Liberty Mutual in connection with the Liberty Agreement for a period of no more than three years. Management considers its office facilities suitable and adequate for its current level of operations.
(a)Includes the acquisition of OneBeacon on June 1, 2001 and its results of operations from that date through December 31, 2001. In connection with the OneBeacon Acquisition, White Mountains issued $1,085 million in debt. White Mountains also issued preferred stock of subsidiaries, warrants to acquire Common Shares and Convertible Preference Shares for total proceeds of $758 million.
(b)Relates to a tax reserve release associated with the 1991 sale of Fireman's Fund Insurance Company.
(e)Includes the dilutive effects of outstanding Options and, for years prior to 2004, warrants to acquire Common Shares.
(j)In accordance with its adoption of SFAS No. 150, "Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity" ("SFAS 150"), on July 1, 2003, the Company reclassified its outstanding mandatorily redeemable preferred stock from mezzanine equity to liabilities on its balance sheet and, beginning in the third quarter of 2003, White Mountains began presenting all accretion and dividends on its mandatorily redeemable preferred stock as interest expense. See Note 1.
(l)For a description of the historical factors affecting OneBeacon's loss and LAE reserves prior to the OneBeacon Acquisition, see "Non-Asbestos and Environmental Reserves" under the caption "Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves" in the "OneBeacon" section of the business description contained within the Company's Amendment No. 6 to Form S-3 dated July 17, 2003 (the "Form S-3"). Such portion of the Form S-3 is incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K.
The following discussion contains "forward-looking statements". White Mountains intends statements which are not historical in nature, and are hereby identified as forward-looking statements, to be covered by the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. White Mountains cannot promise that its expectations in such forward-looking statements will turn out to be correct. White Mountains' actual results could be materially different from and worse than its expectations. See "FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS" for specific important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
The following table presents the Company's tangible book value per share for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002 and reconciles this non-GAAP measure to the most comparable GAAP measure.
A tabular summary of White Mountains' consolidated financial results for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 follows:
Consolidated Results-Year Ended December 31, 2004 versus Year Ended December 31, 2003
White Mountains' total revenues increased by 20% in 2004 compared to 2003. Growth in revenues was driven by the 22% increase in earned premiums due to the Sirius Acquisition and Atlantic Specialty transactions. Net investment income grew 24% in 2004 primarily due to the income earned on the additional invested assets acquired in the Sirius Acquisition offset by decreased net invested assets at OneBeacon.
White Mountains' total expenses grew 26% for 2004 as loss and LAE, insurance acquisition and underwriting expenses were all up due to the Sirius Acquisition and Atlantic Specialty transactions. General and administrative costs were up 53% in 2004, primarily due to an increase in incentive compensation accruals, which were driven by a 41% rise in White Mountains' stock price during the year. White Mountains expenses its full cost of all incentive compensation programs. This expense is spread among loss and LAE, other underwriting expense and general and administrative expense for White Mountains' insurance and reinsurance operating subsidiaries, depending upon the function of the employees being compensated. For Other Operations, it is entirely included in general and administrative expenses.
White Mountains' net income in 2004 also benefitted from $181 million in transaction gains: $111 million from the Sirius Acquisition, $41 million for the Symetra investment, $20 million from the Tryg-Baltica acquisition and $9 million from the Sierra Group acquisition.
Consolidated Results-Year Ended December 31, 2003 versus Year Ended December 31, 2002
White Mountains' total revenues decreased by 10% in 2003 compared to 2002, as an increase in earned reinsurance premiums at Folksamerica was more than offset by a decrease in earned insurance premiums at OneBeacon as a result of the business transferred to Liberty Mutual under the Liberty Agreement. Total revenues in 2003 were also impacted by decreased net investment income due to the run-off of loss reserves from OneBeacon's other businesses as well as the reduced interest rate environment. The decline in total revenues in 2003 was partially offset by an increase in other revenues, primarily as a result of $50 million in gains recorded during 2003 related to the sale of several real estate properties previously written-off under purchase accounting for OneBeacon and a $30 million increase in fees and commissions for business placed by WMU.
The Company is domiciled in Bermuda and has subsidiaries domiciled in several countries. The majority of the Company's worldwide operations are taxed in the United States. Income earned or losses incurred by non-U.S. companies will generally be subject to an overall effective tax rate lower than that imposed by the United States.
