The following table sets forth selected consolidated financial data of ACE as of and for each of the five years ended December 31, 2012. These selected financial and other data should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related Notes and with Item 7, “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”.
Effective January 1, 2012, we retrospectively adopted new accounting guidance for costs associated with acquiring or renewing insurance contracts. Prior year amounts and ratios contained within this report have been adjusted to reflect this adoption. Refer to Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
Diluted earnings per share is calculated by dividing Net income available to holders of Common Shares by weighted-average shares outstanding - diluted.
The underwriting and administrative expense ratio is calculated by dividing the Policy acquisition costs and administrative expenses, excluding the Life segment, by Net premiums earned - excluding Life segment. Policy acquisition costs and administrative expenses for the Life segment were $662 million, $656 million, $552 million, $525 million, and $423 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively.
The following is a discussion of our results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity and capital resources as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012. This discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related Notes, under Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
losses arising out of natural or man-made catastrophes such as hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, floods, climate change (including effects on weather patterns, greenhouse gases, sea, land and air temperatures, sea levels, rain and snow), nuclear accidents or terrorism which could be affected by:
the impact of these losses on our reinsurers and the amount and timing of reinsurance recoverable actually received;
the uncertainties of the loss-reserving and claims-settlement processes, including the difficulties associated with assessing environmental damage and asbestos-related latent injuries, the impact of aggregate-policy-coverage limits, and the impact of bankruptcy protection sought by various asbestos producers and other related businesses and the timing of loss payments;
acquisitions made by us performing differently than expected, our failure to realize anticipated expense-related efficiencies or growth from acquisitions, the impact of acquisitions on our pre-existing organization or announced acquisitions not closing;
the ability of our technology resources to perform as anticipated; and
The Insurance - North American segment includes retail divisions ACE USA (including ACE Canada), ACE Commercial Risk Services, and ACE Private Risk Services; our wholesale and specialty divisions ACE Westchester, ACE Agriculture, and ACE Bermuda; and various run-off operations, including Brandywine Holdings Corporation (Brandywine). Our retail products range from commercial lines with service offerings such as risk management, loss control and engineering programs, specialty commercial P&C and A&H coverages to personal lines homeowners, automobile liability, valuables, and marine coverages. Our wholesale and specialty products include excess and surplus property, D&O, professional liability, surety, inland marine, specialty property, specialty casualty, environmental, medical liability, political risk, captive programs, comprehensive multiple peril crop, crop-hail, farm P&C, and other agribusiness insurance products. On November 30, 2011, ACE Agriculture expanded its business through the acquisition of Penn Millers Holding Corporation (PMHC). The consolidated financial statements include the results of PMHC from the acquisition date.
The Global Reinsurance segment represents our reinsurance operations, comprising ACE Tempest Re Bermuda, ACE Tempest Re USA, ACE Tempest Re International, ACE Tempest Re Canada, and the reinsurance operation of AGM. Global Reinsurance provides solutions for customers ranging from small commercial insureds to multinational ceding companies. Global Reinsurance offers products such as property and workers’ compensation catastrophe, D&O, professional liability, specialty casualty and specialty property.
The Life segment includes our international life operations (ACE Life), ACE Tempest Life Re (ACE Life Re), and the North American supplemental A&H and life business of Combined Insurance. ACE Life expanded its business through the February 1, 2011 acquisition of New York Life's Korea operations and the April 2, 2011 acquisition of New York Life's Hong Kong operations. The consolidated financial statements include the results of these acquired businesses from the acquisition dates.
We are organized along a profit center structure by line of business and territory that does not necessarily correspond to corporate legal entities. Profit centers can access various legal entities, subject to licensing and other regulatory rules. Profit centers are expected to generate underwriting income and appropriate risk-adjusted returns. This corporate structure has facilitated the development of management talent by giving each profit center's senior management team the necessary
autonomy within underwriting authorities to make operating decisions and create products and coverages needed by its target customer base. We are an underwriting organization and senior management is focused on delivering underwriting profit. We strive to achieve underwriting income by only writing policies which we believe adequately compensate us for the risk we accept.
Total company net premiums written increased 4.6 percent and 6.0 percent on a constant-dollar basis.
