FORM 10-K
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2007
|
OR
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to
|
Commission file number:
001-32938
ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY
HOLDINGS, LTD
(Exact Name of Registrant as
Specified in Its Charter)
|
|
|
Bermuda
|
|
98-0481737
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
|
Incorporation or
Organization)
|
|
Identification
No.)
|
27 Richmond Road, Pembroke HM 08, Bermuda
(Address of Principal Executive
Offices and Zip Code)
(441) 278-5400
(Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common Shares, par value $0.03 per share
|
|
New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of the registrants knowledge, in the definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer
or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in
Rule 12b-2
of the Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated
filer þ
|
|
Accelerated
filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated
filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting
company o
|
|
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company)
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of voting and non-voting common
shares held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of
June 29, 2007 (the last business day of the
registrants most recently completed second fiscal quarter)
was approximately $3.1 billion based on the closing sale
price of the registrants common shares on the New York
Stock Exchange on that date.
As of February 22, 2008, 60,498,920 common shares were
outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The registrants definitive proxy statement to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to
Regulation 14A with respect to the annual general meeting
of the shareholders of the registrant scheduled to be held on
May 8, 2008 is incorporated in Part III of this
Form 10-K.
ALLIED
WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY HOLDINGS, LTD
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
PART I
References in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
to the terms we, us, our,
the company or other similar terms mean the
consolidated operations of Allied World Assurance Company
Holdings, Ltd and our consolidated subsidiaries, unless the
context requires otherwise. References in this
Form 10-K
to the term Holdings means Allied World Assurance
Company Holdings, Ltd only. References in this
Form 10-K
to $ are to the lawful currency of the United States.
General
Overview
We are a Bermuda-based specialty insurance and reinsurance
company that underwrites a diversified portfolio of property and
casualty insurance and reinsurance lines of business. We write
direct property and casualty insurance as well as reinsurance
through our operations in Bermuda, the United States, Ireland
and the United Kingdom. For the year ended December 31,
2007, direct property insurance, direct casualty insurance and
reinsurance accounted for approximately 26.0%, 38.4% and 35.6%,
respectively, of our total gross premiums written of
$1,505.5 million.
We were formed in November 2001 by a group of investors,
including American International Group, Inc. (AIG),
The Chubb Corporation (Chubb), certain affiliates of
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (the Goldman Sachs
Funds) and Securitas Allied Holdings, Ltd., an affiliate
of Swiss Reinsurance Company (Swiss Re). Since our
formation, we have focused primarily on the direct insurance
markets. We offer our clients and producers significant capacity
in both the direct property and casualty insurance markets as
well as the reinsurance market. We believe that our focus on
direct insurance and our experienced team of skilled
underwriters allow us to have greater control over the risks
that we assume and the volatility of our losses incurred, and as
a result, ultimately our profitability.
As of December 31, 2007, we had $7,899.1 million of
total assets and $2,239.8 million of shareholders
equity. Our principal insurance subsidiary, Allied World
Assurance Company, Ltd, and our other principal insurance
subsidiaries currently have A (Excellent;
3rd of 16 categories) financial strength ratings from
A.M. Best and A− financial strength ratings from
Standard & Poors (Strong; 7th of 21 rating
categories). Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd and our
U.S. insurance subsidiaries are rated A2 by Moodys
Investors Service, Inc. (Good; 6th of 21 rating categories).
Our
Operations
We operate in three geographic markets: Bermuda, Europe and the
United States.
Our Bermuda insurance operations focus primarily on underwriting
risks for
U.S.-domiciled
Fortune 1000 clients and other large clients with complex
insurance needs. Our Bermuda reinsurance operations focus on
underwriting treaty and facultative risks principally located in
the United States, with additional exposures internationally.
