The net loss reserves to capital and surplus ratio is calculated by dividing the sum of the Net unpaid losses and loss expenses and Net future policy benefits by Shareholders' equity.
Cash dividends per share in 2012 includes a $0.12 per share increase related to the fourth quarter 2011 dividend installment approved by shareholders on January 9, 2012.
Insurance - North American P&C and Insurance - North American Agriculture. Prior year amounts contained in this report have been adjusted to conform to the new segment presentation.
global political conditions, the occurrence of any terrorist attacks, including any nuclear, radiological, biological, or chemical events, or the outbreak and effects of war, and possible business disruption or economic contraction that may result from such events;
risks associated with being a Swiss corporation, including reduced flexibility with respect to certain aspects of capital management and the potential for additional regulatory burdens;
Insurance - North American Agriculture: acquired Penn Millers Holding Corporation (PMHC) on November 30, 2011.
Favorable prior period development was $530 million, representing 3.7 percentage points of the combined ratio. This compares to favorable prior period development of $479 million in 2012, representing 3.5 percentage points of the combined ratio.
Total pre-tax and after-tax catastrophe losses including reinstatement premiums were $227 million and $197 million, respectively, compared with $638 million and $495 million, respectively, in 2012.
We believe our accounting policies for these items are of critical importance to our consolidated financial statements. The following discussion provides more information regarding the estimates and assumptions required to arrive at these amounts and should be read in conjunction with the sections entitled: Prior Period Development, Asbestos and Environmental (A&E) and Other Run-off Liabilities, Reinsurance Recoverable on Ceded Reinsurance, Investments, Net Realized and Unrealized Gains (Losses), and Other (Income) and Expense Items.
In respect of IBNR reserves, and those claims that have been incurred but not reported prior to the balance sheet date, there is, by definition, limited actual information to form the case reserve estimate and reliance is placed upon historical loss experience and actuarial methods to project the ultimate loss obligations and the corresponding amount of IBNR. IBNR reserve estimates are generally calculated by first projecting the ultimate amount of losses for a product line and subtracting paid losses and case reserves for reported claims. The judgments involved in projecting the ultimate losses may pertain to the use and interpretation of various standard actuarial reserving methods that place reliance on the extrapolation of actual historical data, loss
development patterns, and industry data as appropriate. The estimate of the required IBNR reserve also requires judgment by actuaries and management to reflect the impact of more contemporary and subjective factors, both qualitative and quantitative. Among some of these factors that might be considered are changes in business mix or volume, changes in ceded reinsurance structures, changes in claims handling practices, reported and projected loss trends, inflation, the legal environment, and the terms and conditions of the contracts sold to our insured parties.
Our recorded reserves represent management's best estimate of the provision for unpaid claims as of the balance sheet date. Management's best estimate is developed after collaboration with actuarial, underwriting, claims, legal, and finance departments and culminates with the input of reserve committees. Each business unit reserve committee includes the participation of the relevant parties from actuarial, finance, claims, and unit senior management and has the responsibility for finalizing and approving the estimate to be used as management's best estimate. Reserves are further reviewed by ACE's Chief Actuary and senior management. The objective of such a process is to determine a single estimate that we believe represents a better estimate than any other. Such an estimate is viewed by management to be the best estimate of ultimate loss settlements.
This estimate is generally based on a combination of exposure and experience based actuarial methods (described below) and other considerations such as claims reviews, reinsurance recovery assumptions and/or input from other subject matter experts such as underwriting. Exposure-based methods are most commonly used on relatively immature origin years while experience-based methods provide a view based on the projection of loss experience that has emerged as of the valuation date. Greater reliance is placed upon experience-based methods as the pool of emerging loss experience grows and where it is deemed sufficiently credible and reliable as the basis for the estimate. In comparing the held reserve for any given origin year to the actuarial projections of loss experience, judgment is required as to the extent of credibility to be assigned to the underlying loss experience and the uncertainties associated with its statistical projection. Examples of factors that impact such judgments include, but are not limited to, the following:
We do not calculate ranges of loss reserve estimates for our individual loss reserve studies, given the lack of robust statistical approaches and the limited usefulness for such information in decision making. Determining such ranges is a complex and uncertain process, and such ranges generally do not capture the potential changes in external and internal circumstances between the balance sheet date and the final settlement date that may impact the ultimate value of loss. While we believe that our recorded reserves are reasonable and represent management's best estimate for each product line as of the current valuation date, future changes to our view of the ultimate liabilities are possible. A five percent change in our net loss reserves equates to $1.3 billion and represents five percent of shareholders' equity at December 31, 2013. Historically our reserves, at times, have developed in excess of 10 percent of recorded amounts. Refer to “Analysis of Losses and Loss Expenses Development”, under Item 1, for a summary of historical volatility between estimated loss reserves and ultimate loss settlements.
