RenaissanceRe was established in Bermuda in 1993 to write principally property catastrophe reinsurance and today is a leading global provider of reinsurance and insurance coverages and related services. Our aspiration is to be the world’s best underwriter by matching well-structured risks with efficient sources of capital. Through our operating subsidiaries, we seek to produce superior returns for our shareholders by being a trusted, long-term partner to our customers for assessing and managing risk, and by delivering responsive solutions. We accomplish this by leveraging our core capabilities of risk assessment and information management, by investing in our capabilities to serve our customers across the cycles that have historically characterized our markets and by keeping our promises. Overall, our strategy focuses on superior customer relationships, superior risk selection and superior capital management. We provide value to our customers and joint venture partners in the form of financial security, innovative products, and responsive service. We are known as a leader in paying valid reinsurance claims promptly. We principally measure our financial success through long-term growth in tangible book value per common share plus the change in accumulated dividends, which we believe is the most appropriate measure of our Company’s financial performance, and believe we have delivered superior performance in respect of this measure over time.
Our core products include property catastrophe reinsurance, which we primarily write through our principal operating subsidiary Renaissance Reinsurance, Syndicate 1458, and joint ventures, principally DaVinci, Upsilon RFO and Top Layer Re; specialty reinsurance written through Renaissance Reinsurance, RenaissanceRe Specialty Risks, RenaissanceRe Specialty U.S., Syndicate 1458 and DaVinci; and certain insurance products primarily written through Syndicate 1458 or on an excess and surplus lines basis. We believe that we are one of the world’s leading providers of property catastrophe reinsurance. We also believe we have a strong position in certain specialty reinsurance lines of business and a growing presence in the Lloyd’s marketplace. Our reinsurance and insurance products are principally distributed through intermediaries, with whom we seek to cultivate strong long-term relationships. We continually explore appropriate and efficient ways to address the risk needs of our clients. We have created, managed, and continue to manage capital vehicles and may create additional risk bearing vehicles in the future. As our product and geographical diversity increases, we may be exposed to new risks, uncertainties or sources of volatility.
In conjunction with changes in our management structure during 2013, including the appointment of a new Chief Executive Officer, and changes in the mix of our reinsurance business, we revised our reportable segments to: (1) Catastrophe Reinsurance, which includes catastrophe reinsurance and certain property catastrophe joint ventures managed by our ventures unit; (2) Specialty Reinsurance, which includes specialty reinsurance and certain specialty joint ventures managed by our ventures unit; and (3) Lloyd’s, which includes reinsurance and insurance business written through Syndicate 1458. Previously, we disclosed Reinsurance and Lloyd’s as our reportable segments. All prior periods presented have been reclassified to conform to this presentation.
In addition, our Other category primarily reflects our strategic investments; investments unit; corporate expenses; capital servicing costs; noncontrolling interests; results of our discontinued operations; and the remnants of our Bermuda-based insurance operations not sold pursuant to our stock purchase agreement with QBE. Refer to “Part I, Item 1. Business, Overview and Segments” for more information about our segments.
Property catastrophe reinsurance is our traditional core business and is principally written for our own account, for DaVinci and for other joint ventures such as Upsilon RFO. We believe we are one of the world’s leading providers of this coverage, based on total catastrophe gross premiums written. This coverage protects against large natural catastrophes, such as earthquakes, hurricanes and tsunamis, as well as claims arising from other natural and man-made catastrophes such as winter storms, freezes, floods, fires, wind storms, tornadoes, explosions and acts of terrorism. We offer this coverage to insurance companies and other reinsurers primarily on an excess of loss basis. This means that we begin paying when our customers’ claims from a catastrophe exceed a certain retained amount. In recent periods, our catastrophe-exposed proportional reinsurance product offerings have grown and may continue to grow in the future.
Our Lloyd’s segment includes insurance and reinsurance business written for our own account through Syndicate 1458. The syndicate enhances our underwriting platform by providing access to Lloyd’s extensive distribution network and worldwide licenses. RenaissanceRe CCL, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of RenaissanceRe, is the sole corporate member of Syndicate 1458. RSML, a wholly owned subsidiary of RenaissanceRe, is the managing agent for Syndicate 1458. We anticipate that Syndicate 1458’s absolute and relative contributions to our consolidated results of operations will have a meaningful impact over time, although we cannot assure you we will succeed in executing our growth strategy in respect of Syndicate 1458, or that its results will be favorable.
Syndicate 1458 generally targets lines of business where we believe we can adequately quantify the risks assumed. We also seek to identify market dislocations and to write new lines of business whose risk and return characteristics are attractive and add to our portfolio of risks. Furthermore, we seek to manage the correlations of this business with our overall portfolio, including our aggregate exposure to single and aggregated catastrophe events. We believe that our underwriting and analytical capabilities have positioned us well to manage this business.
From time to time we consider diversification into new ventures, either through organic growth, the formation of new joint ventures, or the acquisition of or the investment in other companies or books of business of other companies. This potential diversification includes opportunities to write targeted, additional classes of risk-exposed business, both directly for our own account and through possible new joint venture opportunities. We also regularly evaluate potential strategic opportunities that we believe might utilize our skills, capabilities, proprietary technology and relationships to support possible expansion
We regularly review potential strategic transactions and investments that might improve our portfolio of business, enhance or focus our strategies, expand our distribution or capabilities, or to seek other benefits. In evaluating potential new ventures or investments, we generally seek an attractive estimated return on equity, the ability to develop or capitalize on a competitive advantage, and opportunities which we believe will not detract from our core operations. While we regularly review potential strategic transactions and investments, and periodically engage in discussions regarding possible transactions and investments, there can be no assurance that we will complete any such transaction or investment, or that any such transaction or investment would be successful or materially enhance our results of operations or financial condition. We believe that our ability to potentially attract investment and operational opportunities is supported by our strong reputation and financial resources, and by the capabilities and track record of our ventures unit.
On August 30, 2013, we entered into a purchase agreement with Munich to sell REAL. REAL offered certain derivative-based risk management products primarily to address weather and energy risk and engaged in hedging and trading activities related to those transactions. On October 1, 2013, we closed the sale of REAL to Munich. We have classified the assets and liabilities associated with this transaction as held for sale and, at December 31, 2013, there were no remaining assets or liabilities related to REAL included on our consolidated balance sheet. The financial results for these operations have been presented in our consolidated financial statements as “discontinued operations” for all periods presented. Except as explicitly described as held for sale or as discontinued operations, and unless otherwise noted, all discussions and amounts presented herein relate to our continuing operations. Prior years presented have been reclassified to conform to this new presentation.
On November 18, 2010, we entered into a stock purchase agreement with QBE to sell substantially all of our U.S.-based insurance operations, including our U.S. property and casualty business underwritten through managing general agents, our crop insurance business underwritten through Agro National Inc.
Our estimates of claims and claim expense reserves are not precise in that, among other matters, they are based on predictions of future developments and estimates of future trends and other variable factors. Some, but not all, of our reserves are further subject to the uncertainty inherent in actuarial methodologies and estimates. Because a reserve estimate is simply an insurer’s estimate at a point in time of its ultimate liability, and because there are numerous factors which affect reserves and claims payments that cannot be determined with certainty in advance, our ultimate payments will vary, perhaps materially, from our estimates of reserves. If we determine in a subsequent period that adjustments to our previously established reserves are appropriate, such adjustments are recorded in the period in which they are identified.
Coverage can also vary from “all property” perils to limited coverage on selected perils, such as “earthquake only” coverage. We also enter into retrocessional contracts that provide property catastrophe coverage to other reinsurers or retrocedants. This coverage is generally in the form of excess of loss retrocessional contracts and may cover all perils and exposures on a worldwide basis or be limited in scope to selected geographic areas, perils and/or exposures. The exposures we assume from retrocessional business can change within a contract term as the underwriters of a retrocedant may alter their book of business after the retrocessional coverage has been bound. We also offer dual trigger reinsurance contracts which require us to pay claims based on claims incurred by insurers and reinsurers in addition to the estimate of insured industry losses as reported by referenced statistical reporting agencies.
Reserving for most of our property catastrophe reinsurance business does not involve the use of traditional actuarial techniques. Rather, claims and claim expense reserves are estimated by management after a catastrophe occurs by completing an in-depth analysis of the individual contracts which may potentially be impacted by the catastrophic event. The in-depth analysis generally involves: 1) estimating the size of insured industry losses from the catastrophic event; 2) reviewing our portfolio of reinsurance contracts to identify those contracts which are exposed to the catastrophic event; 3) reviewing information reported by customers and brokers; 4) discussing the event with our customers and brokers; and 5) estimating the ultimate expected cost to settle all claims and administrative costs arising from the catastrophic event on a contract-by-contract basis and in aggregate for the event. Once an event has occurred, during the then current reporting period we record our best estimate of the ultimate expected cost to settle all claims arising from the event. Our estimate of claims and claim expense reserves is then determined by deducting cumulative paid losses from our estimate of the ultimate expected loss for an event and our estimate of IBNR is determined by deducting cumulative paid losses, case reserves and additional case reserves from our estimate of the ultimate expected loss for an event. Once we receive a notice of loss or payment request under a catastrophe reinsurance contract, we are generally able to process and pay such claims promptly.