Favorable prior period development was $479 million, representing 3.5 percentage points of the combined ratio. This compares to favorable prior period development of $556 million in 2011, representing 4.1 percentage points of the combined ratio.
Operating cash flow was $4.0 billion compared with $3.5 billion in 2011.
Net realized losses from derivative accounting related to variable annuity reinsurance were $126 million compared to $783 million in 2011.
along with a strong U.S. pricing environment, strong retention rates, and new business activities are expected to result in profitable growth in 2013.
Our consolidated financial statements include amounts that, either by their nature or due to requirements of accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (GAAP), are determined using best estimates and assumptions. While we believe that the amounts included in our consolidated financial statements reflect our best judgment, actual amounts could ultimately materially differ from those currently presented. We believe the items that require the most subjective and complex estimates are:
We believe our accounting policies for these items are of critical importance to our consolidated financial statements. The following discussion provides more information regarding the estimates and assumptions required to arrive at these amounts and should be read in conjunction with the sections entitled: Prior Period Development, Asbestos and Environmental (A&E) and Other Run-off Liabilities, Reinsurance Recoverable on Ceded Reinsurance, Investments, Net Realized and Unrealized Gains (Losses), and Other Income and Expense Items.
The judgments used to estimate unpaid loss and loss expense reserves require different considerations depending upon the individual circumstances underlying the insured loss. For example, the reserves established for high excess casualty claims, A&E claims, claims from major catastrophic events, or the IBNR for our various product lines each require different assumptions and judgments to be made. Necessary judgments are based on numerous factors and may be revised as additional experience and other data become available and are reviewed, as new or improved methods are developed, or as laws change. Hence, ultimate loss payments may differ from the estimate of the ultimate liabilities made at the balance sheet date. Changes to our previous estimates of prior period loss reserves impact the reported calendar year underwriting results, adversely if our estimates increase and favorably if our estimates decrease. The potential for variation in loss reserves is impacted by numerous factors, which we discuss below.
The standard actuarial reserving methods may include, but are not limited to, expected loss ratio, paid and reported loss development, and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods. A general description of these methods is provided below. In the subsequent discussion on short- and long-tail business, reference is also made, where appropriate, to how consideration in method selection impacted 2012 results. In addition to these standard methods, we may use other recognized actuarial methods and approaches depending upon the product line characteristics and available data. To ensure that the projections of future loss emergence based on historical loss development patterns are representative of the underlying business, the historical loss and premium data is required to be of sufficient homogeneity and credibility. For example, to improve data homogeneity, we may subdivide product line data further by similar risk attribute (e.g., geography, coverage such as property versus liability exposure, or elements of program structure such as attachments or limits), project ultimate losses for these homogeneous groups and then combine the results to provide the overall product line estimate. The premium and loss data are aggregated by origin year (e.g., the year in which the losses were incurred - “accident year” or “report year”, for example) and annual or quarterly development periods. Implicit in the standard actuarial methods that we generally utilize is the need for two fundamental assumptions: first, the pattern by which losses are expected to emerge over time for each origin year and second, the expected loss ratio for each origin year.
transition between the expected loss ratio method which is generally utilized at earlier maturities and the loss development methods which are typically utilized at later maturities. We usually apply this method using reported loss data although paid data may be used.
The applicability of actuarial methods will also be impacted by the attachment point of the policy or contract with the insured or ceding company. In the case of low attachment points typical of primary insurance or working layer reinsurance, the experience tends to be more frequency driven. For these product types, standard actuarial methods generally work well in determining loss reserve levels, as the loss experience is often credible, given a sufficient history and volume of claims experience. In the case of high attachment points typical of excess insurance or excess of loss reinsurance, the experience tends to be severity driven, as only a loss of significant size will enter the layer. For these product lines, it typically takes longer for loss experience to gain credibility, which adds uncertainty to the estimates derived from standard actuarial methods. For products such as our assumed reinsurance business, we typically supplement the standard actuarial methods with an analysis of each contract's terms, original pricing information, subsequent internal and external analyses of the ongoing contracts, market exposures and history, and qualitative input from claims managers. This approach is also used for structured or unique contracts.