estimate is available, may differ across product lines. For example, an actuary may base the central estimate on loss projections developed using an incurred loss development approach instead of a paid loss development approach when reported losses are viewed to be a more credible indication of the ultimate loss compared with paid losses. The availability of estimates for different projection techniques will depend upon the product line, the underwriting circumstances, and the maturity of the loss emergence. For a well-established product line with sufficient volume and history and low volatility, the actuarial central estimate may be drawn from a weighting of paid and reported loss development and/or Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods (described below). However, for a new long-tail product line for which we have limited data and experience, a rapidly growing line, or an established line with volatile experience, the emerging loss experience may not have sufficient credibility to allow selection of loss development or Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods and reliance may be placed upon the expected loss ratio method (described below) until the experience matures and becomes credible.
Standard actuarial reserving methods include, but are not limited to, expected loss ratio, paid and reported loss development, and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods. A general description of these methods is provided below. In the subsequent discussion on short- and long-tail business, reference is also made, where appropriate, to how consideration in method selection impacted 2013 results. In addition to these standard methods, depending upon the product line characteristics and available data we may use other recognized actuarial methods and approaches. To ensure that the projections of future loss emergence based on historical loss development patterns are representative of the underlying business, historical loss and premium data is required to be of sufficient homogeneity and credibility. For example, to improve data homogeneity, we may subdivide product line data further by similar risk attribute (e.g., geography, coverage such as property versus liability exposure, or elements of program structure such as attachments or limits), project ultimate losses for these homogeneous groups and then combine the results to provide the overall product line estimate. The premium and loss data are aggregated by origin year (e.g., the year in which the losses were incurred - “accident year” or “report year”) and annual or quarterly development periods. Implicit in the standard actuarial methods that we generally utilize is the need for two fundamental assumptions: first, the pattern by which losses are expected to emerge over time for each origin year, and second the expected loss ratio for each origin year.
The expected loss ratio for any particular origin year is selected after consideration of a number of factors, including historical loss ratios adjusted for rate changes, premium and loss trends, industry benchmarks, the results of policy level loss modeling at the time of underwriting, and other more subjective considerations for the product line (e.g., terms and conditions) and external environment as noted above. The expected loss ratio for a given origin year is initially established at the start of the origin year as part of the planning process. This analysis is performed in conjunction with underwriters and management. The expected loss ratio method arrives at an ultimate loss estimate by multiplying the expected ultimate loss ratio by the corresponding premium base. This method is most commonly used as the basis for the actuarial central estimate for immature origin periods on product lines where the actual paid or reported loss experience is not yet deemed sufficiently credible to serve as the principal basis for the selection of ultimate losses. The expected loss ratio for a given origin year may be modified over time if the underlying assumptions such as the assessment of prior year loss ratios, loss trend, rate changes, actual claims, or other information differ from the original assumptions.
Our selected paid and reported development patterns provide a benchmark against which the actual emerging loss experience can be monitored. Where possible, development patterns are selected based on historical loss emergence by origin year with appropriate allowance for changes in business mix, claims handling process, or ceded reinsurance that are likely to lead to a discernible difference between the rate of historical and future loss emergence. For product lines where the historical data is viewed to have low statistical credibility, the selected development patterns also reflect relevant industry benchmarks and/or
experience from similar product lines written elsewhere within ACE. This most commonly occurs for relatively new product lines that have limited historical data or for high severity/low frequency portfolios where our historical experience exhibits considerable volatility and/or lacks credibility. The paid and reported loss development methods convert the selected loss emergence pattern to a set of multiplicative factors which are then applied to actual paid or reported losses to arrive at an estimate of ultimate losses for each period. Due to their multiplicative nature, the paid and reported loss development methods will leverage differences between actual and expected loss emergence. These methods tend to be utilized for more mature origin periods and for those portfolios where the loss emergence has been relatively consistent over time.
The time period between the date of loss occurrence and the final payment date of the ensuing claim(s) is referred to as the “claim-tail”. The following is a discussion of specific reserving considerations for both short-tail and long-tail product lines. In this section, we reference the nature of recent prior period development to give a high-level understanding of how these considerations translate through the reserving process into financial decisions. Refer to Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on prior period development.