The favorable development of prior accident years net claims and claim expenses within our Catastrophe Reinsurance segment in 2013 of $102.0 million was primarily due to $44.5 million, $18.0 million, $16.3 million and $10.9 million of favorable development related to reductions in the expected ultimate net loss for Storm Sandy, the Tohoku Earthquake, the 2008 Hurricanes and the 2011 New Zealand Earthquake, respectively, as reported claims came in better than expected, and $34.2 million of net favorable development related to a number of other catastrophes principally the result of reported claims coming in less than expected, resulting in decreases to the ultimate claims for these events through the application of our formulaic actuarial reserving methodology. Partially offsetting the reductions noted above was adverse development on the 2010 New Zealand Earthquake, U.S. PCS 70 and Hurricane Isaac of $11.0 million,$8.2 million and $2.6 million, respectively, associated with an increase in reported gross ultimate losses.
The favorable development of prior accident years claims and claim expenses within our Catastrophe Reinsurance segment in 2012 of $110.6 million was primarily due to net reductions of $84.2 million arising from the estimated ultimate claims of large catastrophe events, including the 2010 Chilean Earthquake, the 2008 Hurricanes, the 2007 U.K. Flooding, the 2005 Hurricanes, Hurricane Irene of 2011, the 2011 Thailand Floods and the Tohoku Earthquake, as reported claims came in better than expected. The remainder of the favorable development of prior accident years claims and claim expenses of $47.8 million was due to a reduction in ultimate claims on a number of relatively small catastrophes, all principally the result of reported claims coming in less than expected, principally resulting in formulaic decreases to the ultimate claims for these events. Partially offsetting the reductions noted above was a $17.9 million and $3.6 million increase in net claims and claim expenses from the 2011 and 2010 New Zealand Earthquake, respectively, primarily as a result of increased cedant gross ultimate loss estimates.
The following table details the development of our liability for unpaid claims and claim expenses for our Catastrophe Reinsurance segment reinsurance unit for the year ended December 31, 2011:
As quantified in the table above, since the inception of the Company in 1993, while we have experienced adverse development from time to time, on a cumulative basis we have experienced $1,037.1 million of net favorable development on the run-off of our gross reserves within our Catastrophe Reinsurance segment. This represents 15.8% of our initial estimated gross claims and claim expenses for accident years 2012 and prior of $6.5 billion and is calculated based on our estimates of claims and claim expense reserves as of December 31, 2013, compared to our initial estimates of ultimate claims and claim expenses, as of the end of each accident year. As described above, given the complexity in reserving for claims and claims expenses associated with catastrophe losses for property catastrophe excess of loss reinsurance contracts, we have experienced development, both favorable and unfavorable, in any given accident year. For example, our 2005 accident year developed favorably by $213.1 million, which is 14.5% better than our initial estimates of claims and claim expenses for the 2005 accident year as estimated as of December 31, 2005, while our 2004 accident year developed unfavorably by $52.3 million, or negative 6.9%. On a net basis, our cumulative favorable or unfavorable development is generally reduced by offsetting changes in our reinsurance recoverables, as well as changes to loss related premiums such as reinstatement premiums, and redeemable noncontrolling interest for changes in claims and claim expenses that impact DaVinciRe, all of which generally move in the opposite direction to changes in our ultimate claims and claim expenses.
The table below shows the impact on our ultimate claims and claim expenses, net income and shareholders’ equity as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013 of reasonably likely changes to our estimates of ultimate losses for claims and claim expenses incurred from catastrophic events within our Catastrophe Reinsurance segment. The reasonably likely changes are based on an historical analysis of the period-to-period variability of our ultimate costs to settle claims from catastrophic events, giving due consideration to changes in our reserving practices over time. In general, our claim reserves for our more recent catastrophic events are subject to greater uncertainty and, therefore, greater variability and are likely to experience material changes from one period to the next. This is due to the uncertainty as to the size of the industry losses from the event, uncertainty as to which contracts have been exposed to the catastrophic event, and uncertainty as to the magnitude of claims incurred by our clients. As our claims age, more information becomes available and we believe our estimates become more certain, although there is no assurance this trend will continue in the future. As a result, the sensitivity analysis below is based on the age of each accident year, our current estimated ultimate claims and claim expenses for the catastrophic events occurring in each accident year, and the reasonably likely variability of our current estimates of claims and claim expenses by accident year. The impact on net income and shareholders’ equity assumes no increase or decrease in reinsurance recoveries, loss related premium or redeemable noncontrolling interest - DaVinciRe.
Within our Specialty Reinsurance segment, we write a number of reinsurance lines such as aviation, casualty clash, catastrophe exposed personal lines property, catastrophe exposed workers’ compensation, crop, energy, financial, mortgage guaranty, political risk, surety, terrorism, trade credit, certain other casualty lines including directors and officers liability, general liability, medical malpractice and professional indemnity, and other specialty lines of reinsurance that we collectively refer to as specialty reinsurance. We offer our specialty reinsurance products principally on an excess of loss basis, as described above with respect to our property catastrophe reinsurance products, and we also provide specialty protection or proportional coverage which we expect to grow on an absolute or relative basis within this segment in the future. In a proportional reinsurance arrangement (also referred to as quota share reinsurance or pro-rata reinsurance), the reinsurer shares a proportional part of the original premiums and losses of the reinsured. We offer our specialty reinsurance products to insurance companies and other reinsurance companies and provide coverage for specific geographic regions or on a worldwide basis.
When initially developing our reserving techniques for our specialty reinsurance coverages, we considered estimating reserves utilizing several actuarial techniques such as paid and reported loss development methods. We elected to use the Bornhuetter-Ferguson actuarial method because this method is appropriate for lines of business, such as our specialty reinsurance business, where there is a lack of historical claims experience. This method allows for greater weight to be applied to expected results in periods where little or no actual experience is available, and, hence, is less susceptible to the potential pitfall of being excessively swayed by one year or one quarter of actual paid and/or reported loss data. This method uses initial expected loss ratio expectations to the extent that the expected paid or reported losses are zero, and it assumes that past experience is not fully representative of the future. As our reserves for claims and claim expenses age, and actual claims experience becomes available, this method places less weight on expected experience and places more weight on actual experience. This experience, which represents the difference between expected reported claims and actual reported claims is reflected in the respective reporting period as a change in estimate. We reevaluate our actuarial reserving techniques on a periodic basis.
The favorable development of prior accident years net claims and claim expenses within our Specialty Reinsurance segment in 2013 of $34.1 million was primarily driven by $10.4 million associated with actuarial assumption changes in the first quarter of 2013, principally in our casualty clash and casualty risk lines of business, and primarily as a result of revised initial expected claims ratios and claim development factors due to actual experience coming in better than expected and $23.7 million related to actual reported loss activity coming in better than expected, as a result of the application of our formulaic actuarial reserving methodology.
The favorable development of prior accident years net claims and claim expenses within our Specialty Reinsurance segment in the year ended December 31, 2012 of $34.1 million includes $14.4 million associated with actuarial assumption changes, principally in our casualty and medical malpractice lines of business, and primarily as a result of revised initial expected claims ratios and claim development factors due to actual experience coming in better than expected, $16.7 million related to actual reported loss activity coming in better than expected, as a result of the application of our formulaic actuarial reserving methodology, and $3.0 million due to a reduction in ultimate losses on the 2005 Hurricanes.
coming in better than expected in 2011 on prior accident years events, as a result of the application of our formulaic actuarial reserving methodology.
As each underwriting year has developed, our re-estimated expected ultimate claims and claim expense ratios have changed. In particular, our re-estimated ultimate claims and claim expense ratios decreased significantly from the initial estimates for the 2002 through 2006 underwriting years. This was principally due to our 2005 reserve review. During our 2005 reserve review, we further segmented the specialty
The table below summarizes our key actuarial assumptions in reserving for attritional losses for our specialty reinsurance and insurance lines of business in our Lloyd’s segment. As noted above, the key actuarial assumptions include the estimated ultimate claims and claim expense ratios and the estimated loss reporting patterns. The table shows our initial estimates of the ultimate claims and claim expense ratio by underwriting year. The initial estimate is based on the actuarial assumptions that were in place at the end of that year. A decrease in the ultimate claims and claim expense ratio implies that our current estimates are lower than our initial estimates while an increase in the ultimate claims and claim expense ratio implies that our current estimates are higher than our initial estimates. The result would be a corresponding favorable impact on shareholders’ equity and net income or a corresponding unfavorable impact on shareholders’ equity and net income, respectively. The table below reflects a summary of the weighted average assumptions for all classes of specialty reinsurance and insurance business in our Lloyd’s segment for which we reserve for attritional losses using the Bornhuetter-Ferguson actuarial method. The table is presented on a gross loss basis and therefore does not include the benefit of reinsurance recoveries or loss related premium such as reinstatement premium.
As each underwriting year has developed, our re-estimated expected ultimate claims and claim expense ratios have changed. In particular, our re-estimated ultimate claims and claim expense ratios decreased from the initial estimates for the 2010 and 2011 underwriting years and increased for the 2012 and 2013 underwriting years. The decrease in the re-estimated ultimate claims and claim expense ratio for the 2010 and 2011 underwriting years at December 31, 2013 was principally due to the application of our formulaic actuarial reserving methodology with the reductions being due to actual paid and reported claim activity being more favorable to date than what was originally anticipated when setting the initial reserves combined with reductions to estimated ultimate claims and claim expenses on certain large events. However, the increase in the re-estimated ultimate claims and claim expense ratio for the 2012 and 2013 underwriting years at December 31, 2013 was the result of those underwriting years performing worse than expected, due in part to experiencing claims and claim expenses related to large property losses, including Storm Sandy in 2012, and a number of smaller property-related loss events in 2013. As noted above, our specialty reinsurance and insurance lines of business are in general characterized by events of low frequency and high severity which results in actual experience that can be significantly better or worse than long-term trends or industry results for similar business may imply.