White Mountains conducts its operations through four segments: (i) "OneBeacon", (ii) "White Mountains Re" (consisting primarily of the operations of Folksamerica, Sirius and WMU), (iii) "Esurance" and (iv) "Other Operations" (consisting of the Company and its intermediate subsidiary holding companies, White Mountains' investments in its Montpelier and Symetra warrants and the International American Group). White Mountains manages all of its investments through its wholly owned subsidiary, White Mountains Advisors LLC ("WM Advisors"), therefore, a discussion of White Mountains' consolidated investment operations is included after the discussion of operations by segment. White Mountains' segment information is presented in Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Financial results for OneBeacon for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 follows:
(1)Includes results from reciprocals (consolidated beginning April 1, 2004) and run-off operations. Results from reciprocals are net of business assumed by OneBeacon, which is contained in Personal Lines. OneBeacon Results-Year Ended December 31, 2004 versus Year Ended December 31, 2003
well as national account and program claims administered by third parties. These claim trends principally included higher defense costs and higher damages from liability assessments. The 2003 development was primarily related to construction defect claims. Adverse development in 2004 and 2003, respectively, was partially offset by the release of approximately $20 million and $30 million of the New York assigned risk liability due to the shrinking New York assigned risk pool.
OneBeacon's total revenues for 2004 increased by 10% compared to 2003, due principally to an increase in earned premiums resulting primarily from the Atlantic Specialty Transaction. Total revenues for 2004 were also impacted by an increase in other revenues due mainly to the commencement of two new private equity funds managed by Tuckerman Capital, a group of private equity funds that are consolidated as a result of White Mountains' significant investment in the funds.
During the fourth quarter of 2004, OneBeacon sold two of its subsidiaries, Potomac Insurance Company of Illinois ("Potomac") and Western States Insurance Company ("Western States"), as well as its boiler inspection service business, and recognized gains on the sales of $22 million through other revenues.
Personal Lines. The combined ratio for personal lines for 2004 was 94%, compared to the 2003 combined ratio of 91%. The 2004 personal lines combined ratio was adversely impacted by seven points as a result of increased incentive compensation accruals, partially offset by three points due to the reduction of the New York assigned risk liability. The 2003 combined ratio benefitted by four points due to a reduction of the New York assigned risk liability. Premiums in this line grew 7% due in part to improved production of new business and increased retention levels and also $47 million in premiums assumed from New Jersey Skylands Insurance Association through a quota-share reinsurance agreement.
During the third quarter of 2004, OneBeacon entered into an agreement to sell the renewal rights to most of its non-Atlantic Mutual New York commercial lines business to Tower Insurance Group. The transaction, effective with December 1, 2004 renewals, will remove approximately $110 million of premiums over the next year.
OneBeacon Results-Year Ended December 31, 2003 versus Year Ended December 31, 2002
OneBeacon's pretax income for 2003 was $405 million, compared to pre-tax income of $200 million for 2002, and its GAAP combined ratio was 98% for 2003 compared to 107% for 2002. All of OneBeacon's ongoing businesses-specialty, personal and commercial lines-delivered combined ratios below 100% in 2003 and, in the second half of 2003, its premiums from its ongoing businesses grew for the first time since the OneBeacon Acquisition.
OneBeacon's total revenues for 2003 declined by 21% compared to 2002, due principally to a 25% decline in earned premiums, resulting primarily from a reduction in premiums assumed under the Liberty Agreement. Total revenues for 2003 were also impacted by a 29% decrease in net investment income due to the runoff of loss reserves as well as the reduced interest rate environment. Other revenues increased significantly in 2003 due mainly to fee revenue generated by New Jersey Skylands Management LLC and certain consolidated limited partnerships.
Specialty Lines. The combined ratio in 2003 was 86%, a six point improvement over the 92% reported in 2002. This was driven by good underwriting results across OneBeacon's various specialty businesses, as well as favorable development in AutoOne Insurance's prior year reserves, which positively impacted the combined ratio by two points. OneBeacon wrote specialty lines premiums of $734 million in 2003, up 5% over 2002, mostly due to an increase in business written by OBPP and IMU.
During the second quarter of 2003, OneBeacon claims and actuarial personnel noticed an unusual spike in case reserves related to the policies taken back from Liberty Mutual. The spike was isolated primarily to incurred losses on construction defect claims which were approximately $38 million higher than expected. There were 924 new claims, 32% higher than expected. The four states with the largest number of new construction defect claims were California, Nevada, Colorado and Arizona (345 of the total 924 new claims). As a result, OneBeacon claims and actuarial personnel undertook a study to determine the cause of the increase. This study, which was completed in the third quarter of 2003, indicated that most of the increase in activity was due to differences in case reserving philosophies between OneBeacon's and Liberty's claims adjusters, such as the identification and coding of construction defect claims. However, the study also indicated that some of the increase in activity related to an increase in the severity of construction defect claims stemming from increased litigation and resulting adverse court decisions. As a result, OneBeacon recorded an increase for construction defect claim reserves of $98 million in the third quarter of 2003. See Construction Defect Claims in CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES below for further background on construction defect claims.
