Cash dividends per share in 2014 include a $0.12 per share increase related to the fourth quarter 2013, approved by our shareholders on January 10, 2014.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a “safe harbor” for forward-looking statements. Any written or oral statements made by us or on our behalf may include forward-looking statements that reflect our current views with respect to future events and financial performance. These forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could, should potential events occur, cause actual results to differ materially from such statements. These risks, uncertainties, and other factors, which are described in more detail under Part I, Item 1A, under Risk Factors, starting on page 19 and elsewhere herein and in other documents we file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), include but are not limited to:
losses arising out of natural or man-made catastrophes such as hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, floods, climate change (including effects on weather patterns; greenhouse gases; sea, land and air temperatures; sea levels; and rain and snow), nuclear accidents, or terrorism which could be affected by:
actions that rating agencies may take from time to time, such as financial strength or credit ratings downgrades or placing these ratings on credit watch negative or the equivalent;
the effects of data privacy or cyber laws or regulation on our current or future business;
We have grown our business through increased premium volume, expansion of product offerings and geographic reach, and acquisitions of other companies. On January 14, 2016, we acquired The Chubb Corporation (Chubb Corp) which impacted all segments excluding North America Agricultural Insurance. The consolidated financial statements include results of acquired businesses from the acquisition dates.
Total pre-tax and after-tax catastrophe losses, including reinstatement premiums, were $1,626 million (5.9 percentage points of the combined ratio) and $1,354 million, respectively, compared with $2,746 million (10.2 percentage points of the combined ratio) and $2,171 million, respectively, in 2017.
Operating cash flow was $5,480 million compared with $4,503 million in 2017. Refer to the Liquidity section for additional information on our cash flows.
Net investment income was $3,305 million compared with $3,125 million in 2017.
Our consolidated financial statements include amounts that, either by their nature or due to requirements of generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. (GAAP), are determined using best estimates and assumptions. While we believe that the amounts included in our consolidated financial statements reflect our best judgment, actual amounts could ultimately materially differ from those currently presented. We believe the items that require the most subjective and complex estimates are:
As an insurance and reinsurance company, we are required by applicable laws and regulations and GAAP to establish loss and loss expense reserves for the estimated unpaid portion of the ultimate liability for losses and loss expenses under the terms of our policies and agreements with our insured and reinsured customers. At December 31, 2018, our gross unpaid loss and loss expense reserves were $63.0 billion and our net unpaid loss and loss expense reserves were $48.3 billion. With the exception of certain structured settlements, for which the timing and amount of future claim payments are reliably determinable, and certain reserves for unsettled claims that are discounted in statutory filings, our loss reserves are not discounted for the time value of money. In connection with such structured settlements and certain reserves for unsettled claims, we carried net discounted reserves of $73 million and $77 million at December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.
assumed reinsurance operation, Global Reinsurance, we may adjust the case reserves as notified by the ceding company if the judgment of our respective claims department differs from that of the cedant.
Certain long-tail lines, such as casualty and professional lines, are particularly susceptible to changes in loss trend and claim inflation. Heightened perceptions of tort and settlement awards around the world can increase the demand for these products as well as contributing to the uncertainty in the reserving estimates. Our reserving methods rely on loss development patterns estimated from historical data and while we attempt to adjust such factors for known changes in the current tort environment, it is possible that such factors may not entirely reflect all recent trends in tort environments. For example, when applying the reported loss development method, the lengthening of our selected loss development patterns by six months would increase reserve estimates on long-tail casualty and professional lines for accident years 2016 and prior by approximately $490 million. This represents an impact of 14.2 percent relative to recorded net loss and loss expense reserves of approximately $3.5 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 decades to fully develop. This uncertainty is accentuated by the need to supplement client development patterns with industry development patterns due to the sometimes low statistical 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 $380 million. This represents an impact of 51 percent relative to recorded net loss and loss expense reserves of approximately $750 million.