Included in the Other category are the remnants of our Bermuda-based insurance operations not sold pursuant to the stock purchase agreement with QBE. These operations are in run-off and no new business is being underwritten. Our outstanding claims and claim expense reserves for these operations include insurance policies and quota share reinsurance with respect to risks including: 1) commercial property, which principally included catastrophe-exposed commercial property products; 2) commercial multi-line, which included commercial property and liability coverage, such as general liability, automobile liability and physical damage, building and contents, professional liability and various specialty products; and 3) personal lines property, which principally included homeowners personal lines property coverage and catastrophe exposed personal lines property coverage and totaled $58.1 million at December 31, 2013.
man-made catastrophes. We estimate claim reserves for these losses after the event giving rise to these losses occurs, following a process that is similar to our Catastrophe Reinsurance segment.
The following table details the development of our liability for unpaid claims and claim expenses for our Other category split between large catastrophe events and attritional claims and claim expenses:
We estimate our valuation allowance by applying specific percentages against each reinsurance recoverable based on our counterparty’s credit rating. The percentages applied are based on historical industry default statistics developed by major rating agencies and are then adjusted by us based on industry knowledge and our judgment and estimates. We also apply case-specific valuation allowances against certain recoveries that we deem unlikely to be collected in full. We then evaluate the overall adequacy of the valuation allowance based on other qualitative and judgmental factors. The valuation allowance recorded against reinsurance recoverable was $1.7 million at December 31, 2013 (2012 - $4.5 million). The reinsurers with the three largest balances accounted for 28.2%, 19.9% and 11.0%, respectively, of our reinsurance recoverable balance at December 31, 2013 (2012 - 14.3%, 14.3% and 12.6%, respectively). The three largest company-specific components of the valuation allowance represented 14.2%, 12.5% and 3.1%, respectively, of our total valuation allowance at December 31, 2013 (2012 - 44.1%, 26.7% and 6.1%, respectively).
See "Note 19. Derivative Instruments in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” for additional information related to the fair value by type of contract, of derivatives entered into by us.
The amount and timing of asset impairment is subject to significant estimation techniques and asset impairment is a critical accounting estimate for us. The more significant impairment reviews we complete are for our equity method investments, goodwill and other intangible assets, and fixed maturity investments available for sale, as described in more detail below.
The Company has unrecognized tax benefits of $Nil as of December 31, 2013 (2012 - $Nil). Interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits, would be recognized in income tax expense. At December 31, 2013, interest and penalties accrued on unrecognized tax benefits were $Nil (2012 - $Nil). Income tax returns filed for tax years 2009 through 2012, 2009 through 2012, 2012 and 2012, are open for examination by the Internal Revenue Service, Irish tax authorities, U.K. tax authorities, and Singapore tax authorities, respectively. The Company does not expect the resolution of these open years to have a significant impact on its consolidated statements of operations and financial condition.
Below is a discussion of the results of operations for 2013 compared to 2012.
Net income available to RenaissanceRe common shareholders was $665.7 million in 2013, compared to $566.0 million in 2012, an increase of $99.7 million. As a result of our net income available to RenaissanceRe common shareholders in 2013, we generated an annualized return on average common equity of 20.5% and our book value per common share increased from $68.14 at December 31, 2012 to $80.29 at December 31, 2013, a 19.5% increase, after considering the change in accumulated dividends paid to our common shareholders.
Improved Underwriting Results - our underwriting income of $626.7 million in 2013 increased $175.3 million from $451.5 million in 2012 and was positively impacted by a decrease in net claims and claim expenses of $153.9 million, principally due to lower insured losses in respect of large events. Included in underwriting income for 2013 was $22.9 million and $12.7 million of underwriting losses related to the May 2013 U.S. Tornadoes and the European Floods. In comparison, Storm Sandy and Hurricane Isaac resulted in $149.1 million and $26.3 million of underwriting losses in 2012, respectively. Favorable development on prior accident years was $144.0 million in 2013, compared to $158.0 million in 2012, primarily driven by the Catastrophe Reinsurance segment, as discussed further below; partially offset by
Lower Total Investment Result - our total investment result of $235.1 million in 2013, which includes the sum of net investment income of $208.0 million, net realized and unrealized gains on investments of $35.1 million, net other-than-temporary impairments of $Nil and the decrease in net unrealized gains on fixed maturity investments available for sale of $8.0 million, decreased by $94.0 million in 2013, from $329.1 million in 2012. The decrease in the total investment result was primarily due to lower total returns in our fixed maturity investment portfolio as a result of a rising interest rate environment in 2013, compared to the significant contraction in credit spreads yielding higher returns from our fixed maturity investment portfolio in 2012; partially offset by realized and unrealized gains in our portfolio of equity investments trading in 2013, compared to 2012, and improved returns in our portfolio of other investments, primarily driven by our investment in the common shares of Essent; and
Net Income Attributable to Noncontrolling Interests - our net income attributable to noncontrolling interests was $151.1 million in 2013, compared to $148.0 million in 2012, an increase of $3.1 million and was primarily due to our noncontrolling economic ownership percentage in DaVinciRe decreasing to 27.3% at December 31, 2013, compared to 30.8% at December 31, 2012, resulting in an increase in the portion of DaVinciRe’s net income attributable to noncontrolling interests.
Below is a discussion of the results of operations for 2012 compared to 2011.
Increased Gross Premiums Written - gross premiums written increased $116.6 million, or 8.1%, to $1,551.6 million. Excluding the impact of $20.1 million and $160.3 million of net reinstatement premiums written from large losses in 2012 and 2011, respectively, gross premiums written increased $256.8 million, or 20.1% for the year, due to a combination of improved pricing during the 2012 renewals within our core markets, and continued growth across most lines of business within our Specialty Reinsurance and Lloyd’s segments;
Significantly Improved Underwriting Results - underwriting income of $451.5 million and a combined ratio of 57.8% in 2012, compared to an underwriting loss of $177.2 million and a combined ratio of 118.6% in 2011, was positively impacted by the increase in gross premiums written, noted above, and a
Other Loss - our other loss deteriorated $46.5 million to a loss of $2.1 million in 2012, compared to income of $44.3 million in 2011, primarily the result of ceded reinsurance contracts accounted for at fair value which incurred a loss of $4.6 million in 2012, compared to income of $37.4 million in 2011, due to net recoverables on the Tohoku Earthquake in the first quarter of 2011 which did not reoccur in 2012; and
Excluding the impact of the $24.1 million of net negative reinstatement premiums written and $17.1 million of net positive reinstatement premiums written in 2013 and 2012, respectively, gross premiums written decreased $20.6 million, or 1.8% primarily due to the reduction in gross premiums written, discussed above.
The $112.5 million increase in the Catastrophe Reinsurance segment’s underwriting result and 20.1 percentage point decrease in the combined ratio were driven by a relatively light catastrophe loss year resulting in a $165.8 million decrease in current accident year net claims and claim expenses, combined with a $17.5 million decrease in acquisition expenses, partially offset by a $58.0 million decrease in net premiums earned. Included in underwriting results for the Catastrophe Reinsurance segment in 2013 are $21.9 million and $10.7 million of underwriting losses related to the May 2013 U.S. Tornadoes and the European Floods, respectively. The decrease in acquisition expenses is primarily attributable to increases in profit commissions on certain ceded reinsurance contracts entered into which are netted with acquisition expenses, as discussed further below.
Losses from our Catastrophe Reinsurance segment can be infrequent, but severe, as demonstrated by our 2011 results. Although 2012 was generally considered to be the third most costly year for industry-wide insured property catastrophe losses, behind only 2011 and 2005, we incurred a relatively low level of net claims and claim expenses. During periods in which we experience relatively low levels of property
During 2013, we experienced $102.0 million of favorable development on prior year reserves within the Catastrophe Reinsurance segment, compared to $110.6 million in 2012, primarily due to $44.5 million, $18.0 million, $16.3 million and $10.9 million of favorable development related to reductions in the expected ultimate net loss for Storm Sandy (as detailed in the table above), the Tohoku Earthquake, the 2008 Hurricanes and the 2011 New Zealand Earthquake, respectively, as reported claims on these events came in lower than expected, and $34.2 million of net favorable development related to a number of other catastrophes principally the result of reported claims coming in lower than expected, resulting in decreases to the ultimate claims for these events through the application of our formulaic actuarial reserving methodology. Partially offsetting the reductions noted above was adverse development on the 2010 New Zealand Earthquake, U.S. PSC 70 and Hurricane Isaac of $11.0 million, $8.2 million and $2.6 million, respectively, associated with an increase in reported gross ultimate losses.
Below is a summary of the underwriting results and ratios for our Specialty Reinsurance segment:
Specialty Reinsurance Gross Premiums Written - In 2013, our Specialty Reinsurance segment gross premiums written increased $49.6 million, or 23.6%, to $259.5 million, compared to $209.9 million in 2012, primarily due to the inception of a number of new contracts which met our risk-adjusted return thresholds including additional quota share business.
In 2012, our Specialty Reinsurance segment gross premiums written increased $64.0 million, or 43.9%, to $209.9 million, compared to $145.9 million in 2011, primarily due to the inception of a number of new contracts during 2012 which met our risk-adjusted return thresholds.