White Mountains Re receives fee income on reinsurance placements referred to Olympus and is entitled to a profit commission based on net underwriting profits on referred business. The additional capacity provided by the reinsurance relationship with Olympus supports White Mountains Re's ability to offer significant reinsurance protection. White Mountains Re recognized net fee income of $69 million from Olympus in 2004 as compared to $98 in 2003. The decline in the fee income earned is
due primarily to the negative impact of the four hurricanes on the profit commission arrangement between White Mountains Re and Olympus.
White Mountains Re Results-Year Ended December 31, 2003 versus Year Ended December 31, 2002
Esurance's financial results and GAAP combined ratios for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 follows:
Esurance Results-Year Ended December 31, 2004 versus Year Ended December 31, 2003
Esurance's pretax income of $4 million for 2004 represented an improvement over the pretax loss of $19 million in 2003. Esurance's 2004 combined ratio improved to 102% from 120% in 2003 due to improvements in both loss and expense ratios. Esurance's loss ratio improvement resulted from the continued rollout and refinement of Esurance's proprietary auto insurance program. Loss ratio improvement also resulted from better claims performance, driven by the transition from a third party administrator to an in-house claims operation in 2003, as well as 3 points of favorable development on loss reserves.
Esurance Results-Year Ended December 31, 2003 versus Year Ended December 31, 2002
Other Operations consists of the operations of the Company and the Company's intermediate subsidiary holding companies and the International American Group, as well as White Mountains' investments in Montpelier and Symetra warrants. A summary of White Mountains' financial results from its Other Operations segment for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 follows:
White Mountains' Other Operations segment reported a pre-tax loss of $235 million for 2004, compared to $159 million for 2003. The increased loss for the year was primarily due to a $20 million increase in incentive compensation accruals, which were driven by a 41% rise in White Mountains' stock price during 2004, and higher gains from the sale of real estate in 2003 ($13 million in 2004 and $43 million in 2003). In addition, interest expense on preferred stock was up $25 million in 2004 due to the inclusion of a full year of expense in pre-tax income in 2004 as opposed to six months included in 2003 as a result of the Company's adoption of SFAS 150, effective July 1, 2003. Prior to the adoption of SFAS 150, the interest expense on preferred stock was classified below the pretax loss line on the income statement as preferred stock dividends.
During the periods presented, Peninsula was the only operating company in the segment, and therefore it accounts for all of the premiums reported in the tables above. During January 2004, White Mountains sold Peninsula for $23 million. The operations of American Centennial and British Insurance Company are not significant to White Mountains, as those companies have been in run-off since they were acquired in 1999.
White Mountains' Other Operations segment reported pre-tax losses of $159 million for both 2003 and 2002. Incentive compensation accruals increased by $72 million in 2003, but this increase was offset by, among other items, a $43 million decrease in losses on interest rate swap agreements and a $31 million decrease in the accretion of the fair value adjustment on loss reserves acquired in the OneBeacon Acquisition. Interest expense on debt decreased by $24 million in 2003, due to the pay-off of a $260 million loan and the refinancing of $700 million of senior debt and amortization of the previous credit facility. This decrease was offset by the inclusion of $22 million of interest expense on preferred stock as a result of SFAS 150.
White Mountains manages all of its consolidated investments through its wholly-owned subsidiary, WM Advisors. White Mountains' investment philosophy is to invest its assets with a view towards maximizing its after-tax total return over extended periods of time. Under this approach, each dollar of after-tax investment income and realized and unrealized gains and losses is valued equally. White Mountains' overall fixed maturity investment strategy is to purchase securities that are attractively priced in relation to perceived credit risks. White Mountains generally manages the interest rate risk associated with holding fixed maturity investments by actively monitoring and maintaining the average duration of the portfolio with the goal of achieving an adequate after-tax total return without subjecting the portfolio to an unreasonable level of interest rate risk. White Mountains' investment portfolio mix as of December 31, 2004 consisted in large part of high-quality, fixed maturity investments and short-term investments, as well as some equity investments and limited partnerships. White Mountains' management believes that prudent levels of investments in common equity securities and other investments within its investment portfolio are likely to enhance after-tax total returns without significantly increasing the risk profile of the portfolio when considered over long periods of time when balanced with leverage and insurance risk considerations. White Mountains seeks to maximize after-tax risk-adjusted returns over the long term.
White Mountains generated strong investment returns in 2004. The GAAP total return on invested assets was 7%, while the equity portfolio returned 20% for the year. The equity return was significantly better than the S&P 500, which returned 11% for the year, while the bond portfolio performed in line with its duration and credit characteristics. Management is continuing to keep its fixed maturity portfolio duration relatively short at about 3 years to reflect its concern that interest rates may rise in the next few years. Net investment income was up 24% from last year mainly due to the Sirius Acquisition, after declining 21% in 2003 primarily due to the decline in reserves at OneBeacon as its premium volume was reduced.
