Marginalizing the Cost of Capital Daniel Isaac, FCAS Nathan Babcock, ACAS Bowles Symposium April...
-
Upload
dorcas-nelson -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
1
Transcript of Marginalizing the Cost of Capital Daniel Isaac, FCAS Nathan Babcock, ACAS Bowles Symposium April...
CONN ING
Marginalizing theCost of Capital
Daniel Isaac, FCASNathan Babcock, ACAS
Bowles SymposiumApril 10-11, 2003
2CONN ING
Cost of Capital Discussion
• Most work has focused on “How to Allocate”
• First, need to answer “Should We Allocate?”
• Economic theory says the answer should be “No”
3CONN ING
Why Do We Allocate?
Number of Policies
Av
era
ge
Ca
pit
al
per
Po
licy
Number of Policies
Av
era
ge
Hu
rdle
Ra
te (
% =
Ret
urn
/ C
ap
ita
l)
Number of Policies
Av
era
ge
Lo
ss a
nd
Ex
pen
se p
er P
oli
cy
Number of Policies
Co
st p
er P
oli
cy (
Co
st o
f C
ap
ita
l +
Lo
ss a
nd
Ex
pen
se)
Average Marginal
4CONN ING
One Big Problem
• Decreasing Marginal Cost
Monopoly
• Insurance industry is very fragmented
• Very easy entry
- Bermuda CAT companies after Hurricane Andrew
- Specialized reinsurers post 9/11
5CONN ING
How Do We Address This
• Strategy Specific Cost of Capital
• Regulatory Costs
6CONN ING
Strategy Specific Cost of Capital
• “Cost of Capital” is the return forgone by Investors
• Needs to be related to:
- Returns available for other investments
- Company’s riskiness
- Time horizon
• Described in “Beyond the Frontier: Using a DFA Model to Derive the Cost of Capital” from the AFIR Colloquim (2001)
7CONN ING
Strategy Specific Cost of Capital
• Initial Methodology
- Determine asset-only Efficient Frontier
- Calculate company’s results for selected strategy
- Determine “Best Fit” portfolio
- This portfolio gives us the strategy’s hurdle rate
• Main problem: Creates a maximum hurdle rate
- Hurdle rate can’t exceed highest returning asset
- Particularly problematic when strategy involves investing in this asset class
8CONN ING
Strategy Specific Cost of Capital
• Proposed Solution: Allow leverage
- Combine investment in benchmark with a long or short position in risk-free asset
- Shorting eliminates maximum hurdle rate
9CONN ING
Practical Example
• Based on DFAIC
- Company “created” for 2001 CAS Spring Forum
- See “DFAIC Insurance Company Case Study, Parts I and II” for more details
• Consider varying levels of new business
- Scaled underwriting results for new business
- Scaling ranged from 0% to 300% of baseline
- Kept initial surplus and existing reserves the same
10
CONN ING
Practical Example: Results
7.0%
7.2%
7.4%
7.6%
7.8%
8.0%
8.2%
8.4%
8.6%
8.8%
9.0%
0% 25% 50% 75% Baseline 125% 150% 175% 200% 250% 300%Business Growth Strategy
11
CONN ING
Practical Example: Key Insights
• Hurdle rate is positive even with no new business
- Investors get paid as long as there is risk
- Means timing, not just amount, of Cost of Capital must be considered
• Hurdle rate increases with level of business
- New business is like “borrowing” from policyholders
*Premium “loan” proceeds
*Losses and expenses repayments
- Economic theory suggests increased borrowing leads to increased hurdle rates
12
CONN ING
Practical Example: Key Insights
• Marginal cost is positive
- Better than traditional approach
- Still not increasing
13
CONN ING
Practical Example: Key Insights
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.8%
0% 25% 50% 75% Baseline 125% 150% 175% 200% 250% 300%
Business Growth Strategy
Ma
rgin
al
Co
st a
s %
of
Wri
tten
Pre
miu
m
14
CONN ING
Practical Example #2
• Economic theory includes the Cost of “Financial Distress”
- Direct: Additional costs associated within liquidating company
- Indirect: Lost profits due to reduced business
- Indirect much bigger problem for insurers
• Revise model to restrict business when capital is inadequate
- Maximum premium to surplus ratio set at 3:1
- If surplus is insufficient, future year’s writings are reduced
- Reductions are permanent and cumulative
15
CONN ING
Practical Example #2
-50,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
0% 25% 50% 75% Baseline 125% 150% 175% 200% 250% 300%
Business Growth Strategy
Reg
ula
tory
Co
st
16
CONN ING
Practical Example #2: Key Insights
• No impact on lowest levels of business
• Slight “benefit” at interim levels
- Low probability extremely bad results
- Serial correlation of results lost business was unprofitable
17
CONN ING
Practical Example #2: Key Insights
• Rapid increase in costs at highest levels
- Higher probability
- Loss of expected profitability
• Combining with cost of capital creates more traditional cost curve
- Initially decreasing
- Increasing at higher levels
18
CONN ING
Practical Example #2: Key Insights
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
0% 25% 50% 75% Baseline 125% 150% 175% 200% 250% 300%
Business Growth Strategy
Ma
rgin
al
Co
st a
s %
of
Wri
tten
Pre
miu
m
19
CONN ING
Practical Example #3
• Calculate costs by line
- Typical use of Capital Allocation
• Only need to look at marginal impact
- Result of Economic Theory
- Easier than Traditional Approach
• For each line:
- Scale line’s Premium so that Total Premium is at 125% level
- Compare results to Baseline run
20
CONN ING
Practical Example #3: Results
0.34% 0.35%
0.82%
0.43%
0.29%
-0.07%-0.11%
-0.07%
0.01%
0.06%
-0.01%-0.04%
-0.20%
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
125% Comp Auto Property GL All Other
Business Growth Strategy
Ma
rgin
al
Co
st a
s %
of
Wri
tten
Pre
miu
m
Cost of Capital Regulatory Costs
21
CONN ING
Practical Example #3: Key Insights
• Very different Costs of Capital
- Consistent with Economic Theory
- Unlikely with Traditional Approach
• Different composition of Total Cost
- GL only line with positive Regulatory Cost
• Means relative costs are likely to change
- Cost of Capital decreases
- Regulatory Costs increase
22
CONN ING
Methodology Concerns
• VERY complex
• Sensitivity to Assumptions
- Projection Horizon
- Economic Sensitivity of Liabilities
- Regulatory Costs
23
CONN ING
Methodology Concerns
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
0% 25% 50% 75% Baseline 125% 150% 175% 200% 250% 300%
Business Growth Strategy
Ma
rgin
al
Co
st a
s %
of
Wri
tten
Pre
miu
m
Original Restrictions Tighter Restrictions
24
CONN ING
Key Advantages
• Relies on future strategies
- Traditional calculation relies on historical stock prices (e.g. CAPM)
- Insurance companies can change rapidly
- Particularly important since DFA is used to analyze strategy change
• Consistency
- Increasing asset returns increases lines’ profitability
- Offset by increased Cost of Capital
25
CONN ING
Key Advantages
• Ability to handle complexity
• Traditional model based on:
- Fixed capital base
- Single source of capital
• Reality becoming more complex
- “Integrated” reinsurance
- Contingent capital