During 2013 and 2012, we experienced growth in a number of our specialty lines of business and will continue to seek to expand our specialty reinsurance operations through this platform, although we cannot assure you that we will do so. Our specialty reinsurance premiums are prone to significant volatility as this business is characterized by a relatively small number of comparably large transactions.
part, an assessment that the underlying business written by certain of our primary insurer clients had improved on a risk-adjusted basis, making this coverage more attractive in our portfolio.
Specialty Reinsurance Underwriting Results - Our Specialty Reinsurance segment generated underwriting income of $73.8 million in 2013, compared to $34.9 million in 2012. In 2013, our Specialty Reinsurance segment generated a net claims and claim expense ratio of 31.4%, an underwriting expense ratio of 34.2% and a combined ratio of 65.6%, compared to 46.6%, 32.2% and 78.8%, respectively, in 2012. The $38.8 million increase in underwriting income and 13.2 percentage point decrease in the combined ratio is primarily due to a $49.6 million increase in net premiums earned as a result of the growth in gross premiums written over the prior twelve months and a $9.6 million decrease in net claims and claim expenses, partially offset by a $17.7 million increase in acquisition expenses due to higher net premiums earned and a higher proportion of quota share reinsurance premiums which have a higher acquisition expense ratio. Current accident year net claims and claim expenses of $101.3 million in 2013 were principally the result of the application of our formulaic actuarial reserving methodologies for establishing incurred but not reported reserves for net claims and claim expenses.
Current accident year net claims and claim expenses of $111.0 million in 2012 includes $16.0 million related to estimated ultimate losses associated with potential exposure to LIBOR related claims attributable to the current accident year, $11.0 million related to Storm Sandy and $5.0 million related to the grounding of the Costa Concordia cruise ship, with the remainder principally due to reported attritional losses and the application of our formulaic reserving methodologies for establishing incurred but not reported reserves for net claims and claim expenses.
Lloyd’s Gross Premiums Written - Gross premiums written in our Lloyd’s segment increased by $66.5 million, or 41.6%, to $226.5 million in 2013, compared to $160.0 million in 2012, primarily due to Syndicate 1458 continuing to organically grow its specialty book of business across several of its lines of business.
The favorable development of $16.2 million within our Lloyd’s segment in 2012 included $5.5 million related to the 2011 Thailand Floods, $2.5 million related to Hurricane Irene and $1.3 million related to actuarial assumption changes, with the remainder primarily due to reported claims coming in lower than expected on a number of prior accident years events, as a result of the application of our formulaic actuarial reserving methodology.
Included in our Other category are primarily the underwriting results related to the remnants of our Bermuda-based insurance operations not sold pursuant to the stock purchase agreement with QBE. Included in our Other category was an underwriting loss of $0.5 million in 2013, primarily due to $0.5 million of net adverse development on prior accident years net claims and claim expenses.
Low interest rates in recent years have lowered the yields at which we invest our assets relative to historical levels, though recent interest rate increases have generated net realized and unrealized losses on investments while increasing our portfolio yield. We expect these developments, combined with the current composition of our investment portfolio and other factors, to constrain investment income growth for the near term. The hedge fund, private equity and other investment portfolios are accounted for at fair value with the change in fair value recorded in net investment income which included net unrealized gains of $75.8 million in 2013, compared to $38.2 million of net unrealized gains in 2012.
Net investment income was $165.7 million in 2012, compared to $146.9 million in 2011. The $18.9 million increase in net investment income in 2012 was driven by a $29.3 million increase in the returns from our allocation to senior secured bank loan funds and insurance-linked securities included in other in the table above and a $9.1 million increase in the returns from our portfolio of hedge funds and private equity investments, with the increase primarily from our private equity investments due to higher fund valuations. These increases were offset by a $13.2 million decrease from our fixed maturity investments portfolio as a result of lower total returns. The hedge fund, private equity and other investment portfolios are accounted for at fair value with the change in fair value recorded in net investment income which included net unrealized gains of $38.2 million in 2012, compared to $12.7 million of net unrealized gains in 2011.
Commencing in the first quarter of 2011, we established an internal portfolio of certain publicly traded equities which are reflected in our consolidated balance sheet as equity investments trading. During the first quarter of 2013, we sold substantially all of the securities then held in our portfolio of internally managed public equity investments trading.
Our investment portfolio is structured to seek to preserve capital and provide us with a high level of liquidity. A large majority of our investments are invested in the fixed income markets and, therefore, our realized and unrealized holding gains and losses on investments are highly correlated to fluctuations in interest rates. Therefore, as interest rates decline, we will tend to have realized and unrealized gains from our investment portfolio, and as interest rates rise, we will tend to have realized and unrealized losses from our investment portfolio.
Net realized and unrealized gains on investments were $35.1 million in 2013, compared to gains of $163.1 million in 2012, a decrease of $128.0 million. The net unrealized losses on our fixed maturity investments trading of $87.8 million during 2013, deteriorated $163.1 million, compared to unrealized gains of $75.3 million in 2012, primarily due to a rising interest rate environment during 2013, compared to 2012 where significant contraction in credit spreads yielded positive returns from our fixed maturity investment portfolio. In addition, realized gains on equity investments trading of $26.7 million was principally the result of the sale of substantially all of our portfolio of internally managed public equity investments trading during the first quarter of 2013. Unrealized gains on equity investments trading of $42.9 million in 2013, increased $35.3 million, compared to $7.6 million in 2012, principally due to unrealized gains of $35.5 million recorded in the fourth quarter of 2013 related to our investment in Essent (as discussed above in “Net Investment Income”), combined with improved pricing in equity markets for 2013.
Equity in earnings (losses) of other ventures primarily represents our pro-rata share of the net income (loss) from our investments in Top Layer Re and the Tower Hill Companies, with the equity in earnings from these entities, except Top Layer Re, recorded one quarter in arrears.
Corporate expenses include certain executive, director, legal and consulting expenses, costs for research and development, impairment charges related to goodwill and other intangible assets, and other miscellaneous costs, including those associated with operating as a publicly traded company. Corporate expenses were $33.6 million in 2013, compared to $16.5 million in 2012, with the increase primarily driven by the senior management transition changes announced during the second quarter of 2013 which totaled $16.8 million. Corporate expenses were $16.5 million in 2012, compared to $18.2 million in 2011, with the decrease driven by the absence of certain goodwill and intangible asset impairments of $5.2 million which were incurred in 2011, and partially offset by a corporate insurance recovery of $1.7 million, recorded in 2011, which did not reoccur in 2012.
Interest expense was $17.9 million in 2013, compared to $23.1 million in 2012, with the decrease driven by the repayment of our 5.875% Senior Notes upon their scheduled maturity of February 15, 2013 using available cash and investments. In addition, our preferred share dividends in 2013 were $24.9 million, compared to $34.9 million in 2012, with the $9.9 million decrease driven by the redemption of our remaining 6 million Series D Preference Shares and 5 million Series C Preference Shares upon the issuance of our Series E Preference Shares in May 2013. With the redemption of our remaining outstanding Series D
Preference Shares and 5.0 million Series C Preference Shares as noted in the table above, and in the absence of issuing new preference shares, we expect our future preference share dividends to decrease in 2014 as a result of the lower coupon rate on the Series E Preference Shares, relative to the Series C and Series D Preference Shares.
Interest expense was relatively flat at $23.1 million in 2012, compared to $23.4 million in 2011. In addition, our preferred share dividends were also relatively flat at $34.9 million in 2012, compared to $35.0 million in 2011.
We are subject to income taxes in certain jurisdictions in which we operate; however, since the majority of our income is currently earned in Bermuda, which does not have a corporate income tax, the tax impact to our operations has historically been minimal. During 2013, we incurred an income tax expense of $1.7 million, compared to income tax expense of $1.4 million and $10.4 million, in 2012 and 2011, respectively. Income tax expense in 2011 was principally the result of establishing a full valuation allowance against our deferred tax asset related to our U.S. tax-paying subsidiaries as described below.
Losses incurred within our U.S. tax-paying subsidiaries in the fourth quarter of 2011 were significant enough to result in a cumulative GAAP taxable loss for the three year period ended December 31, 2011. We reassess our valuation allowance on a quarterly basis and commencing with our reassessment effective December 31, 2011, we determined that it was more likely than not that we would not be able to recover our U.S. net deferred tax asset and increased our valuation allowance in the fourth quarter of 2011 to reduce our net deferred tax asset to $Nil. At December 31, 2013, our U.S. tax-paying subsidiaries had a net deferred tax asset of $43.9 million, for which a full valuation allowance has been provided. The remaining valuation allowance as of December 31, 2013 relates exclusively to our operations in Ireland, the U.K. and Singapore. Our Ireland, U.K. and Singapore operations have produced GAAP taxable losses and we currently do not believe it is more likely than not that we will be able to recover our net deferred tax assets from these jurisdictions. Our valuation allowance totaled $56.1 million and $35.1 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
The preponderance of our revenue and pre-tax income is generated by our domestic operations (i.e. Bermuda) in the form of underwriting income and net investment income, when compared to our foreign operations. The geographic distribution of pre-tax income can vary significantly between periods due to, but not limited, the following factors: the business mix of net premiums written and earned; the size and nature of net claims and claim expenses incurred; the amount and geographic location of operating expenses, net investment income and net realized and unrealized gains (losses) on investments; and the amount of specific adjustments to determine the income tax basis in each of our operating jurisdictions. Pre-tax income for our domestic operations (i.e. Bermuda) was higher compared to our foreign operations for the
years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 primarily as a result of the more volatile catastrophe business underwritten in our Bermuda operations during these periods being relatively free of catastrophe losses and thus generating higher levels of net underwriting income than our foreign operations, which underwrite primarily less volatile business and as a result produce lower levels of net underwriting income in benign loss years. During the year ended December 31, 2011, our domestic operations incurred a loss from continuing operations primarily as a result of significant catastrophe losses experienced during the period resulting in underwriting losses.