White Mountains sold a portion of its investment in Montpelier common shares during the first quarter of 2004 resulting in a $35 million pre-tax realized gain and, as a result, changed the method of accounting for its remaining Montpelier common shares to the fair value method, resulting in a $33 million increase in after-tax unrealized gains in the first quarter.
See Note 5-Investments of the accompanying consolidated financial statements for White Mountains' analysis of impairment losses on investment securities.
This report includes two non-GAAP financial measures that have been reconciled to their most comparable GAAP financial measures. White Mountains believes these measures to be more relevant than comparable GAAP measures in evaluating White Mountains' financial performance.
Book value per share is derived by dividing the Company's total GAAP shareholders' equity as of a given date by the number of Common Shares outstanding as of that date, including the dilutive effects of outstanding Options and warrants to acquire Common Shares, as well as the unamortized accretion of preferred stock. Fully converted tangible book value per share is a non-GAAP measure which is derived by expanding the GAAP book value per share calculation to include the effects of assumed conversion of all convertible securities and to exclude any unamortized goodwill and net unrealized gains from Symetra's fixed maturity portfolio. The reconciliation of fully converted tangible book value per share to book value per share is included on page 42.
Holding company level. The primary sources of cash for the Company and certain of its intermediate holding companies are dividends and tax sharing payments received from its insurance and reinsurance operating subsidiaries, financing activities and net investment income and proceeds from sales and maturities of holding company investments. The primary uses of cash are interest payments on the Senior Notes, dividend payments on the Berkshire and Zenith Preferred Stock as well as on Common Shares, purchases of investments and holding company operating expenses.
Management believes that White Mountains' cash balances, cash flows from operations, routine sales of investments and the liquidity provided by its Bank Facility are adequate to meet expected cash requirements for the foreseeable future on both a holding company and insurance and reinsurance operating subsidiary level.
Under the insurance laws of the states and jurisdictions under which White Mountains' insurance and reinsurance operating subsidiaries are domiciled, an insurer is restricted with respect to the timing or the amount of dividends it may pay without prior approval by regulatory authorities. Accordingly, there can be no assurance regarding the amount of such dividends that may be paid by such subsidiaries in the future. Following is a description of the ability of White Mountains' insurance and reinsurance operating subsidiaries to pay dividends to the Company and certain of its intermediate holding companies:
In addition, as of December 31, 2004, OneBeacon had $195 million of cash and investments outside of its regulated insurance operating subsidiaries available for distribution during 2005. During 2004, OneBeacon paid $305 million of cash dividends to Fund American.
Insurance float is an important dynamic of White Mountains' operations that must be managed effectively. Float is money that an insurance company holds for a limited time. In an insurance operation, float arises because premiums are collected before losses are paid. This interval can extend over many years. During that time, the insurer invests the money. When the premiums that an insurer collects do not cover the losses and expenses it eventually must pay, the result is an underwriting loss, which is considered to be the cost of float. The amount and cost of float for White Mountains is affected by underlying market conditions, as well as acquisitions or dispositions of insurance and reinsurance businesses. Although insurance float can be calculated using numbers determined under GAAP, insurance float is not a GAAP concept and therefore there is no comparable GAAP measure.
In the case of OneBeacon, the substantial amount of float initially acquired with the OneBeacon Acquisition has shrunk as a result of OneBeacon's re-underwriting efforts and the effects of the Liberty Agreement. OneBeacon's float is expected to continue to shrink during 2005 as older, long-tailed loss reserves are paid and are not replaced with the same level of current writings as those written in the past. In the case of White Mountains Re, its float increased substantially in 2004 as a result of the Sirius and Sierra acquisitions. White Mountains Re's float is expected to increase during 2005 as a result of higher premium writings from its increased capital base and acquisitions over the past few years.
In connection with its acquisition of the Sierra Group on March 31, 2004, Folksamerica entered into a $62 million purchase note (the "Sierra Note"), $58 million of which will be adjusted over its approximate six-year term to reflect favorable or adverse loss reserve development on the acquired reserve portfolio and run-off of remaining policies in force (mainly workers compensation business) as well as certain other balance sheet protections. During 2004, the Sierra Note was reduced by $12 million as a result of adverse development on the acquired reserves and run-off of unearned premiums.
The Bank Facility contains various affirmative, negative and financial covenants which White Mountains considers to be customary for such borrowings and include maintaining certain minimum net worth and maximum debt to capitalization standards for White Mountains. Failure to meet one or more of these covenants could result in an event of default, which ultimately could eliminate availability under the facility and result in acceleration of principal repayment on any amounts outstanding. At December 31, 2004, White Mountains was in compliance with all of the covenants under the Bank Facility, and anticipates it will continue to remain in compliance with these covenants for the foreseeable future.