Our Bermuda office has ultimate responsibility for establishing
our underwriting guidelines and operating procedures, although
we provide our underwriters outside of Bermuda with significant
local autonomy. We believe that organizing our operating
procedures in this way allows us to maintain consistency in our
underwriting standards and strategy globally, while minimizing
internal competition and redundant marketing efforts. Our
Bermuda insurance operations accounted for
$1,065.9 million, or 70.8%, of our total gross premiums
written in 2007.
Our European operations focus predominantly on property and
casualty insurance for large European and international
accounts. We began operations in Europe in September 2002 when
we incorporated a subsidiary insurance company in Ireland. Our
European insurance operations accounted for $246.9 million,
or 16.4%, of our total gross premiums in 2007.
Our U.S. operations focus on the middle-market and
non-Fortune 1000 companies. We generally operate in the
excess and surplus lines segment of the U.S. market. The
excess and surplus lines segment is a segment of the insurance
market that allows consumers to buy property and casualty
insurance through non-admitted carriers.
1
Risks placed in the excess and surplus lines segment are often
insurance programs that cannot be filled in the conventional
insurance markets due to a shortage of state-regulated insurance
capacity. This market operates with considerable freedom
regarding insurance rate and form regulations, enabling us to
utilize our underwriting expertise to develop customized
insurance solutions for our middle-market clients. By having
offices in the United States, we believe we are better able to
target producers and clients that would typically not access the
Bermuda insurance market due to their smaller size or particular
insurance or reinsurance needs. We have also continued to add
state admitted insurance capabilities to our U.S. platform.
Our U.S. distribution platform concentrates primarily on
direct casualty and property insurance, with a particular
emphasis on professional liability, excess casualty risks and
commercial property insurance. During 2007, we launched an
excess casualty insurance program in the United States for
public entity, residential and commercial contracting risks. We
intend to continue to pursue partnerships with qualified program
administrators to offer additional excess and surplus lines
business. Recently, we have begun to expand our reinsurance
platform into the United States. We currently have offices in
Boston, Chicago, New York City and San Francisco. Our
U.S. operations accounted for $192.7 million, or
12.8%, of our total gross premiums written in 2007.
The table below shows our total gross premiums written by
geographic location.
Total
Gross Premiums Written by Geographic Location
for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Bermuda
|
|
$
|
1,065.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,208.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,159.2
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
246.9
|
|
|
|
278.5
|
|
|
|
265.0
|
|
United States
|
|
|
192.7
|
|
|
|
172.4
|
|
|
|
136.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,505.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,659.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,560.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our
Operating Segments
We have three business segments: property insurance, casualty
insurance and reinsurance. These segments and their respective
lines of business may, at times, be subject to different
underwriting cycles. We modify our product strategy as market
conditions change and new opportunities emerge by developing new
products, targeting new industry classes or de-emphasizing
existing lines. Our diverse underwriting skills and flexibility
allow us to concentrate on the business lines where we expect to
generate the greatest returns. Financial data relating to our
three segments is included in Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations and in our consolidated financial statements
included in this report. The gross premiums written in each
segment for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
December 31, 2005
|
|
|
|
Gross Premiums Written
|
|
|
Gross Premiums Written
|
|
|
Gross Premiums Written
|
|
|
|
$ (in millions)
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
$ (in millions)
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
$ (in millions)
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
Operating Segments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property
|
|
$
|
391.0
|
|
|
|
26.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
463.9
|
|
|
|
28.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
412.9
|
|
|
|
26.5
|
%
|
Casualty
|
|
|
578.4
|
|
|
|
38.4
|
%
|
|
|
622.4
|
|
|
|
37.5
|
%
|
|
|
633.0
|
|
|
|
40.6
|
%
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
536.1
|
|
|
|
35.6
|
%
|
|
|
572.7
|
|
|
|
34.5
|
%
|
|
|
514.4
|
|
|
|
32.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,505.5
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,659.0
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,560.3
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
Property
Segment
General
Our property segment provides direct coverage of physical
property and business interruption coverage for commercial
property and energy-related risks. We write solely commercial
coverages and focus on the insurance of primary risk layers.