Income (loss) from discontinued operations includes the financial results of REAL and substantially all of our U.S.-based insurance operations sold to QBE. Income from discontinued operations was $2.4 million in 2013, compared to a loss from discontinued operations of $16.5 million in 2012. Included in income from discontinued operations in 2013 is trading-related income of $10.5 million related to REAL, partially offset by an $8.8 million loss on sale of REAL. In comparison, the loss from discontinued operations of $16.5 million in 2012 was primarily due to REAL experiencing trading losses driven by unusually warm weather experienced in parts of the United Kingdom and the United States, principally during the first quarter of 2012.
RenaissanceRe is a holding company, and we therefore rely on dividends from our subsidiaries and investment income to make principal and interest payments on our debt and to make dividend payments to our preference and common shareholders.
The payment of dividends by our subsidiaries is, under certain circumstances, limited under statutory regulations and insurance law, which require our insurance subsidiaries to maintain certain measures of solvency and liquidity. In addition, Bermuda regulations require approval from the Bermuda Monetary Authority (“BMA”) for any reduction of capital in excess of 15% of statutory capital, as defined in the Insurance Act. The Insurance Act also requires these Bermuda insurance subsidiaries of the Company to maintain certain measures of solvency and liquidity. At December 31, 2013, the statutory capital and surplus of our Bermuda insurance subsidiaries was $3.2 billion (December 31, 2012 - $3.1 billion) and the minimum amount required to be maintained under Bermuda law, the Minimum Solvency Margin, was $562.1 million (December 31, 2012 - $554.8 million). During 2013, Renaissance Reinsurance, DaVinciRe and the operating subsidiaries of RenRe Insurance Holdings Ltd. returned capital to RenaissanceRe, which included dividends declared and return of capital, net of capital contributions received, of $506.9 million, $97.2 million and $Nil, respectively (2012 - $282.0 million, $133.3 million and $Nil, respectively).
The activities of the Singapore Branches are regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore pursuant to Singapore’s Insurance Act and by the ACRA as foreign companies pursuant to Singapore’s Companies Act. Renaissance Services of Asia Pte. Ltd. is registered with the ACRA and subject to Singapore’s Companies Act.
As a Bermuda-domiciled holding company, RenaissanceRe has limited operations of its own and its assets consist primarily of investments in subsidiaries, and to a degree, cash and securities in amounts which fluctuate over time. Accordingly, RenaissanceRe’s future cash flows largely depend on the availability of dividends or other statutorily permissible payments from subsidiaries. The ability to pay such dividends is limited by the applicable laws and regulations of the various countries and states in which these subsidiaries operate, including, among others, Bermuda, the U.S., Ireland, and the U.K. Refer to “Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Liquidity and Capital Resources, Financial Condition” for further discussion and details regarding dividend capacity of our major operating subsidiaries.
Historically, cash receipts from operations, consisting of premiums and investment income, generally have provided sufficient funds to pay losses as well as operating expenses of our subsidiaries and to fund dividends to RenaissanceRe. Cash receipts from operations are generally derived from the receipt of investment income on our investment portfolio as well as the net receipt of premiums less net claims and claims expenses and underwriting expenses related to our underwriting activities. The premiums received by our operating subsidiaries are generally received months or even years before losses are paid under the policies related to such premiums. Premiums and acquisition expenses are settled based on terms of trade as stipulated by an underwriting contract, and generally are received within the first year of inception of a policy when the premium is written, but can be longer on certain reinsurance business assumed. Operating expenses are generally paid within a year of being incurred. Claims and claims expenses may take a much longer time before they are reported and ultimately settled, requiring the establishment of reserves for claims and claim expenses. Therefore, the amount of claims paid in any one year is not necessarily related to the amount of net claims incurred in that year, as reported in the consolidated statement of operations.
In addition we maintain letter of credit facilities which provide liquidity. Refer to “Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Liquidity and Capital Resources, Capital Resources” for details of these facilities.
During 2012, our cash and cash equivalents increased $108.4 million, to $325.4 million at December 31, 2012, compared to $217.0 million at December 31, 2011, which excludes a decrease of $13.9 million in cash and cash equivalents related to discontinued operations held for sale.
Cash flows provided by operating activities. Cash flows provided by operating activities during 2012 were $716.9 million, compared to $165.9 million in 2011. Cash flows provided by operating activities during 2012 were primarily the result of certain adjustments to reconcile our net income of $748.9 million to net cash provided by operating activities, including: a reduction in reinsurance recoverable of $211.5 million primarily due to the collection of those balances, an increase in unearned premiums of $51.9 million due to the timing of, and growth in, our gross premiums written, and a $33.5 million increase in reinsurance balances payable due to the timing of, and increase in, our premiums ceded, and partially offset by an adjustment for net realized and unrealized gains on investments of $164.0 million due to improved total returns in our portfolios of fixed maturity and other investments, a decrease in our reserve for claims and claim expenses of $113.0 million driven by the payment of claims and by favorable development on prior accident years net claims and claims expenses during 2012, an increase in premiums receivable of $19.5 million due to increased gross premiums written and an increase in our prepaid reinsurance premiums of $18.6 million due to the timing of, and increase in, our premiums ceded. As discussed under “Summary of Results of Operations”, we generated higher underwriting income and higher investment results in 2012 compared to 2011, which contributed to the increase in cash flows provided by operating activities.
We believe the most significant accounting judgment made by management is our estimate of claims and claim expense reserves. Claims and claim expense reserves represent estimates, including actuarial and statistical projections at a given point in time, of the ultimate settlement and administration costs for unpaid claims and claim expenses arising from the insurance and reinsurance contracts we sell. We establish our claims and claim expense reserves by taking claims reported to us by insureds and ceding companies, but which have not yet been paid (“case reserves”), adding the costs for additional case reserves (“additional
case reserves”) which represent our estimates for claims previously reported to us which we believe may not be adequately reserved as of that date, and adding estimates for the anticipated cost of IBNR.
The following table summarizes our claims and claim expense reserves by line of business and split between case reserves, additional case reserves and IBNR:
Reserving for our reinsurance claims involves other uncertainties, such as the dependence on information from ceding companies, which among other matters, includes the time lag inherent in reporting information from the primary insurer to us or to our ceding companies and differing reserving practices among ceding companies. The information received from ceding companies is typically in the form of bordereaux, broker notifications of loss and/or discussions with ceding companies or their brokers. This information can be received on a monthly, quarterly or transactional basis and normally includes estimates of paid claims and case reserves. We sometimes also receive an estimate or provision for IBNR. This information is often updated and adjusted from time to time during the loss settlement period as new data or facts in respect of initial claims, client accounts, industry or event trends may be reported or emerge in addition to changes in applicable statutory and case laws.
uncertainty of our estimates for certain of these large events is additionally impacted by the preliminary nature of the information available, the magnitude and relative infrequency of the events, the expected duration of the respective claims development period, inadequacies in the data provided to the relevant date by industry participants and the potential for further reporting lags or insufficiencies (particularly in respect of our current reserves arising from the Chilean, 2010 New Zealand, 2011 New Zealand and Tohoku Earthquakes); and in the case of Storm Sandy and the Thailand Floods, significant uncertainty as to the form of the claims and legal issues, under the relevant terms of insurance and reinsurance contracts. In addition, a significant portion of the net claims and claim expenses associated with Storm Sandy and the New Zealand and Tohoku Earthquakes are concentrated with a few large clients and therefore the loss estimates for these events may vary significantly based on the claims experience of those clients. Loss reserve estimation in respect of our retrocessional contracts poses further challenges compared to directly assumed reinsurance. A significant portion of our reinsurance recoverable relates to the New Zealand and Tohoku Earthquakes. There is inherent uncertainty and complexity in evaluating loss reserve levels and reinsurance recoverable amounts, due to the nature of the losses relating to earthquake events, including that loss development time frames tend to take longer with respect to earthquake events. The contingent nature of business interruption and other exposures may also impact losses in a meaningful way, especially in respect of our current reserves with regard to Storm Sandy, the Tohoku Earthquake and the Thailand Floods, which we believe may give rise to significant complexity in respect of claims handling, claims adjustment and other coverage issues, over time. Given the magnitude and relatively recent occurrence of these large events, meaningful uncertainty remains regarding total covered losses for the insurance industry and, accordingly, several of the key assumptions underlying our loss estimates. In addition, our actual net losses from these events may increase if our reinsurers or other obligors fail to meet their obligations.
As discussed below, during May 2013, RenaissanceRe raised $275.0 million through the issuance of 11 million Series E Preference Shares, and subsequently redeemed the remaining 6 million Series D Preference Shares for $150.0 million and 5 million Series C Preference Shares for $125.0 million, or a total of $275.0 million.