(1)Represents expected future cash outflows resulting from loss and LAE payments. Accordingly, these balances exclude the discount on OneBeacon's workers compensation loss and LAE reserves of $259.4 million and the remaining purchase accounting fair value adjustment of $409.6 million related to the OneBeacon and Sirius acquisitions as they are non-cash items. Further, the amounts presented include reinsurance recoverables recorded of $3,797.4 million.
The balances included in the table above regarding White Mountains' long-term incentive compensation plans include amounts payable for performance shares and units, as well as deferred compensation balances. Exact amounts to be paid cannot be predicted, for performance shares, with certainty, as the ultimate amounts of these liabilities are based on future performance of the Company and the market price of Common Shares at the time the payments are made. The estimated payments reflected in the table are based on current accrual factors (Common Share price and pay-out percentage) and assume that all outstanding balances were 100% vested as of December 31, 2004.
There are no provisions within White Mountains' leasing agreements that would trigger acceleration of future lease payments. White Mountains does not finance its operations through the securitization of its trade receivables, through special purpose entities or through synthetic leases. Further, White Mountains has not entered into any material arrangement requiring it to guarantee payment of third party debt, lease payments or to fund losses of an unconsolidated special purpose entity, except as noted in the following paragraph.
and sub-lease receipts. White Mountains does not believe that future shortfalls, if any, will have a material impact on its results of operations.
White Mountains also has future binding commitments to fund certain limited partnership investments. These commitments, which total approximately $25.9 million, do not have fixed funding dates and are therefore excluded from the table above.
On June 29, 2004, Berkshire exercised of all of its warrants to purchase 1,724,200 Common Shares of White Mountains for $294 million. Berkshire acquired the warrants in connection with the financing of White Mountains' acquisition of OneBeacon in 2001. The warrants were exercisable at any time until May 2008 and callable by the Company on or after May 31, 2005. In consideration for the early exercise of the warrants, Berkshire and the Company agreed to reduce the exercise price by approximately 2%.
During 2004, Fund American restructured and re-syndicated the Bank Facility to extend its maturity and to increase the availability of the revolving credit facility to $400 million.
During 2004, OneBeacon declared and paid a total of $305 million in cash dividends to Fund American. Also during 2004, WMU paid a total of $60 million of cash dividends to its immediate parent. On March 31, 2004, OneBeacon distributed Folksamerica to Fund American.
During 2004, the Company issued a net total of 3,938 Common Shares to its employees through the exercise of Options during the year and the Company received cash proceeds of $.5 million in connection with these Option exercises. In addition, during the first quarter of 2004, White Mountains issued 27,772 Common Shares to employees of OneBeacon in connection with OneBeacon's employee stock ownership plan. OneBeacon paid $13 million to the Company in consideration for these Common Shares.
During 2004, White Mountains acquired Sirius for $428 million, 19% of Symetra for $195 million, Tryg-Baltica for $58 million, the Sierra Group for $14 million in cash and a $62 million note and Atlantic Specialty for $30 million in cash and a $20 million note.
During the first quarter of 2003, White Mountains paid a total of 45,000 performance shares (relating to the 2000-2002 performance period) at 200%, amounting to $29 million, to its participants in
cash, Common Shares or by deferral into certain non-qualified compensation plans of the Company or its subsidiaries. In the second quarter of 2003, White Mountains made performance share payments amounting to $13 million in cash or by deferral into certain non-qualified compensation plans of the Company. The payments on these additional performance shares in the second quarter represented accelerated payments to certain non-employee directors of the Company for performance periods originally scheduled to end on December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005.
During 2002, White Mountains sold $225 million of its equity securities in a private transaction and used the proceeds, along with cash on hand, to repay in full the $260 million Seller Note to Aviva, along with approximately $23 million of related accrued interest.
During 2002, White Mountains made scheduled principal amortization payments of $78 million and interest payments of $55 million (including $18 million paid under related interest rate swap agreements) on its previous bank facility.
During 2002, White Mountains declared and paid a total of $31 million in dividends on the Berkshire Preferred Stock, the Zenith Preferred Stock and the Convertible Preference Shares. Also in 2002, the Company declared and paid an annual dividend of $8 million to its common shareholders
On April 25, 2002, Folksamerica acquired Imperial for $4 million including related expenses.
The financial statements presented herein include all adjustments considered necessary by management to fairly present the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of White Mountains. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period.