This means that we are typically part of the first group of
insurers that cover a loss up to a specified limit.
We have a staff of 30 employees in our property segment,
including 19 underwriters, most of whom joined us with
significant prior experience in property insurance underwriting.
Our underwriting staff is spread among our locations in Bermuda,
Europe and the United States because we believe it is important
to be physically present in the major insurance markets around
the world.
Product
Lines and Customer Base
Our property segment includes general property business and
energy business. We offer general property products as well as
energy-related products from our underwriting platforms in
Bermuda, Europe and the United States. In Bermuda our
concentration is on Fortune 1000 clients; in Europe it is on
large European and international accounts; and in the United
States it is on middle-market and
U.S.-domiciled
non-Fortune 1000 accounts.
Our general property underwriting includes the insurance of
physical property and business interruption coverage for
commercial property risks. Examples include retail chains, real
estate, manufacturers, hotels and casinos, and municipalities.
We write solely commercial coverages and focus on the insurance
of primary risk layers. During the year ended December 31,
2007, our general property business accounted for 75.1%, or
$293.5 million, of our total gross premiums written in the
property segment.
Our energy underwriting emphasizes industry classes such as oil
and gas, pulp and paper, petrochemical, chemical manufacturing
and power generation, which includes utilities, mining, steel,
aluminum and molten glass. As with our general property book, we
concentrate on primary layers of the program attaching over
significant retentions. During the year ended December 31,
2007, our energy business accounted for 24.6%, or
$96.1 million, of our total property segment gross premiums
written.
Underwriting
and Risk Management
Our property segment concentrates its efforts on primary risk
layers of insurance (as opposed to excess layers) and offers
meaningful but limited capacity in these layers. When we write
primary risk layers of insurance, it means that we are typically
part of the first group of insurers that covers a loss up to a
specified limit. When we write excess risk layers of insurance,
it means that we are insuring the second
and/or
subsequent layers of a policy above the primary layer. Our
current average net risk exposure is approximately between
$3 million to $5 million per individual risk. We
specialize in commercial risks and therefore have little
residential exposure.
For our property segment, the protection of corporate assets
from losses due to natural catastrophes is one of our major
areas of focus. Our underwriters emphasize careful risk
selection by evaluating an insureds risk management
practices, loss history and the adequacy of their retention.
Many factors go into the effective management of this exposure.
The essential factors in this process are outlined below:
|
|
|
|
|
Measurement. We will generally only underwrite
risks in which we can obtain an electronic statement of property
values. This statement of values must be current and include
proper addresses and a breakdown of values for each location to
be insured. We require an electronic format because we need the
ability to arrange the information in a manner acceptable to our
third party modeling company. This also gives us the ability to
collate the information in a way that assists our internal
catastrophe team in measuring our total gross limits in critical
catastrophe zones.
|
|
|
|
Risk Exposure Modeling. We model the locations
covered in each policy, which enables us to obtain a more
accurate assessment of our property catastrophe exposure. We
have contracted with two industry-recognized modeling firms to
analyze our property catastrophe exposure on a quarterly basis.
This periodic measurement of our property business gives us an
up-to-date
estimate of our property catastrophe exposure.
|
3
Using data that we provide, we run numerous computer-simulated
events that provide us with loss probabilities for our book of
business.