In March 2004, RenaissanceRe raised $250.0 million through the issuance of 10 million Series C Preference Shares at $25 per share; in December 2006, RenaissanceRe raised $300.0 million through the issuance of 12 million Series D Preference Shares at $25 per share; and in May 2013, RenaissanceRe raised $275.0 million through the issuance of 11 million Series E Preference Shares at $25 per share. On December 27, 2012, RenaissanceRe redeemed 6 million Series D Preference Shares for $150.0 million plus accrued and unpaid dividends thereon. Following the redemption, 6 million Series D Preference Shares remained outstanding. The proceeds of the issuance of the Series E Preference Shares were used to redeem the remaining 6 million outstanding Series D Preference Shares and 5 million of the outstanding Series C Preference Shares, as discussed below.
In May 2013, RenaissanceRe announced a mandatory redemption of the remaining 6 million of its outstanding Series D Preference Shares and on June 27, 2013 RenaissanceRe redeemed the remaining 6 million Series D Preference Shares called for redemption for $150.0 million plus accrued and unpaid dividends thereon. Following the redemption, no Series D Preference Shares remain outstanding. In addition, in May 2013, RenaissanceRe announced a mandatory partial redemption of 5 million of its outstanding Series C Preference Shares. The partial redemption was allocated by random lottery in accordance with the Depository Trust Company’s rules and procedures and on June 27, 2013 RenaissanceRe redeemed the 5 million Series C Preference Shares called for redemption for $125.0 million plus accrued and unpaid dividends thereon. Following the redemption, 5 million Series C Preference Shares remain outstanding.
In January 2003, RenaissanceRe issued $100.0 million, which represented the carrying amount on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet, of 5.875% Senior Notes due February 15, 2013, with interest on the notes payable on February 15 and August 15 of each year. RenaissanceRe repaid the notes in full upon their scheduled maturity on February 15, 2013 using available cash and investments. Currently, the Company does not plan to replace the notes with additional indebtedness.
RenaissanceRe is a party to a Credit Agreement, dated as of May 17, 2012 (the “Credit Agreement”), with various banks and financial institutions parties thereto (collectively, the “Lenders”), Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Wells Fargo”), as fronting bank, letter of credit administrator and administrative agent (the “Administrative Agent”) for the Lenders, and certain other agents. The Credit Agreement previously provided for commitments from the Lenders in an aggregate amount of $150.0 million, including the issuance of letters of credit for the respective accounts of RenaissanceRe and certain of RenaissanceRe’s subsidiaries. Effective as of May 23, 2013, RenaissanceRe entered into a First Amendment and Joinder to Credit Agreement (the “Amendment”) with the Administrative Agent and the Lenders. Among other items, the Amendment (i) increased the aggregate commitment of the Lenders to $250.0 million, (ii) added an additional bank as a Lender, and (iii) eliminated the commitment of the Lenders to issue letters of credit. After giving effect to the Amendment, RenaissanceRe has the right, subject to certain conditions, to increase the size of the facility up to $350.0 million.
Effective May 17, 2012, RenaissanceRe and certain of its affiliates, Renaissance Reinsurance, ROE, RenaissanceRe Specialty Risks and DaVinci (such affiliates, collectively, the “Account Parties”), entered into a Fourth Amended and Restated Reimbursement Agreement with various banks and financial institutions parties thereto (collectively, the “Banks”), Wells Fargo, as issuing bank, administrative agent and collateral agent for the Banks, and certain other agents (the “Reimbursement Agreement”). The Reimbursement Agreement amended and restated in its entirety the Third Amended and Restated Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of April 22, 2010, which was terminated concurrently with the effectiveness of the Reimbursement Agreement. The commitments under the Reimbursement Agreement expire on May 17, 2015.
sources of credit enhancement. Prior to the expiration date of May 17, 2015, the commitments under the facility may be increased from time to time up to an amount not to exceed $600.0 million in the aggregate, subject to RenaissanceRe satisfying certain conditions. The Reimbursement Agreement contains representations, warranties and covenants in respect of RenaissanceRe, the Account Parties and their respective subsidiaries that are customary for facilities of this type, including customary covenants limiting the ability to merge, consolidate and sell a substantial amount of assets. The Reimbursement Agreement contains certain financial covenants requiring RenaissanceRe and DaVinci to maintain, for the year ending December 31, 2014, a minimum net worth of approximately $2.0 billion and $781.2 million, respectively, which requirements are recalculated effective as of the end of each fiscal year, all as more fully set forth in the Reimbursement Agreement.
Effective October 1, 2013, each of ROE and RenaissanceRe Specialty U.S. became parties to the existing Bilateral Facility provided pursuant to the facility letter, dated September 17, 2010 and amended July 14, 2011 (as so amended, the “Facility Letter”), among Citibank Europe plc (“CEP”) and the existing participants: Renaissance Reinsurance, DaVinci and RenaissanceRe Specialty Risks (collectively, the “Bilateral Facility Participants”). The Bilateral Facility provides a commitment from CEP to issue letters of credit for the account of one or more of the Bilateral Facility Participants (inclusive of ROE and RenaissanceRe Specialty U.S.) and their respective subsidiaries in multiple currencies and in an aggregate amount of up to $300.0 million, subject to a sublimit of $50.0 million for letters of credit issued for the account of RenaissanceRe Specialty U.S. The Bilateral Facility was to expire on December 31, 2013; however effective October 1, 2013, the Bilateral Facility was extended to December 31, 2014. The Bilateral Facility is evidenced by the Facility Letter and five separate master agreements between CEP and each of the Bilateral Facility Participants, as well as certain ancillary agreements. At December 31, 2013, $258.3 million remained unused and available to the Bilateral Facility Participants under the Bilateral Facility.
At December 31, 2013, we had total letters of credit outstanding under all facilities of $584.4 million.
Effective December 31, 2012, each of Renaissance Reinsurance and DaVinci has been approved as an
DaVinciRe shareholders are party to a shareholders agreement (the “Shareholders Agreement”) which provides DaVinciRe shareholders, excluding us, with certain redemption rights that enable each shareholder to notify DaVinciRe of such shareholder’s desire for DaVinciRe to repurchase up to half of such shareholder’s aggregate number of shares held, subject to certain limitations, such as limiting the aggregate of all share repurchase requests to 25% of DaVinciRe’s capital in any given year and satisfying all applicable regulatory requirements. If total shareholder requests exceed 25% of DaVinciRe’s capital, the number of shares repurchased will be reduced among the requesting shareholders pro-rata, based on the amounts desired to be repurchased. Shareholders desiring to have DaVinciRe repurchase their shares must notify DaVinciRe before March 1 of each year. The repurchase price will be based on GAAP book value as of the end of the year in which the shareholder notice is given, and the repurchase will be effective as of such date. Payment will be made by April 1 of the following year, following delivery of the audited financial statements for the year in which the repurchase was effective. The repurchase price is subject to a true-up for development on outstanding loss reserves after settlement of all claims relating to the applicable years.
During January 2013, DaVinciRe redeemed shares from certain DaVinciRe shareholders, including the Company, while certain other existing DaVinciRe shareholders purchased additional shares in DaVinciRe. The net redemption as a result of these transactions was $150.0 million. In connection with the redemptions, DaVinciRe retained a $20.5 million holdback. Our noncontrolling economic ownership in DaVinciRe was 30.8% at December 31, 2012 and subsequent to the above transactions, our noncontrolling economic ownership in DaVinciRe increased to 32.9% effective January 1, 2013.
Effective October 1, 2013, an existing third party shareholder sold a portion of its shares in DaVinciRe to a new third party shareholder. In addition, effective October 1, 2013, we sold a portion of our shares in DaVinciRe to the same new third party shareholder. We sold these shares for $77.4 million. Our noncontrolling economic ownership in DaVinciRe was 32.9% at September 30, 2013 and subsequent to the above transactions, our noncontrolling economic ownership interest in DaVinciRe decreased and was 27.3% at December 31, 2013.
The A.M. Best, S&P, Moody's and Fitch ratings for these companies reflect the insurer's financial strength rating and in addition, the S&P ratings also reflect the insurer's issuer credit rating.
On June 12, 2013, A.M. Best affirmed the FSR of “A+” (Superior) of Top Layer Re. The outlook is stable for this rating.
On August 13, 2013, S&P upgraded the ICR and FSR on RenaissanceRe Specialty Risks to “A+” from “A”. The outlook is stable for these ratings.
On May 23, 2013, S&P affirmed its ICR of “A” on RenaissanceRe and its “A” senior debt rating on our senior unsecured notes. In addition, S&P affirmed its “AA-“ ICR and FSR on Renaissance Reinsurance and ROE and upgraded its “A+” ICR and FSR to “AA-“ on DaVinci. The outlook is stable for these ratings.
Moody’s. Moody’s Insurance Financial Strength Ratings represent its opinions of the ability of insurance companies to pay punctually policyholder claims and obligations and senior unsecured debt instruments. Moody’s believes that insurance companies rated “A1”, such as Renaissance Reinsurance, and companies rated “A3”, such as DaVinci, offer good financial security. However, Moody’s believes that elements may be present which suggest a susceptibility to impairment sometime in the future.
On October 7, 2013, Moody’s affirmed its “A1” insurance FSR on Renaissance Reinsurance and its “A3” insurance FSR on DaVinci. The outlook is stable for these ratings.