For additional information refer to the “Asbestos and Environmental (A&E)” section and to Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
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 based upon the same assumptions used in estimating the liability for future policy benefits. 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 assumed reinsurance and insurance contracts, products giving rise to judgments regarding risk transfer were primarily sold by our financial solutions business. Although we have significantly curtailed writing financial solutions business, several contracts remain in-force and principally include multi-year retrospectively-rated contracts and loss portfolio transfers. Because transfer of insurance risk is generally a primary client motivation for purchasing these products, relatively few insurance and reinsurance contracts have historically been written for which we concluded that risk transfer criteria had not been met. For certain insurance contracts that have been reported as deposits, the insured desired to self-insure a risk but was required, legally or otherwise, to purchase insurance so that claimants would be protected by a licensed insurance company in the event of non-payment from the insured.
The recognition of a reinsurance recoverable asset requires two key judgments. The first judgment involves our estimation based on the amount of gross reserves and the percentage of that amount which may be ceded to reinsurers. Ceded IBNR, which is a major component of the reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses and loss expenses, is generally developed as part of our loss reserving process and, consequently, its estimation is subject to similar risks and uncertainties as the estimation of gross IBNR (refer to “Critical Accounting Estimates - Unpaid losses and loss expenses”). The second judgment involves our estimate of the amount of the reinsurance recoverable balance that we may ultimately be unable to recover from reinsurers due to insolvency, contractual dispute, or for other reasons. Estimated uncollectible amounts are reflected in a provision that reduces the reinsurance recoverable asset and, in turn, shareholders' equity. Changes in the provision for uncollectible reinsurance are reflected in net income.
For reinsurers that maintain a financial strength rating from a major rating agency, and for which recoverable balances are considered representative of the larger population (i.e., default probabilities are consistent with similarly rated reinsurers and payment durations conform to averages), the judgment exercised by management to determine the provision for uncollectible reinsurance of each reinsurer is typically limited because the financial rating is based on a published source and the default factor we apply is based on a historical default factor of a major rating agency applicable to the particular rating class. Default factors applied for financial ratings of AAA, AA, A, BBB, BB, B, and CCC, are 0.8 percent, 1.2 percent, 1.7 percent, 4.9 percent, 19.6 percent, 34.0 percent, and 62.2 percent, respectively. Because our model is predicated on the historical default factors of a major rating agency, we do not generally consider alternative factors. However, when a recoverable is expected to be paid in a brief period of time by a highly-rated reinsurer, such as certain property catastrophe claims, a default factor may not be applied;
Accounting guidance defines fair value as the price to sell an asset or transfer a liability (an exit price) in an orderly transaction between market participants and establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy based on the reliability of the inputs. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets (Level 1 inputs) and the lowest priority to unobservable data (Level 3 inputs). Level 2 includes inputs, other than quoted prices within Level 1, that are observable for assets or liabilities either directly or indirectly. Refer to Note 3 and Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for information on our fair value measurements.
We intend to hold these derivative contracts to maturity (i.e., the expiration of the underlying liabilities through lapse, annuitization, death, or expiration of the reinsurance contract). To partially offset the risk of changes in the fair value of GLB
reinsurance contracts, we invest in derivative hedge instruments. At maturity, the cumulative realized gains and losses (excluding cumulative hedge gains or losses) from fair value changes of GLB reinsurance contracts will net to zero because, over time, the insurance liability will be increased or decreased to equal our obligation.
Management established benefit reserves based on a long-term benefit ratio (or loss ratio) calculated using assumptions reflecting management’s best estimate of the future short-term and long-term performance of the variable annuity line of business. Despite the long-term nature of the risk, the benefit ratio calculation is impacted by short-term market movements that may be judged by management to be transient. Management regularly examines both qualitative and quantitative analysis, including a review of the differential between the benefit ratio used at the most recent valuation date and the benefit ratio calculated on subsequent dates. Management regularly evaluates its estimates and uses judgment to determine the extent to which assumptions underlying the benefit ratio calculation should be adjusted. For the year ended December 31, 2018, management determined that no change to the benefit ratio was warranted.
For further information on the estimates and assumptions used in determining the fair value of GLB reinsurance, refer to Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. For a sensitivity discussion of the effect of changes in interest rates, equity indices, and other assumptions on the fair value of GLBs, and the estimated resulting impact on our net income, refer to