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Exposed Policy Limits. Prior to
Hurricane Katrina in 2005, a majority of the insurance industry
and all of the insurance rating agencies relied heavily on the
probable maximum losses produced by the various risk exposure
modeling companies. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that reliance
solely on the results of the modeling companies was
inappropriate given their apparent failure to accurately predict
the ultimate losses sustained. When the limitations of the risk
exposure models became evident, we instituted an additional
approach to determine our probable maximum loss.
|
We now also use gross exposed policy limits as a means to
determine our probable maximum loss. This approach focuses on
our gross limits in each critical catastrophe zone and sets a
maximum amount of gross accumulations we will accept in each
zone. Once that limit has been reached, we cease writing
business in that catastrophe zone for that particular year. We
have an internal dedicated catastrophe team that will monitor
these limits and report monthly to underwriters and senior
management. This team also has the ability to model an account
before we price the business to see what impact that account
will have on our zonal gross accumulations. We restrict our
gross exposed policy limits in each critical property
catastrophe zone to an amount consistent with our probable
maximum loss and, subsequent to a catastrophic event, our
capital preservation targets. We continue to use risk exposure
models along with our gross exposed policy limits approach. It
is our policy to use both the gross exposed policy limits
approach and the risk exposure models and establish our probable
maximum loss on the more conservative number generated.
|
|
|
|
|
Ceded Reinsurance. We purchase treaty and
facultative reinsurance to reduce our exposure to significant
losses from our general property and energy portfolios of
business. We also purchase property catastrophe reinsurance to
protect these lines of business from catastrophic loss.
|
|
|
|
Probable Maximum Loss and Risk Appetite. Our
direct property and reinsurance senior managers work together to
develop our probable maximum loss. For our direct property,
workers compensation and accident and health catastrophe and
property reinsurance business, we seek to manage our risk
exposure so that our probable maximum losses for a single
catastrophic event, after all applicable reinsurance, in any
one-in-250-year event does not exceed approximately
20% of our total capital.
|
Casualty
Segment
General
Our casualty segment specializes in insurance products providing
coverage for general and product liability, professional
liability and healthcare liability risks. We focus primarily on
insurance of excess layers, where we insure the second
and/or
subsequent layers of a policy above the primary layer. Our
direct casualty underwriters also provide a variety of specialty
insurance casualty products to large and complex organizations
around the world. Our casualty segment employs a staff of
89 employees, including 61 underwriters, with a capability
to service clients in Bermuda, Europe and the United States.
Product
Lines and Customer Base
Our coverages include general casualty products as well as
professional liability and healthcare products. Our focus with
respect to general casualty products is on complex risks in a
variety of industries including manufacturing, energy,
chemicals, transportation, real estate, consumer products,
medical and healthcare products and construction. Our Bermuda
operations focus primarily on Fortune 1000 clients; our European
operations focus on large European and international accounts;
and our U.S. operations focus on middle-market and
U.S.-domiciled
non-Fortune 1000 accounts. In order to diversify our European
book, we recently began an initiative to attract more
middle-market
non-U.S. domiciled
accounts produced in the London market. In the United States we
often write business at lower attachment points than we do
elsewhere given our concentration on smaller accounts. Because
of this willingness to accept lower-attaching business in the
United States, in the first quarter of 2006 we launched a
general casualty initiative that allows us to provide products
to fill gaps between the primary and excess layers of an
4
insurance program. During the year ended December 31, 2007,
our general casualty business accounted for 41.6%, or
$240.5 million, of our total gross premiums written in the
casualty segment.
In addition to general casualty products, we provide
professional liability products such as directors and officers,
employment practices, fiduciary and errors and omissions
liability insurance. Consistent with our general casualty
operations, our professional liability underwriters in Bermuda
and Europe focus on larger companies while their counterparts in
the United States pursue middle-market and non-Fortune 1000
accounts. Like our general casualty operations, our professional
liability operations in the United States pursue lower
attachment points than they do elsewhere.
Globally, we offer a diverse mix of errors and omissions
coverages for law firms, technology companies, financial
institutions, insurance companies and brokers, media
organizations and engineering and construction firms. During the
year ended December 31, 2007, our professional liability
business accounted for 46.6%, or $269.3 million, of our
total gross premiums written in the casualty segment.