While the ratings of our principal operating subsidiaries and joint ventures remain among the highest in our business, adverse ratings actions could have a negative effect on our ability to fully realize current or future market opportunities. In addition, it is common for our reinsurance contracts to contain provisions permitting our customers to cancel coverage pro-rata if our relevant operating subsidiary is downgraded below a certain rating level. Whether a client would exercise this right would depend, among other factors, on the reason for such a downgrade, the extent of the downgrade, the prevailing market conditions and the pricing and availability of replacement reinsurance coverage. Therefore, in the event of a downgrade, it is not possible to predict in advance the extent to which this cancellation right would be exercised, if at all, or what effect such cancellations would have on our financial condition or future operations, but such effect potentially could be material. To date, we are not aware that we have experienced such a cancellation. Our ratings are subject to periodic review and may be revised or revoked by the agencies which issue them.
At December 31, 2013, we held investments totaling $6.8 billion, compared to $6.4 billion at December 31, 2012, with net unrealized appreciation included in accumulated other comprehensive income of $4.1 million at December 31, 2013, compared to $13.6 million at December 31, 2012. Our investment guidelines stress preservation of capital, market liquidity, and diversification of risk. Notwithstanding the foregoing, our investments are subject to market-wide risks and fluctuations, as well as to risks inherent in particular securities. Refer to “Note 6. Fair Value Measurements” in our notes to the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the fair value measurement of our investments.
As the reinsurance coverages we sell include substantial protection for damages resulting from natural and man-made catastrophes, we expect from time to time to become liable for substantial claim payments on short notice. Accordingly, our investment portfolio as a whole is structured to seek to preserve capital and provide a high level of liquidity which means that the large majority of our investment portfolio consists of highly rated fixed income securities, including U.S. treasuries, agencies, highly rated sovereign and supranational securities, high-grade corporate securities and mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. We also have an allocation to publicly traded equities reflected on our consolidated balance sheet as equity investments trading and an allocation to other investments (including hedge funds, private equity partnerships, senior secured bank loan funds, catastrophe bonds and other investments). At December 31, 2013, our portfolio of equity investments trading totaled $254.8 million, or 3.7%, of our total investments inclusive of our investment in Essent of $121.1 million (2012 - $58.2 million or 0.9%) and our portfolio of other investments totaled $573.3 million, or 8.5%, of our total investments (2012 - $644.7 million or 10.1%).
Interest income, income distributions and realized and unrealized gains (losses) on other investments are included in net investment income and resulted in $119.5 million of net investment income for 2013 (2012 - $71.8 million). Of this amount, $75.8 million relates to net unrealized gains (2012 - unrealized gains of $38.2 million).
We have committed capital to private equity partnerships and other investments of $662.7 million, of which $544.6 million has been contributed at December 31, 2013. Our remaining commitments to these investments at December 31, 2013 totaled $116.2 million. In the future, we may enter into additional commitments in respect of private equity partnerships or individual portfolio company investment opportunities.
Private equity partnerships - Included in the Company’s investments in private equity partnerships are alternative asset limited partnerships (or similar corporate structures) that invest in certain private equity asset classes including U.S. and global leveraged buyouts; mezzanine investments; distressed securities; real estate; and oil, gas and power. The fair values of the investments in this category have been estimated using the net asset value of the investments, as discussed in detail above. The Company generally has no right to redeem its interest in any of these private equity partnerships in advance of dissolution of the applicable private equity partnership. Instead, the nature of these investments is that distributions are received by the Company in connection with the liquidation of the underlying assets of the respective private equity partnership. It is estimated that the majority of the underlying assets of the limited partnerships would liquidate over 7 to 10 years from inception of the respective limited partnership.
Senior secured bank loan funds - The Company has $18.0 million invested in closed end funds which invest primarily in loans. The Company has no right to redeem its investment in these funds. The Company’s investments in these funds are valued using estimated monthly net asset valuations received from the investment manager, as discussed in detail above. It is estimated that the majority of the underlying assets in the closed end funds would liquidate over 4 to 5 years from inception of the respective fund.
Our equity in earnings of the Tower Hill Companies are reported one quarter in arrears. The carrying value of our investments in other ventures, under equity method, individually or in the aggregate may, and likely will, differ from the realized value we may ultimately attain, perhaps significantly so.
The potential exists, after a catastrophe loss, for the development of inflationary pressures in a local economy. The anticipated effects on us are considered in our catastrophe loss models. Our estimates of the potential effects of inflation are also considered in pricing and in estimating reserves for unpaid claims and claim expenses. In addition, it is possible that the risk of general economic inflation could increase which, if such increase actually occurred, would, among other things, cause claims and claim expenses to increase and also impact the performance of our investment portfolio. The actual effects of this potential increase in inflation on our results cannot be accurately known until, among other items, claims are ultimately settled. The onset, duration and severity of an inflationary period cannot be estimated with precision.
In the normal course of its business, the Company is a party to a variety of contractual obligations and these are considered by the Company when assessing its liquidity requirements.
Moreover, we continue to monitor the risk that our principal markets will experience increased inflationary conditions, which would, among other things, cause costs related to our claims and claim expenses to increase, and impact the performance of our investment portfolio. The onset, duration and severity of an inflationary period cannot be estimated with precision. The continued uncertainty with respect of large developing jurisdictions and the related financial restructuring efforts, among other factors, make it more difficult to predict the inflationary environment.
The sustained and continuing environment of low interest rates, as compared to past periods, has lowered the yields at which we invest our assets. We expect these developments, combined with the current composition of our investment portfolio and other factors, to continue to constrain investment income growth for the near term. In addition to impacting our reported net income, potential future losses on our investment portfolio, including potential future mark-to-market results, would adversely impact our equity capital. Moreover, as we invest cash from new premiums written or reinvest the proceeds of invested assets that mature or that we choose to sell, the yield on our portfolio is impacted by the prevailing environment of comparably low yields. While it is possible yields will improve in future periods, we currently expect the challenging economic conditions to generally persist and we are unable to predict with certainty when conditions will substantially improve, or the pace of any such improvement.
Leading global intermediaries and other sources have generally reported that the U.S. casualty reinsurance market continues to reflect a relatively soft pricing environment. However, we believe that pockets of niche or specialty casualty lines may provide more attractive opportunities for stronger or well-positioned reinsurers, and that this trend may be gaining a degree of momentum in certain lines. We anticipate that persistent low investment returns and, to a degree, balance sheet issues in the broader market may favorably impact demand for coverages on terms that we find attractive. However, we cannot assure you that any increased demand will indeed materialize or that we will be successful in consummating new or expanded transactions.
As noted above, we currently anticipate a continued level of slowly growing demand for our catastrophe coverages as a whole over coming periods, with select pockets of more rapidly growing demand, offset by ample and likely increasing supplies of private market capital. Renewal terms vary widely by insured account and our ability to shape our portfolio to improve its risk and return characteristics as estimated by us is subject to a range of competitive and commercial factors. While we believe that our strong relationships, and track record of superior claims paying ability and other client services will enable us to compete for the business we find attractive, we may not succeed in doing so; moreover, our relationships in emerging markets are not as developed as they are in our current core markets.
The market for our catastrophe reinsurance products is generally dynamic and volatile. The market dynamics noted above, increased or decreased catastrophe loss activity, and changes in the amount of capital in the industry can result in significant changes to the pricing, policy terms and demand for our catastrophe reinsurance products over a relatively short period of time. In addition, changes in state-sponsored catastrophe funds, or residual markets, which have generally grown dramatically in recent years, or the implementation of new government-subsidized or sponsored programs, can dramatically alter market conditions. We believe that the overall trend of increased frequency and severity of tropical cyclones experienced in recent years may continue for the foreseeable future. Increased understanding of the potential increase in frequency and severity of storms may contribute to increased demand for protection in respect of coastal risks which could impact pricing and terms and conditions in coastal areas over time. Overall, we expect higher property loss cost trends, driven by increased severity and by the potential for increased frequency, to continue in the future. At the same time, certain markets we target continue to be impacted by fundamental weakness experienced by primary insurers, due to ongoing economic weakness and, in many cases, inadequate primary insurance rate levels, including without limitation insurers operating on an admitted basis in Florida. These conditions, which occurred in a period characterized by relatively low insured catastrophic losses for these respective regions, have contributed to certain publicly announced instances of insolvency, regulatory supervision and other regulatory actions, and have weakened the ability of certain carriers to invest in reinsurance and other protections for coming periods, and in some cases to meet their existing premium obligations. It is possible that these dynamics will continue in future periods.
In June 2012, Congress passed the Biggert-Waters Bill, which provided for a five-year renewal of the NFIP and effected substantial reforms in the program. Among other things, pursuant to this statute, the FEMA is explicitly authorized to carry out initiatives to determine the capacity of private insurers, reinsurers, and financial markets to assume a greater portion of the flood risk exposure in the U.S., and to assess the capacity of the private reinsurance market to assume some of the program’s risk. The bill required FEMA to submit a report on this assessment within six months of enactment. The bill also increased the annual limitation on program premium increases from 10% to 20% of the average of the risk premium rates for certain properties concerned; established a four-year phase-in, after the first year, in annual 20% increments, of full actuarial rates for a newly mapped risk premium rate area; instructed FEMA to establish new flood insurance rate maps; allowed multi-family properties to purchase NFIP policies; and introduced minimum deductibles for flood claims. We believe that these reforms could increase the role of private risk-bearing capital in respect of U.S. flood perils, perhaps significantly. In February 2014, legislation was passed in the U.S. Senate, entitled the “Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014”, which would, if enacted into law, impose a four-year delay in most rate reforms required by the enacted version of the Biggert-Waters Bill, and would require FEMA, which administers the flood program, to complete an affordability study and propose regulations that address affordability issues. Subsequently, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced that the House of Representatives will consider a modified version of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act the week of February 24. While it is possible that a House bill would maintain more of the reforms currently incorporated in the Biggert-Waters Bill than the Senate legislation at this date, specific legislative language has not been promulgated and it is possible that the House bill, as proposed or as it may develop, may have a substantially similar impact as the Senate legislation, and potentially could be more adverse than the Senate bill. It is likely that a version of this legislation, or broader alternatives, will be adopted by Congress and adversely impact prospects for increased U.S. private flood insurance demand, as well as the stability of the NFIP, the primary insurers that produce policies for the NFIP or offer private coverages, or the communities they serve. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that the Biggert-Waters Bill will be implemented or that, if implemented, it will materially benefit private carriers, or that we will succeed in participating in any positive market developments that may transpire.