In terms of prior accident years, the bulk of the changes made in the 2013 calendar year arose from origin years 2009 through 2012. Specifically, the Insurance - North American P&C, Insurance - North American Agriculture, Insurance - Overseas
General, and Global Reinsurance segments experienced $106 million, $13 million, $172 million, and $31 million of favorable prior period development, respectively, primarily due to lower than anticipated loss emergence rather than any significant changes to underlying actuarial assumptions such as loss development patterns. In the Insurance - North American P&C, Insurance - Overseas General, and Global Reinsurance segments, these prior period movements were primarily the result of changes to the ultimate loss estimates for origin years 2009 through 2012. In the Insurance - North American Agriculture segment, the prior period movements were primarily the result of changes to the ultimate loss estimates for origin year 2011.
The nature and complexity of underlying coverage provided and net limits of exposure provided;
For origin year 2013, loss reserves were typically established through the application of individual product line expected loss ratios, as discussed earlier. Our assumptions on loss trend and development patterns reflect reliance on our historical loss data provided the length and volume of history and homogeneity afford credibility. For those lines where our internal historical experience lacks credibility, we may place reliance upon the latest benchmark patterns (where available) from external industry bodies such as Insurance Services Office (ISO) or the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI). In such cases,
As described earlier, the process to develop origin year 2013 reserves for our long-tail casualty business relies on key assumptions like expected rate change and loss trend. When estimating the ultimate loss levels for these prior origin years for the major long-tail lines in Insurance - North American P&C, Insurance - Overseas General, and Global Reinsurance no changes of significance were made to the loss development patterns, however, we have revised historical loss and exposure trend assumptions on more mature years to reflect emerged frequency and severity trends observed in both our internal data and available industry data. In general, this has resulted in lower historical loss trend assumptions for those years. While we have not assumed that these lower loss trends have continued on more recent years, we have reflected this information in the process to derive expected loss ratio assumptions from historical data adjusted to 2013 origin year levels.
While we believe that our reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses at December 31, 2013, is adequate, new information or emerging trends that differ from our assumptions may lead to future development of losses and loss expenses that is significantly greater or less than the recorded reserve, which could have a material effect on future operating results. As noted previously, our best estimate of required loss reserves for most portfolios is judgmentally selected for each origin year after considering the results from any number of reserving methods and is not a purely mechanical process. Therefore, it is difficult to convey, in a simple and quantitative manner, the impact that a change to a single assumption will have on our best estimate. In the examples below, we attempt to give an indication of the potential impact by isolating a single change for a specific reserving method that would be pertinent in establishing the best estimate for the product line described. We consider each of the following sensitivity analyses to represent a reasonably likely deviation in the underlying assumption.
change in the tail factor (i.e., 1.04 changed to either 1.05 or 1.03) would cause a change of approximately $397 million, either positive or negative, for the projected net loss and loss expense reserves. This represents an impact of 9.7 percent relative to recorded net loss and loss expense reserves of approximately $4.1 billion.
Typically, there is inherent uncertainty around the length of paid and reported development patterns, especially for certain casualty lines such as excess workers' compensation or general liability, which may take up to 30 years to fully develop. This uncertainty is accentuated by the need to supplement client development patterns with industry development patterns due to the sometimes low credibility of the data. The underlying source and selection of the final development patterns can thus have a significant impact on the selected ultimate net losses and loss expenses. For example, a 20 percent shortening or lengthening of the development patterns used for U.S. long-tail lines would cause the loss reserve estimate derived by the reported Bornhuetter-Ferguson method for these lines to change by approximately $400 million. This represents an impact of 32 percent relative to recorded net loss and loss expense reserves of approximately $1.25 billion.
On occasion, there will be differences between our carried loss reserves and unearned premium reserves and the amount of loss reserves and unearned premium reserves reported by the ceding companies. This is due to the fact that we receive consistent and timely information from ceding companies only with respect to case reserves. For IBNR, we use historical experience and other statistical information, depending on the type of business, to estimate the ultimate loss. We estimate our unearned premium reserve by applying estimated earning patterns to net premiums written for each treaty based upon that treaty's coverage basis (i.e., risks attaching or losses occurring). At December 31, 2013, the case reserves reported to us by our ceding companies were $913 million, compared with the $938 million we recorded. Our policy is to post additional case reserves in addition to the amounts reported by our cedants when our evaluation of the ultimate value of a reported claim is different than the evaluation of that claim by our cedant.