Our recorded reserves represent management's best estimate of the provision for unpaid claims as of the balance sheet date. We perform an actuarial reserve review for each product line at least once a year. At the conclusion of each review, we establish an actuarial central estimate. The process to select the actuarial central estimate, when more than one estimate is available, may differ across product lines. For example, an actuary may base the central estimate on loss projections developed using an incurred loss development approach instead of a paid loss development approach when reported losses are viewed to be a more credible indication of the ultimate loss compared with paid losses. The availability of estimates for different projection techniques will depend upon the product line, the underwriting circumstances, and the maturity of the loss emergence. For a well-established product line with sufficient volume and history, the actuarial central estimate may be drawn from a weighting of paid and reported loss development and/or Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods. However, for a new long-tail product line for which we have limited data and experience or a rapidly growing line, the emerging loss experience may not have sufficient credibility to allow selection of loss development or Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods and reliance may be placed upon the expected loss ratio method until the experience matures and becomes credible.
Management's best estimate is developed from the actuarial central estimate after collaboration with actuarial, underwriting, claims, legal, and finance departments and culminates with the input of reserve committees. Each business unit reserve committee includes the participation of the relevant parties from actuarial, finance, claims, and unit senior management and has the responsibility for finalizing and approving the estimate to be used as management's best estimate. Reserves are further reviewed by ACE's Chief Actuary and senior management. The objective of such a process is to determine a single estimate that we believe represents a better estimate than any other. Such an estimate is viewed by management to be the best estimate of ultimate loss settlements and is determined based on consideration of a number of factors in addition to the actuarial central estimate, including but not limited to:
We do not calculate ranges of loss reserve estimates for our individual loss reserve studies. Such ranges are generally not a true reflection of the potential difference between loss reserves estimated at the balance sheet date and the ultimate settlement value of losses. This is due to the fact that an actuarial range is developed based on known events as of the valuation date whereas actual prior period development reported in subsequent consolidated financial statements relates in part to events and circumstances that were unknown as of the original valuation date. While we believe that our recorded reserves are reasonable and represent management's best estimate for each product line as of the current valuation date, future changes to our view of
the ultimate liabilities are possible. A five percent change in our net loss reserves equates to $1.3 billion and represents five percent of shareholders' equity at December 31, 2012. Historically, including A&E reserve charges, our reserves, at times, have developed in excess of 10 percent of recorded amounts. Refer to “Analysis of Losses and Loss Expenses Development”, under Item 1, for a summary of historical volatility between estimated loss reserves and ultimate loss settlements.
We perform internal loss reserve studies for all product lines at least once a year according to a schedule that is established at the start of the calendar year. In addition, each quarter for most product lines, we review the emergence of actual losses relative to expectations. If warranted from findings in loss emergence tests, we may alter the timing of our product line reserve studies. Finally, loss reserve studies are performed annually by external third-parties and the findings are used to test the reasonableness of our internal findings.
The inherent uncertainty of assuming that historical paid and reported loss development patterns for older origin years will be representative of subsequent loss emergence on recent origin years. For example, changes over time in the processes and procedures for establishing case reserves can distort reported loss development patterns or changes in ceded reinsurance structures by origin year can alter the development of paid and reported losses;
For the 2012 origin year, loss reserves were typically established through the application of individual product line expected loss ratios that contemplated assumptions similar in nature to those noted in the short-tail line discussion. Our assumptions on loss trend and development patterns reflect reliance on our historical loss data provided the length and volume of history and homogeneity afford credibility. For those portfolios where we feel that our data lacks credibility, our assumptions may judgmentally utilize industry loss trends and development patterns. We note that industry patterns are not always available to match the nature of the business being written; this issue is particularly problematic for non-U.S. exposed lines. Given the underlying volatility of the long-tail product lines and the lengthy period required for full paid and reported loss emergence, we typically assign little to no credibility to actual loss emergence in the early development periods. Accordingly, we generally used the expected loss ratio method for the 2012 and immediately preceding origin years to establish reserves by product line. We monitor actual paid and reported loss emergence relative to expected loss emergence for most individual product lines.