Ultimate loss and LAE are generally determined by extrapolation of claim emergence and settlement patterns observed in the past that can reasonably be expected to persist into the future. In forecasting ultimate loss and LAE with respect to any line of business, past experience with respect to that line of business is the primary resource, but cannot be relied upon in isolation. OneBeacon's own experience, particularly claims development experience, such as trends in case reserves, payments on and closings of claims, as well as changes in business mix and coverage limits, is the most important information for estimating its reserves. External data, available from organizations such as statistical bureaus, consulting firms and reinsurance companies, is sometimes used to supplement or corroborate OneBeacon's own experience, and can be especially useful for estimating costs of new business. For some lines of business, such as "long-tail" coverages discussed below, claims data reported in the most recent accident year is often too limited to provide a meaningful basis for analysis due to the typical delay in reporting of claims. For this type of business, OneBeacon uses a selected loss ratio method for the initial accident year or years. This is a standard and accepted actuarial reserve estimation method
paid loss development methods are often slow to react to situations when new or different factors arise than those that have affected paid losses in the past.
OneBeacon's general liability and multiple peril lines of business have been significantly impacted by an increasing number of construction defect claims. Construction defect is a liability allegation relating to defective work performed in the construction of structures such as apartments, condominiums, single family dwellings or other housing, as well as the sale of defective building materials. Such claims seek recovery due to damage caused by alleged deficient construction techniques or workmanship. Much of the increase in claims activity has been generated by plaintiffs' lawyers who approach new homeowners, and in many cases homeowner associations with large numbers of homeowners in multi-residential complexes, about defects or other flaws in their homes. The increasing number of claims for construction defects began with claims relating to exposures in California. Then, as plaintiffs' lawyers organized suits in other states with high levels of multi-residential construction, construction defect claims were reported in nearby western states, such as Colorado and Nevada, and eventually throughout the country. The reporting of such claims can be quite delayed as the statute of limitations can be up to ten years. Court decisions have expanded insurers' exposure to construction defect claims as well. For example, in 1995 California courts adopted a "continuous trigger" theory in which all companies that had ever insured a property that was alleged to have been damaged by defective construction must respond to the claimant, even if evidence of the alleged damage did not appear until after the insurance period had expired. As a result, claims may be reported more than ten years after a project has been completed as litigation can proceed for several years before an insurance company is identified as a potential contributor. Recently, claims have also emerged from parties claiming additional insured status on policies issued to other parties (e.g., such as contractors seeking coverage on a sub-contractor's policy).
OneBeacon's reserves include provisions made for claims that assert damages from A&E related exposures. Asbestos claims relate primarily to injuries asserted by those who came in contact with asbestos or products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily to pollution and related clean-up cost obligations, particularly as mandated by federal and state environmental protection agencies. In addition to the factors described above under "Non-Asbestos and Environmental Reserves" regarding the reserving process, OneBeacon estimates its A&E reserves based upon, among other factors, facts surrounding reported cases and exposures to claims, such as policy limits and deductibles, current law, past and projected claim activity and past settlement values for similar claims, as well as analysis of industry studies and events, such as recent settlements and asbestos-related bankruptcies. The cost of administering A&E claims, which is an important factor in estimating loss reserves, tends to be higher than in the case of non-A&E claims due to the higher legal costs typically associated with A&E claims. Due to the inherent difficulties in estimating ultimate A&E exposures, OneBeacon does not estimate a range for A&E incurred losses.
OneBeacon's A&E losses resulted primarily from the operations of the Employers Group, an entity acquired by one of the legacy companies in 1971. These operations, including business of Employers Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, provided primary and excess liability insurance for commercial insureds, including Fortune 500-sized accounts, some of whom subsequently experienced claims for A&E losses. OneBeacon stopped writing such coverage in 1984.
Historically, most asbestos claims have been asserted as product liability claims. Recently, insureds who have exhausted the available products liability limits of their insurance policies have sought payment for asbestos claims under the premises and operations coverage of their liability policies. It is more difficult for plaintiffs to establish losses as stemming from premises and operations exposures, which requires proof of the defendant's negligence, rather than products liability under which strict legal liability applies. Hence, there are fewer of such claims and there is a great deal of variation in damages awarded for the actual injuries. Additionally, several accounts that seek such coverage find that previously paid losses exhausted the aggregate limits under their policies. In these situations there is no coverage for these claims. There are currently 148 active claims against OneBeacon without product liability coverage asserting operations or premises coverage.
For purposes of determining available reinsurance, product liability asbestos claims typically are aggregated as a single loss within each policy period. As a result, losses often exceed the retention level under the reinsurance agreement and reinsurance recoveries are obtained. However, for claims being asserted under premises and operations coverage, the losses are generally not aggregated for purposes of determining reinsurance recoveries, so OneBeacon expects that in the future a smaller percentage of these losses will be covered as Third Party Recoverables than has been true historically of products liability asbestos losses.