We also provide excess liability and other casualty coverages to
the healthcare industry, including large hospital systems,
managed care organizations and miscellaneous medical facilities
including home care providers, specialized surgery and
rehabilitation centers, and blood banks. Our healthcare
operation is primarily based in Bermuda and writes large
U.S.-domiciled
risks. In order to diversify our healthcare portfolio, we have
established a
U.S.-based
platform that targets middle-market accounts. During the year
ended December 31, 2007, our healthcare business accounted
for 9.1%, or $52.8 million, of our total gross premiums
written in the casualty segment.
We have established three program manager relationships in the
United States. These managers each offer separate products
including professional liability, excess casualty and primary
general liability. Distribution is primarily through wholesale
broker relationships nationwide and serves the small to middle
market clients. During the year ended December 31, 2007,
our program business accounted for 2.7%, or $15.8 million,
of our total gross premiums written in the casualty segment.
Although our casualty accounts have diverse attachment points by
line of business and the size of the account, our most common
attachment points are between $10 million and
$100 million.
Underwriting
and Risk Management
While operating within their underwriting guidelines, our
casualty underwriters strive to write diverse books of business
across a variety of product lines and industry classes. Senior
underwriting managers review their business concentrations on a
regular basis to make sure the objective of creating balanced
portfolios of business is achieved. As appropriate, specific
types of business of which we have written disproportionate
amounts may be de-emphasized to achieve a more balanced
portfolio. By writing a balanced casualty portfolio, we believe
we are less vulnerable to unacceptable market changes in pricing
and terms in any one product or industry.
Our casualty operations utilize significant net insurance
capacity. Because of the large limits we often deploy in the
casualty segment, we utilize reinsurance to reduce our net
exposure.
Reinsurance
Segment
General
Our reinsurance segment includes the reinsurance of property,
general casualty, professional liability, specialty lines and
property catastrophe coverages written by other insurance
companies. We presently write reinsurance on both a treaty and a
facultative basis, targeting several niche markets including
professional liability lines, specialty casualty, property for
U.S. regional insurers, accident and health and to a lesser
extent marine and aviation. We believe that this diversity in
type of reinsurance and line of business enables us to alter our
business strategy quickly, should we foresee changes to the
exposure environment in any sector. Overall, we strive to
balance our reinsurance portfolio through the appropriate
combination of business lines, ceding source, geography and
contract configuration.
We employ a staff of 22 employees in our reinsurance
segment. This includes 13 underwriters, each of whom is highly
experienced, having joined the company from large, established
organizations. Our underwriters determine
5
appropriate pricing either by using pricing models built or
approved by our actuarial staff or by relying on established
pricing set by one of our pricing actuaries for a specific
treaty. Pricing models are generally used for facultative
reinsurance, property catastrophe reinsurance, property per risk
reinsurance and workers compensation and personal accident
catastrophe reinsurance. Other types of reinsurance rely on
actuarially-established
pricing. During the year ended December 31, 2007, our
reinsurance segment generated gross premiums written of
$536.1 million. On a written basis, our business mix is
more heavily weighted to reinsurance during the first three
months of the year. Our reinsurance segment operates mainly from
Bermuda. We are currently developing a new reinsurance operation
in the United States.
Product
Lines and Customer Base
Property, general casualty and professional liability treaty
reinsurance is the principal source of revenue for this segment.
The insurers we reinsure are primarily specialty carriers
domiciled in the United States or the specialty divisions of
standard lines carriers located there. In addition, we reinsure
monoline companies, regional companies and single-state writers,
whether organized as mutual or stock insurers. We focus on niche
programs and coverages, frequently sourced from excess and
surplus lines insurers. We established an international treaty
unit and began writing global accident and health accounts in
2003, which spread the segments exposure beyond the North
American focus. We target a portfolio of well-rated companies
that are highly knowledgeable in their product lines, have the
financial resources to execute their business plans and are
committed to underwriting discipline throughout the underwriting
cycle.
Our North American property reinsurance treaties protect
insurers who write residential, commercial and industrial
accounts where the exposure to loss is chiefly North American.