In 2007, the State of Florida enacted legislation to expand the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund’s (the “FHCF”) provision of below-market rate reinsurance to up to $28.0 billion per season (the “2007 Florida Bill”). In May of 2009, the Florida legislature enacted Bill No. CS/HB 1495 (the “2009 Bill”), which will gradually phase out $12.0 billion in optional reinsurance coverage under the FHCF over the succeeding five years. The 2009 Bill similarly allows the state-sponsored property insurer, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”), to raise its rates by up to 10% starting in 2010 and every year thereafter, until such time that it has sufficient funds to pay its claims and expenses. The rate increases and cut back on coverage by the FHCF and Citizens have supported, over this period, a relatively increased role of the private insurers in Florida, a market in which we have established substantial market share.
We believe the 2007 Florida Bill caused a substantial decline at that time in the private reinsurance and insurance markets in and relating to Florida, and contributed to instability in the Florida primary insurance market, where many insurers have reported substantial and continuing losses from 2009 through 2012, despite the period being an unusually low period for catastrophe losses in the state. Because of our position as one of the largest providers of catastrophe-exposed coverage, both on a global basis and in respect of the Florida market, adverse changes in the Florida market or to Florida primary insurance companies, may have a disproportionate adverse impact on us compared to other reinsurance market participants. Moreover, the advent of a large windstorm, or of multiple smaller storms, could challenge the assessment-based claims paying capacity of Citizens and the FHCF. For example, in several recent years, the FHCF Advisory Council approved official bonding capacity estimates that reflected a shortfall in respect of even an initial season or event. Any inability, or delay, in the claims paying ability of these entities or of private market participants could further weaken or destabilize the Florida market, potentially giving rise to an unpredictable range of adverse impacts. The FHCF and the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (the “OIR”) have each estimated that even partial failure, or deferral, of the FHCF’s ability to pay claims in full could substantially weaken numerous private insurers, with the OIR having estimated that a 25% shortfall in the FHCF’s claims-paying capacity could cause as many as 24 of the top 50 insurers in the state to have less than the statutory minimum surplus of $5.0 million, with such insurers representing approximately 35% of the market based on premium volume, or approximately 2.2 million policies. Adverse market, regulatory or legislative changes impacting Florida could affect our ability to sell certain of our products, to collect premiums we may be owed on policies we have already written, to renew business with our customers for future periods, or have other adverse impacts, some of which may be difficult to foresee, and could therefore have a material adverse effect on our operations.
In May 2013, the Florida Legislature adopted legislation comprising some modest reforms of Citizens. Among other things, the legislation, if enacted, would empower Citizens to create a so-called “clearinghouse” mechanism with the intent of facilitating the transfer to admitted private market carriers of residential policies that might otherwise be bound by or remain in Citizens. In addition the legislation provides for a reduction in the current structure value cap on eligibility for Citizens from $1.0 million to $0.7 million over three years; and prohibits Citizens from insuring new structures located seaward of the coastal construction control line and in the broader federal Coastal Barrier Resources system. While incremental, we believe these reforms, if enacted, would marginally strengthen the fiscal position of Citizens and increase private market demand moderately over time. However, we cannot assure you that this legislation will indeed be fully enacted into law, that the measures contemplated thereby will be acted on, that any market improvements will accrue, or that we will benefit from the reforms.
In October 2013, Florida Senator Jeremy Ring filed a prospective bill for the 2014 legislative session, S.B. 228, which would reduce the retention of the FHCF from its current $7.2 billion level to $5 billion; mandate a perpetual overall per event capacity level of $17 billion, the current level, obviating the possibility of future capacity reductions; and delete current statutory provisions which limit the obligation of the FHCF to amounts it can afford to pay. The bill also would require the FHCF to obtain a line of credit to cover projected receipts from a minimum of three years of post-event bonding without providing for a funding source for the line of credit. If enacted, S.B. 228 could destabilize private carriers participating in the market, lead to a range of market dislocations, and reduce private market demand.
Internationally, in the wake of the large natural catastrophes in 2011 a number of proposals have been introduced to alter the financing of natural catastrophes in several of the markets in which we operate. For example, the Thailand government has announced it is studying proposals for a natural catastrophe fund, under which the government would provide coverage for natural disasters in excess of an industry retention and below a certain limit, after which private reinsurers would continue to participate. The government of the Philippines has announced that it is considering similar proposals. A range of proposals from varying stakeholders have been reported to have been made to alter the current regimes for insuring flood risk in the U.K. and Australia and earthquake risk in New Zealand. If these proposals are enacted and reduce market opportunities for our clients or for the reinsurance industry, we could be adversely impacted.
Over the past few years the U.S. Congress has considered legislation which, if passed, would deny U.S. insurers and reinsurers the deduction for reinsurance placed with non-U.S. affiliates. In early 2013, as well as the immediate few prior years, the Obama administration included a formal proposal for such a provision in its budget proposal. As described in the administration’s 2013 budget request, the proposal would deny an insurance company a deduction for premiums and other amounts paid to affiliated foreign companies with respect to reinsurance of property and casualty risks to the extent that the foreign reinsurer (or its parent company) is not subject to U.S. income tax with respect to the premiums received; and would exclude from the insurance company’s income (in the same proportion in which the premium deduction was denied) any return premiums, ceding commissions, reinsurance recovered, or other amounts received with respect to reinsurance policies for which a premium deduction is wholly or partially denied. We believe that the passage of such legislation could adversely affect the reinsurance market broadly and potentially impact our own current or future operations in particular.
On February 11, 2013, U.S. Senators Carl Levin and Sheldon Whitehouse introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate entitled the “Cut Unjustified Tax Loopholes Act”. Similar legislation was also proposed earlier in 2013 as well as in 2012, 2011 and 2010. If enacted, this legislation would, among other things, cause to be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. tax purposes generally, certain corporate entities if the “management and control” of such a corporation is, directly or indirectly, treated as occurring primarily within the U.S. The proposed legislation provides that a corporation will be so treated if substantially all of the executive officers and senior management of the corporation who exercise day-to-day responsibility for making decisions involving strategic, financial, and operational policies of the corporation are located primarily within the U.S. To date, this legislation has not been approved by either the House of Representatives or the Senate. However, we can provide no assurance that this legislation or similar legislation will not ultimately be adopted. While we do not believe that the legislation would negatively impact us, it is possible that an adopted bill would include additional or expanded provisions which could negatively impact us, or that the interpretation or enforcement of the current proposal, if enacted, would be more expansive or adverse than we currently estimate.
On July 24, 2013, the New York State Department of Financial Services (the “DFS”) issued an Insurance Circular Letter No. 6 (2013) (the “Circular”) to all Accredited Reinsurers writing business in New York State. Renaissance Reinsurance and DaVinci are Accredited Reinsurers in New York. As described in the Circular, the DFS is seeking information concerning Accredited Reinsurers’ compliance with the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (the “IFCPA”), which was passed by the U.S. Congress in 2012 and which became effective on July 1, 2013. The Accredited Reinsurers to whom the Circular applies do business in New York and are all based outside the United States. The DFS is responsible for the regulation of insurers doing business in New York State. We intend to cooperate with the DFS in their request for information in this regard. We believe our existing risk-based compliance program is responsive to the IFCPA and we are not aware of any non-compliance with the IFCPA. While we believe that this request for information by the DFS will not have a material adverse impact on our operations, it is possible that our industry could see increased scrutiny and perhaps additional enforcement of sanction laws and
In 2008, the IRS issued a revenue ruling (the “2008 Revenue Ruling”) expressing that position that premiums covering U.S. risks paid by a foreign insurer or reinsurer to another foreign reinsurer are subject to a 1% insurance federal excise tax (“FET”). In essence, pursuant to the views expressed in the 2008 Revenue Ruling, FET should be imposed on a “cascading” basis, including to these reinsurance arrangements which are referred to in the industry as “retrocessions”, as the IRS took the view that all payments of premiums to foreign insurers or reinsurers in respect of the ultimate underlying risks are also subject to FET. In February 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that FET does not apply to secondary reinsurance transactions covering U.S. risks between two foreign reinsurance companies. The decision, if unappealed or upheld, effectively countermands the 2008 Revenue Ruling. Accordingly, it is possible that foreign reinsurance companies such as certain of our operating subsidiaries that have paid the “cascading” FET on retrocessions may in the future be eligible to file and receive refund claims. At this time, it is not clear if the IRS will appeal the decision or whether an appeal would be successful. The amount of “cascading” FET we have paid is not material to us and we are evaluating our position. It is also possible that in the future Congress may adversely amend the existing legislation or adopt new statutory language which would adversely affect us, the industry generally or our ceding clients in respect of excise tax liabilities.