. This repurchase was done in accordance with the letter agreement dated May 23, 2006, between T. Whit Armstong, T. Wayne Davis and Enstar pursuant to which Enstar agreed to repurchase from Messrs. Armstrong and Davis, upon their request, during a 30-day period commencing January 15, 2007, at then prevailing market prices, such number of Enstar ordinary shares as provides an amount sufficient for Messrs. Armstrong and Davis to pay taxes on compensation income resulting from the exercise of options by them on May 23, 2006 for 50,000 shares of EGI common stock in the aggregate. Mr. Davis did not elect to sell shares under the agreement. Messrs. Armstrong and Davis are directors of the Company.
The purchase price and fair value of assets acquired for Tate & Lyle was as follows:
Of the available for sale investments of $22.3 million, $21.7 million were due within one year, with the remainder due after ten years.
The estimated fair value of investments classified as trading securities as of December 31 was as follows:
At December 31, 2007 and 2006 the Company had $75.3 million and $42.4 million, respectively, of other investments recorded in limited partnerships and limited liability companies under the equity method. These other investments represent 4.2% and 3.4% of total investments and cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. All of the Company’s other investments are subject to restrictions on redemptions and sales which are determined by the governing documents and limit the Company’s ability to liquidate these investments in the short term. Due to a lag in the valuations reported by the managers, the Company records changes in the investment value with up to a three-month lag. The investments in limited partnerships and limited liability companies consist primarily of equity investments in non-U.S. financial services companies.
At December 31, 2007 and 2006, reinsurance receivables with a carrying value of $350.2 million and $244.1 million, respectively, were associated with two and one reinsurers, respectively, which represented 10% or more of total reinsurance balances receivable. In the event that all or any of the reinsuring companies are unable to meet their obligations under existing reinsurance agreements, the Company will be liable for such defaulted amounts.
The fair value adjustment, determined on acquisition of reinsurance subsidiaries, was based on the estimated timing of loss and loss adjustment expense payments and an assumed interest rate equivalent to a risk free rate for securities with similar duration to the loss and loss adjustment expense provisions acquired, and is amortized over the estimated payout period, as adjusted for accelerations on commutation settlements, using the constant yield method.
There can be no assurance that the reserves established by the Company will be adequate or will not be adversely affected by the development of other latent exposures. The Company’s liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 included $420.0 million and $389.1 million, respectively, that represents an estimate of its net ultimate liability for asbestos and environmental claims. The gross liability for such claims as at December 31, 2007 and 2006 was $677.6 million and $666.1 million, respectively.
On February 18, 2008 the Company fully repaid outstanding principal and accrued interest of $40.5 million, from available cash on hand, in respect of the Flatts and Virginia loan facilities. As at December 31, 2007, all of the covenants relating to the Flatts and Virginia loan facilities were met.
Issued and fully paid ordinary shares of par value $1 each -
Issued and fully paid non-voting convertible ordinary shares of par value $1 each -
As of December 31, 2007, total unrecognized compensation costs related to the non-vested share awards amounted to $0.6 million. These costs are expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 0.69 years.
For the year ended December 31, 2007, 38,357 shares were awarded to a director, officers and employees under the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan. The total value of the award was $3.8 million, of which $0.5 million was charged as an expense for the year ended December 31, 2007 and $3.3 million was charged against the 2006-2010 Annual Incentive Plan accrual established for the year ended December 31, 2006.
On August 8, 2007, the Company’s board of directors approved the Enstar Group Limited Employee Share Purchase Plan and reserved 200,000 ordinary shares for issuance under the plan. The plan has not yet been approved by the Company’s shareholders and must be approved by them within 12 months of board approval. The Company intends to seek such approval at the Annual General Meeting in 2008.
On June 5, 2007, the Compensation Committee of the board of directors of the Company approved the Enstar Group Limited Deferred Compensation and Ordinary Share Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “EGL Deferred
The Company received management fees for advisory services provided to J.C. Flowers II L.P. (the “Flowers Fund”), a private investment fund, for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 of $1.2 million, $0.9 million and $Nil, respectively. Of this amount $0.8 million, $0.5 million and $Nil was earned for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
In February 2008, the Flowers Fund committed to fund approximately $72.0 million for its share of the economic interest in the acquisitions of Gordian, Guildhall and Shelbourne.
In February 2008, the Company entered into an AUS$301.0 million (approximately $285.0 million) joint loan facility with an Australian and German bank. The Flowers Fund is a significant shareholder of the German bank.
In 2006 and 2007 the Company granted loans to certain of its employees in relation to tax incurred on shares awarded as part of the incentive plans. On December 31, 2007, the total amount due from employees for loans granted, including accrued interest charges at 5%, was $1.3 million (2006: $0.1 million).
The Company, in common with the insurance and reinsurance industry in general, is subject to litigation and arbitration in the normal course of its business operations. While the outcome of the litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company is disputing and will continue to dispute all allegations that management believes are without merit. As of December 31, 2007, the Company was not a party to any material litigation or arbitration outside its normal course of business operations.
As of December 31, 2007 and 2006, United Kingdom insurance subsidiaries and branch operations had tax loss carryforwards, which do not expire, and deductions available for tax purposes of approximately $432.6 million and $511.0 million, respectively. Certain of the Company’s U.K. insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries have tax loss carryforwards that arose prior to acquisition. Under U.K. tax law, these tax loss carryforwards are available to offset future taxable income generated by the acquired company without time limit. In 2007, the U.K. taxing authorities partially repealed for the 2007 tax year, and fully repealed for all tax years including and after 2008, Finance Act 2000 Section 107. Section 107 allowed the Company’s U.K. insurance and reinsurance entities to disclaim part or all of their loss reserves in any given tax year. The disclaimed reserves would then refresh as current year losses in the following year.
The Company has made estimates of future taxable income of subsidiaries and has provided a valuation allowance in respect of those loss carryforwards where it does not expect to realize a benefit.
a) Lease Commitment - The Company leases office space under operating leases expiring in various years through 2015. The leases are renewable at the option of the lessee under certain circumstances. The following is a schedule of future minimum rental payments on non-cancelable leases as of December 31, 2007:
Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 was $2.2 million, $1.6 million and $1.7 million, respectively.
b) Other - SLM Corporation - On January 27, 2008, the Company was advised by J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC, or J.C. Flowers, that SLM Corporation, or Sallie Mae, had agreed to drop its previously announced lawsuit against J.C. Flowers and its partners seeking the payment of a $900 million termination fee. In addition, Sallie Mae and J.C. Flowers and its partners agreed to terminate the merger agreement. The Company has not and will not be obligated to make any payment of any kind to J.C. Flowers in respect of our share of the termination fee.
New NIB Partners L.P. - On January 30, 2008, the Company was advised by New NIB Partners L.P. (“New NIB”) that the previously announced sale of NIBC Bank N.V. (“NIBC”) to Kaupthing Bank hf was no longer going to proceed due to the current instability in the financial markets. The Company owns approximately 1.6% of New NIB which owns approximately 79% of NIBC.