The Siam Commercial Samaggi Insurance PCL (Samaggi) (we and our local partner acquired 60.86 percent ownership on April 28, 2014, and subsequently acquired an additional 32.17 percent ownership through a mandatory tender offer, which expired on June 17, 2014);
PT Asuransi Jaya Proteksi (JaPro) (we acquired 80 percent on September 18, 2012, and our local partner acquired the remaining 20 percent on January 3, 2013).
The process of establishing loss reserves for property and casualty claims can be complex and is subject to considerable uncertainty as it requires the use of informed estimates and judgments based on circumstances underlying the insured loss known at the date of accrual. For example, the reserves established for high excess casualty claims, asbestos and environmental claims, claims from major catastrophic events or 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 reserve estimates is impacted by numerous factors, which we discuss below. In particular, these considerations differ markedly depending upon whether case or IBNR reserves are being established. Reserve estimates for casualty lines are particularly uncertain given the lengthy reporting patterns and corresponding need for IBNR.
In addition to the annual loss reserve studies performed for each product line, we review the emergence of actual losses relative to expectations for most product lines each quarter. 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 provide management an independent assessment of our internal findings.
The expected loss ratio for any particular origin year is selected after consideration of a number of factors, including historical loss ratios adjusted for rate changes, premium and loss trends, industry benchmarks, the results of policy level loss modeling at the time of underwriting, and/or other more subjective considerations for the product line (e.g., terms and conditions) and external environment as noted above. The expected loss ratio for a given origin year is initially established at the start of the origin year as part of the planning process. This analysis is performed in conjunction with underwriters and management. The expected loss ratio method arrives at an ultimate loss estimate by multiplying the expected ultimate loss ratio by the corresponding premium base. This method is most commonly used as the basis for the actuarial central estimate for immature origin periods on product lines where the actual paid or reported loss experience is not yet deemed sufficiently credible to serve as the principal basis for the selection of ultimate losses. The expected loss ratio for a given origin year may be modified over time if the underlying assumptions differ from the original assumptions (for example, the assessment of prior year loss ratios, loss trend, rate changes, actual claims, or other information).
considerable volatility and/or lacks credibility. The paid and reported loss development methods convert the selected loss emergence pattern to a set of multiplicative factors which are then applied to actual paid or reported losses to arrive at an estimate of ultimate losses for each period. Due to their multiplicative nature, the paid and reported loss development methods will leverage differences between actual and expected loss emergence. These methods tend to be utilized for more mature origin periods and for those portfolios where the loss emergence has been relatively consistent over time.
Short-tail business generally describes product lines for which losses are typically known and paid shortly after the loss actually occurs. This would include, for example, most property, personal accident, aviation hull, and automobile physical damage policies that we write. There are some exceptions on certain product lines or events (e.g., major hurricanes or aviation crashes) where the event has occurred, but the final settlement amount is highly uncertain (e.g., coverage disputes or liability-related claims) and not known with certainty for a potentially lengthy period. Due to the short reporting and development pattern for these product lines, the uncertainty associated with our estimate of ultimate losses for any particular accident period diminishes relatively quickly as actual loss experience emerges. We typically assign credibility to methods that incorporate actual loss emergence, such as the paid and reported loss development and Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods, sooner than would be the case for long-tail lines at a similar stage of development for a given origin year. The reserving process for short-tail losses arising from catastrophic events typically involves an assessment by the claims department, in conjunction with underwriters and actuaries, of our exposure and estimated losses immediately following an event and then subsequent revisions of the estimated losses as our insureds provide updated actual loss information.
In terms of prior accident years, the bulk of the changes made in the 2014 calendar year arose from origin years 2010 through 2012. Specifically, the Insurance - North American P&C, Insurance - Overseas General, and Global Reinsurance segments experienced $56 million, $210 million, and $11 million of favorable prior period development, respectively, primarily due to lower than anticipated loss emergence rather than any significant changes to underlying actuarial assumptions such as loss
Generally, we use a default analysis to estimate uncollectible reinsurance. The primary components of the default analysis are reinsurance recoverable balances by reinsurer, net of collateral, and default factors used to estimate the probability that the reinsurer may be unable to meet its future obligations in full. The definition of collateral for this purpose requires some judgment and is generally limited to assets held in an ACE-only beneficiary trust, letters of credit, and liabilities held by us with the same legal entity for which we believe there is a right of offset. We do not currently include multi-beneficiary trusts. However, we have several reinsurers that have established multi-beneficiary trusts for which certain of our companies are beneficiaries. The determination of the default factor is principally based on the financial strength rating of the reinsurer and a corresponding default factor applicable to the financial strength rating. Default factors require considerable judgment and are
At December 31, 2014, our net deferred tax asset was $295 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 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, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. At December 31, 2014, the valuation allowance of $17 million 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.
At December 31, 2014 and 2013, Level 3 assets represented five percent of assets measured at fair value and three percent of total assets. Level 3 liabilities represented 88 percent and 74 percent of liabilities measured at fair value at December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and less than one percent of our total liabilities at both December 31, 2014 and 2013. 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, 2014, 2013, and 2012.