For long-tail portfolios where actual loss emergence in calendar year 2012 was lower than expected for the more recent origin years, the deviation was not typically seen as sufficiently credible, particularly given the volatility and lengthy period for full loss emergence, to fully reflect in our booked ultimate loss selections or the actuarial assumptions underlying the reserve reviews. However, for certain product lines with early loss emergence on more recent origin years that was greater than expected, we did respond since we believe that such adverse emergence is generally significant relative to the loss emergence pattern assumptions (e.g., origin years 2009 through 2011 for casualty and financial lines in Insurance - Overseas General). Such judgments were made with due consideration to the factors impacting reserve uncertainty as discussed above. The reserve actions that we took in 2012 are discussed further below and in the section entitled “Prior Period Development”.
For more mature origin years, typically 2008 and prior, we gave meaningful weight to indicated ultimates derived from methods that rely on the paid and reported loss development patterns based on historical experience where sufficient credibility existed. This is consistent with our historical approach of allowing favorable loss emergence sufficient time to be reliably established before assigning it full credibility. For those lines where the historical experience lacked credibility, we placed reliance upon the latest benchmark patterns (where available) from external industry bodies such as Insurance Services Office (ISO) or the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI). In such cases, the assumptions used to project ultimate loss estimates will not fully reflect our own actual loss experience until our data is deemed sufficiently credible.
The reserve portfolio for our ACE Bermuda operations contains exposure to predominantly high excess liability coverage on an occurrence-first-reported basis (typically with attachment points in excess of $325 million and gross limits of up to $150 million) and D&O and other professional liability coverage on a claims-made basis (typically with attachment points in excess of $125 million and gross limits of up to $75 million). Due to the layer of exposure covered, the expected frequency for this book is very low. As a result of the low frequency/high severity nature of the book, a small difference in the actual vs. expected claim frequency, either positive or negative, could result in a material change to the projected ultimate loss if such change in claim frequency was related to a policy where close to maximum limits were deployed.
contracts, there may be relatively few expected claims in a particular year so the actual number of claims may be susceptible to significant variability. In such cases, the actuary often relies on industry data from several recognized sources.
During 2012, we conducted our annual internal, ground-up review of our consolidated A&E liabilities as of December 31, 2011. As a result of the internal review, we increased our gross loss reserves for the Brandywine operations, including A&E, by $275 million, while the net loss reserves increased by $146 million. In addition, we increased gross loss reserves for Westchester Specialty's A&E and other liabilities by $17 million, and net loss reserves increased by $4 million. Our A&E liabilities are not discounted for GAAP reporting and do not reflect any anticipated future changes in the legal, social or economic environment, or any benefit from future legislative reforms.
As part of the acquisition of businesses that sell long-duration contracts, such as life products, we established an intangible asset related to VOBA, which represented the fair value of the future profits of the in-force contracts. The valuation of VOBA at the time of acquisition is derived from similar assumptions to those used to establish the associated future policy benefits reserves. The most significant input in this calculation is the discount rate used to arrive at the present value of the net cash flows. We amortize deferred policy acquisition costs associated with long-duration contracts and VOBA (collectively policy acquisition costs) over the estimated life of the contracts, generally in proportion to premium revenue recognized. For non-traditional long duration contracts, we amortize policy acquisition costs over the expected life of the contracts in proportion to estimates of expected gross profits. The estimated life is established at the inception of the contracts or upon acquisition and is based on current persistency assumptions. Policy acquisition costs, which consist of commissions, premium taxes, and certain underwriting costs related directly to the successful acquisition of a new or renewal insurance contract, are reviewed to determine if they are recoverable from future income, including investment income. Unrecoverable costs are expensed in the period identified.
In the ordinary course of business, we both purchase (or cede) and sell (or assume) reinsurance protection. We discontinued the purchase of all finite reinsurance contracts, as a matter of policy, in 2002. For both ceded and assumed reinsurance, risk transfer requirements must be met in order to use reinsurance accounting, principally resulting in the recognition of cash flows under the contract as premiums and losses. If risk transfer requirements are not met, a contract is to be accounted for as a deposit, typically resulting in the recognition of cash flows under the contract through a deposit asset or liability and not as revenue or expense. To meet risk transfer requirements, a reinsurance contract must include both insurance risk, consisting of underwriting and timing risk, and a reasonable possibility of a significant loss for the assuming entity. We also apply similar risk transfer requirements to determine whether certain commercial insurance contracts should be accounted for as insurance or a deposit. Contracts that include fixed premium (i.e., premium not subject to adjustment based on loss experience under the contract) for fixed coverage generally transfer risk and do not require judgment.
effective reinsurance program. All of these contracts transferred risk and were accounted for as reinsurance. In addition, we maintain a few aggregate excess of loss reinsurance contracts that were principally entered into prior to 2003, such as the National Indemnity Company (NICO) contracts referred to in the section entitled, “Asbestos and Environmental (A&E) and Other Run-off Liabilities”. Subsequent to the ACE INA acquisition in 1999, we have not purchased any other retroactive ceded reinsurance contracts.