OneBeacon's reserves for A&E losses, net of Third Party Recoverables but prior to NICO recoveries, are $1.0 billion at December 31, 2004. An industry benchmark of reserve adequacy is the "survival ratio", computed as a company's reserves divided by its historical average yearly loss
payments. This ratio indicates approximately how many more years of payments the reserves can support, assuming future yearly payments are equal to historical levels. OneBeacon's survival ratio was approximately 21.0 at December 31, 2004, which was computed as the ratio of A&E reserves, net of Third Party Recoverables, of $1.0 billion plus the remaining unused portion of the NICO Cover of $757 million, to the average loss payments in the past three years. The average loss payments used to calculate OneBeacon's survival ratio were net of a large commutation ($64 million) in 2003 with a Third Party Reinsurer. White Mountains believes that as a result of the NICO Cover and its historical third party reinsurance programs, OneBeacon should not experience material financial loss from old A&E exposures under current coverage interpretations and that its survival ratio compares favorably to industry survival ratios.
OneBeacon's reserves for A&E losses at December 31, 2004 represent management's best estimate of its ultimate liability based on information currently available. OneBeacon believes the NICO Cover will be adequate to cover all of its A&E obligations. However, as case law expands, medical and clean-up costs increase and industry settlement practices change, OneBeacon may be subject to asbestos and environmental losses beyond currently estimated amounts. Therefore, OneBeacon cannot guarantee that its A&E loss reserves, plus the remaining coverage under the NICO Cover, will be sufficient to cover additional liability arising from any such unfavorable developments. See Note 3 to the financial statements for more information regarding White Mountains' A&E reserves.
OneBeacon's A&E claim activity for the last two years is illustrated in the table below.
The probability that ultimate losses will fall outside of the ranges of estimates by line of business is higher for each line of business individually than it is for the sum of the estimates for all lines taken together due to the effects of diversification. Although management believes OneBeacon's reserves are reasonably stated, ultimate losses may deviate, perhaps materially, from the recorded reserve amounts and could be above the high end of the range of actuarial projections.
The recorded reserves represent management's best estimate of unpaid loss and LAE by line of business. In its selection of recorded reserves, management has generally given greater weight to adjusted paid loss development methods, which are not dependent on the consistency of case reserving practices, rather than methods that rely on incurred losses, because of the increased adequacy of case reserving by OneBeacon's claim staff in the recent past. For multiple peril this resulted in OneBeacon recording reserves nearer the low end of the range. For some types of claims, such as workers compensation and construction defect, management also considered special purpose forecasting models that its claims and actuarial staff have created that consider the unique loss development characteristics of these types of claims. For personal automobile liability, homeowners and "other" (principally shorter
White Mountains Re's A&E exposure is primarily from reinsurance contracts written between 1974 through 1985 by predecessor companies (MONY Reinsurance and Christiania General). The exposures are predominately higher layer excess of loss treaty and facultative coverages with relatively low limits exposed for each claim. Net incurred loss activity for asbestos and environmental in the last two years was as follows:
In recent years, most of White Mountains Re's reported activity in the asbestos area has related to (1) higher layer excess policies that are being reached by larger target defendants, (2) new notices for smaller regional defendants that are now exposed because of the larger defendant bankruptcies, and (3) new notices on "premises" and "non-products" cases, where coverage is being sought by insureds against the non-aggregating portion of the underlying policy. WM Re expects to see a smaller percentage of these losses exceed the retention level under reinsurance agreements.
White Mountains Re sets up claim files for each reported claim by each cedent for each individual insured. In many instances, a single claim notification from a cedent could involve several years and layers of coverage resulting in a file being set up for each involvement. Precautionary claim notices are submitted by the ceding companies in order to preserve their right to pursue coverage under the reinsurance contract. Such notices do not contain an incurred loss amount to White Mountains Re, accordingly, an open claim file is not established. As of December 31, 2004, White Mountains Re had approximately 1,368 open claim files for asbestos and 786 open claim files for environmental exposures.
The costs associated with administering the underlying A&E claims by White Mountains Re's clients tend to be higher than non-A&E claims due to generally higher legal costs incurred by ceding companies in connection with A&E claims ceded to White Mountains Re under the reinsurance contracts.
In order to reduce the potential uncertainty of loss reserve estimation, White Mountains Re obtains information from numerous sources to assist in the process. White Mountains Re's pricing actuaries devote considerable effort to understanding and analyzing a ceding company's operations and loss history during the underwriting of the business, using a combination of ceding company and industry statistics. Such statistics normally include historical premium and loss data by class of business, individual claim information for larger claims, distributions of insurance limits provided, loss reporting
White Mountains Re relies heavily on information reported by ceding companies, as discussed above. In order to determine the accuracy and completeness of such information, White Mountains Re's U.S. underwriters, actuaries, and claims personnel perform regular audits of Folksamerica's ceding companies. While regular ceding company audits are not customary outside the United States, Sirius International's staff regularly reviews information from ceding companies for unusual or unexpected results. Any material findings are discussed with the ceding companies. White Mountains Re sometimes encounters situations where we determine that a claim presentation from a ceding company is not in accordance with contract terms. In these situations, White Mountains Re attempts to resolve the dispute directly with the ceding company. Most situations are resolved amicably and without the need for litigation or arbitration. However, in the infrequent situations where a resolution is not possible, White Mountains Re will vigorously defend our position in such disputes.