Within the Insurance - North American P&C segment, we also have exposure to certain liability reinsurance lines that have been in run-off since 1994. Unpaid losses and loss expenses relating to this run-off reinsurance business resides within the Brandywine Division of our Insurance - North American P&C segment. Most of the remaining unpaid loss and loss expense reserves for the run-off reinsurance business relate to A&E claims. Refer to the “Asbestos and Environmental (A&E) and other run-off liabilities” section for additional information.
Included in our liabilities for losses and loss expenses are amounts for A&E (A&E liabilities). The A&E liabilities principally relate to claims arising from bodily-injury claims related to asbestos products and remediation costs associated with hazardous waste sites. The estimation of our A&E liabilities is particularly sensitive to future changes in the legal, social, and economic environment. We have not assumed any such future changes in setting the value of our A&E liabilities, which include provisions for both reported and IBNR claims.
There are many complex variables that we consider when estimating the reserves for our inventory of asbestos accounts and these variables may directly impact the predicted outcome. We believe the most significant variables relating to our A&E liabilities include the current legal environment; specific settlements that may be used as precedents to settle future claims; assumptions regarding trends with respect to claim severity and the frequency of higher severity claims; assumptions regarding the ability to allocate liability among defendants (including bankruptcy trusts) and other insurers; the ability of a claimant to bring a claim in a state in which they have no residency or exposure; the ability of a policyholder to claim the right to
We issue contracts in our Insurance - Overseas General and Life segments that are classified as long-duration. These contracts generally include accident and supplemental health products, term and whole life products, endowment products, and annuities. In accordance with GAAP, we establish reserves for contracts determined to be long-duration based on approved actuarial methods that include assumptions related to expenses, mortality, morbidity, persistency, and investment yields with a factor for adverse deviation. These assumptions are “locked in” at the inception of the contract, meaning we use our original assumptions throughout the life of the policy and do not subsequently modify them unless we deem the reserves to be inadequate. The future policy benefits reserves balance is regularly evaluated for a premium deficiency. If experience is less favorable than assumptions, additional liabilities may be required, resulting in a charge to policyholder benefits and claims.
As part of the acquisition of businesses that sell long-duration contracts, such as life products, we established an intangible asset related to VOBA, which represented the fair value of the future profits of the in-force contracts. The valuation of VOBA at the time of acquisition is derived from similar assumptions to those used to establish the associated future policy benefits reserves. The most significant input in this calculation is the discount rate used to arrive at the present value of the net cash flows. We amortize deferred policy acquisition costs associated with long-duration contracts and VOBA (collectively policy acquisition costs) over the estimated life of the contracts, generally in proportion to premium revenue recognized. For non-traditional long-duration contracts, we amortize policy acquisition costs over the expected life of the contracts in proportion to estimates of expected gross profits. The estimated life is established at the inception of the contracts or upon acquisition and is based on current persistency assumptions. Policy acquisition costs, which consist of commissions, premium taxes, and certain underwriting costs related directly to the successful acquisition of a new or renewal insurance contract, are reviewed to determine if they are recoverable from future income, including investment income. Unrecoverable costs are expensed in the period identified.
With respect to ceded reinsurance, we entered into a few multi-year excess of loss retrospectively-rated contracts, principally in 2002. These contracts primarily provided severity protection for specific product divisions. Because traditional one-year reinsurance coverage had become relatively costly, these contracts were generally entered in order to secure a more cost-effective reinsurance program. All of these contracts transferred risk and were accounted for as reinsurance. In addition, we maintain a few aggregate excess of loss reinsurance contracts that were principally entered into prior to 2003, such as the National Indemnity Company (NICO) contracts referred to in the section entitled, “Asbestos and Environmental (A&E) and Other Run-off Liabilities”. We have not purchased any other retroactive ceded reinsurance contracts since 1999.
For balances recoverable from reinsurers that are both unrated by a major rating agency and for which management is unable to determine a credible rating equivalent based on a parent or affiliated company, we may determine a rating equivalent based on our analysis of the reinsurer that considers an assessment of the creditworthiness of the particular entity, industry benchmarks, or other factors as considered appropriate. We then apply the applicable default factor for that rating class. For balances recoverable from unrated reinsurers for which our ceded reserve is below a certain threshold, we generally apply a default factor of 34.0 percent;
For captives and other recoverables, management determines the provision for uncollectible reinsurance based on the specific facts and circumstances.