Reinsurance recoverable includes the balances due to us from reinsurance companies for paid and unpaid losses and loss expenses and is presented net of a provision for uncollectible reinsurance. The provision for uncollectible reinsurance is determined based upon a review of the financial condition of the reinsurers and other factors. Ceded reinsurance contracts do not relieve our primary obligation to our policyholders. Consequently, an exposure exists with respect to reinsurance recoverable to the extent that any reinsurer is unable or unwilling to meet its obligations or disputes the liabilities assumed under the reinsurance contracts. We determine the reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses and loss expenses using actuarial estimates as well as a determination of our ability to cede unpaid losses and loss expenses under existing reinsurance contracts.
Although the obligation of individual reinsurers to pay their reinsurance obligations is based on specific contract provisions, the collectability of such amounts requires estimation by management. The majority of the balance we have accrued as recoverable will not be due for collection until sometime in the future, and the duration of our recoverables may be longer than the duration of our direct exposures. Over this period of time, economic conditions and operational performance of a particular reinsurer may impact their ability to meet these obligations and while they may continue to acknowledge their contractual obligation to do so, they may not have the financial resources or willingness to fully meet their obligation to us.
To estimate the provision for uncollectible reinsurance, the reinsurance recoverable must first be determined for each reinsurer. This determination is based on a process rather than an estimate, although an element of judgment must be applied. As part of the process, ceded IBNR is allocated to reinsurance contracts because ceded IBNR is not generally calculated on a contract by contract basis. The allocations are generally based on premiums ceded under reinsurance contracts, adjusted for actual loss experience and historical relationships between gross and ceded losses. If actual premium and loss experience vary materially from historical experience, the allocation of reinsurance recoverable by reinsurer will change. While such change is unlikely to result in a large percentage change in the provision for uncollectible reinsurance, it could, nevertheless, have a material effect on our net income in the period recorded.
At December 31, 2012, our net deferred tax asset was $453 million. Refer to Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information. At each balance sheet date, management assesses the need to establish a valuation allowance that reduces deferred tax assets when it is more likely than not that all, or some portion, of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. The valuation allowance is based on all available information including projections of future taxable income from each tax-paying component in each tax jurisdiction, principally derived from business plans and available tax planning strategies. Projections of future taxable income incorporate several assumptions of future business and operations that are apt to differ from actual experience. The valuation allowance is also based on maintaining our ability and intent to hold our U.S. available for sale fixed maturities to recovery. If, in the future, our assumptions and estimates that resulted in our forecast of future taxable income for each tax-paying component prove to be incorrect, or future market events occur that prevent our ability to hold our U.S. fixed maturities to recovery, an additional valuation allowance could become necessary. This could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. At December 31, 2012, the valuation allowance of $56 million (including $24 million with respect to foreign tax credits) reflects management's assessment that it is more likely than not that a portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized due to the inability of certain foreign subsidiaries to generate sufficient taxable income and the inability of ACE Group Holdings and its subsidiaries to utilize foreign tax credits.
At December 31, 2012, Level 3 assets represented four percent of assets that are measured at fair value and three percent of total assets. Level 3 liabilities represented 100 percent of liabilities that are measured at fair value and two percent of our total liabilities. During 2012, we transferred assets of $164 million into our Level 3 assets from other levels of the valuation hierarchy. During 2012, we transferred assets of $110 million out of our Level 3 assets to other levels of the valuation hierarchy. Refer to Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of the valuation techniques and inputs used to determine fair values for our financial instruments measured or disclosed at fair value by valuation hierarchy (Levels 1, 2, and 3) as well as a roll-forward of Level 3 financial instruments measured at fair value for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010.