The probability that ultimate losses will fall outside of the ranges of estimates by class of business is higher for each class of business individually than it is for the sum of the estimates for all classes taken together due to the effects of diversification. Although management believes reserves for White Mountains Re are reasonably stated, ultimate losses may deviate, perhaps materially, from the recorded reserve amounts and could be above the high end of the range of actuarial projections.
several contractual reporting periods (i.e. quarterly/monthly). This lag is common in the broker market reinsurance business.
White Mountains' insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries purchase reinsurance from time to time to protect their businesses from losses due to exposure aggregation, to manage their operating leverage ratios and to limit ultimate losses arising from catastrophic events. Amounts recoverable from reinsurers are estimated in a manner consistent with the claim liability associated with the reinsured
White Mountains accounts for its pension plans in accordance with SFAS No. 87, "Employers' Accounting for Pensions" ("SFAS 87") and accounts for its retiree medical plan in accordance with SFAS No. 106, "Employers' Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions" ("SFAS 106"). SFAS 87 and SFAS 106 require that the cost of pension/retiree medical benefits be accrued over the period during which an employee provides service.
The majority of OneBeacon's pension and retiree medical plans were curtailed in the fourth quarter of 2002. The OneBeacon Pension Plan no longer adds new participants or increases benefits for existing participants. Non-vested participants already in the plan continue to vest during their employment with OneBeacon. Retirees are also eligible for medical benefits if they meet certain age and service requirements. However, due to the curtailment, the plan no longer accepts new participants. The majority of retiree medical costs are capped at defined dollar amounts, with retirees contributing the remainder.
Additionally, the rate of return that is assumed on plan assets affects OneBeacon's pension expense during a particular period. Since the retiree medical plan is unfunded, it is not affected by changes in the rate of return assumption. OneBeacon performed an analysis of expected long-term rates of return based on the allocation of its pension plan assets as of both December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003 to develop expected rates of return for each significant asset class or economic indicator. A range of returns was developed based both on forecasts and on broad-market historical benchmarks for expected return, correlation, and volatility for each asset class. Although the expected investment return assumption is long-term in nature, the range of reasonable returns has dropped over the past few years as a consequence of lower inflation and lower bond yields. As a result of the most
recent review, for 2004 OneBeacon elected to keep the expected return on its pension assets at 7.0%, as was used in 2003. At December 31, 2004, 36% of plan assets were invested in fixed maturity securities, 45% in equities and the remainder in cash, cash equivalents and convertible securities. A hypothetical 1% increase or decrease in the assumed rate of return would result in a pretax change in OneBeacon's pension expense (or income as the case may be) for 2004 of approximately $4.7 million.
White Mountains' actuaries estimate the fair value of loss and LAE reserves obtained in an acquisition by taking the acquired company's recorded reserves and discounting them based on expected reserve payout patterns using the current risk-free rate of interest. Then, White Mountains' actuaries develop additional cash flow scenarios that use different payout and ultimate reserve assumptions deemed to be reasonably possible based upon the inherent uncertainties present in determining the amount and timing of payment of such reserves. In each scenario, the risk-free rate of interest is used to discount future cash flows. These scenarios are put in a statistical model that assigns a probability to each cash flow scenario. White Mountains' actuaries then choose the scenario that best represents the price for bearing the uncertainty inherent within the acquired company's recorded reserves. The "price" for bearing the uncertainty inherent within the acquired company's reserves is measured as the difference between the selected cash flow scenario and the expected cash flow scenario. The scenario selected has typically been between 1.5 and 2 standard deviations from the expected cash flow outcome. The fair value of the acquired company's loss and LAE reserves is determined to be the sum of the expected cash flow scenario (i.e., the acquired company's discounted loss and LAE reserves) and the uncertainty "price".
The difference between an acquired company's loss and LAE reserves and White Mountains' best estimate of the fair value of such reserves at the acquisition date is amortized ratably over the payout period of the acquired loss and LAE reserves. Historically, the fair value of an acquired company's loss and LAE reserves has been less than the it's recorded reserves at acquisition. Accordingly, the amortization has been and will continue to be recorded as an expense on White Mountains' income statement until fully amortized.
The information contained in this report may contain "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included or referenced in this report which address activities, events or developments which White Mountains expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. The words "will", "believe," "intend," "expect," "anticipate," "project," "estimate," "predict" and similar expressions are also intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include, among others, statements with respect to White Mountains':