We emphasize monoline, per risk accounts, which are structured
as either proportional or
excess-of-loss
protections. Where possible, coverage is provided on a
losses occurring basis. The line size extended is
currently limited to $12.5 million per contract or per
program pertaining to property catastrophe accounts and
$5 million per contract or per program for all other
accounts. We selectively write industry loss warranties where we
believe market opportunities justify the risks. During the year
ended December 31, 2007, our property treaty business
accounted for 15.6%, or $83.7 million, of our total gross
premiums written in the reinsurance segment.
Our North American general casualty treaties cover working
layer, intermediate layer and catastrophe exposures. We sell
both proportional and
excess-of-loss
reinsurance. We principally underwrite general liability, auto
liability and commercial excess and umbrella liability for both
admitted and non-admitted companies, and workers compensation
catastrophe business. Capacity is currently limited to
$20 million per contract or per program pertaining to
catastrophe accounts and $5 million per contract or per
program for all other accounts. During the year ended
December 31, 2007, our North American general casualty
treaty business accounted for 23.6% or $126.5 million, of
our total gross premiums written in the reinsurance segment.
Our North American professional liability treaties cover several
products, primarily directors and officers
liability, but also attorneys malpractice, medical
malpractice, miscellaneous professional classes and
transactional risk liability. Line size is currently limited to
$5 million per program; however, the liability limits
provided are typically for lesser amounts. We develop customized
treaty structures for the risk classes protected by these
treaties, which account for the largest share of premiums
written within the segment. The complex exposures undertaken by
this unit demand highly technical underwriting and pricing
modeling analysis. During the year ended December 31, 2007,
our professional liability treaty business accounted for 39.3%,
or $210.9 million, of our total gross premiums written in
the reinsurance segment.
Our international treaty units portfolio protects U.K.
insurers, including Lloyds syndicates, and Continental
European companies. While we continue to concentrate on
Euro-centric business, we are now writing and will increasingly
expand our capabilities outside of Europe. Our net risk exposure
is currently limited to 12.5 million per contract or
per program pertaining to property catastrophe accounts and
5 million per contract or per program for all other
accounts. During the year ended December 31, 2007, the
international treaty unit accounted for 13.8%, or
$73.9 million, of our total gross premiums written in the
reinsurance segment.
Facultative casualty business principally comprises
lower-attachment, individual-risk reinsurance covering
automobile liability, general liability and workers compensation
risks for many of the largest U.S. property-casualty
6
and surplus lines insurers. Line size is currently limited to
$2 million per certificate. We believe that we are the only
Bermuda-based reinsurer that has a dedicated facultative
casualty reinsurance business. During the year ended
December 31, 2007, our facultative reinsurance business
accounted for 6.2%, or $33.0 million, of our total gross
premiums written in the reinsurance segment.
In addition, we underwrite accident and health business,
emphasizing catastrophe personal accident programs. During the
year ended December 31, 2007, our accident and health
business accounted for 1.5%, or $8.1 million, of our total
gross premiums written in the reinsurance segment.
Underwriting
and Risk Management
In our reinsurance segment, we believe we carefully evaluate
reinsurance proposals to find an optimal balance between the
risks and opportunities. Before we review the specifics of any
reinsurance proposal, we consider the appropriateness of the
client, including the experience and reputation of its
management and its risk management strategy. We also examine the
level of shareholders equity, industry ratings, length of
incorporation, duration of business model, portfolio
profitability, types of exposures and the extent of its
liabilities. For property proposals, we also obtain information
on the nature of the perils to be included and the policy
information on all locations to be covered under the reinsurance
contract. If a program meets our underwriting criteria, we then
assess the adequacy of its proposed pricing, terms and
conditions, and its potential impact on our profit targets and
risk objectives.
To identify, plot, manage and monitor accumulations of exposures
from potential property catastrophes, we employ
industry-recognized modeling software on all of our accounts.
This software, together with our underwriting experience and
portfolio knowledge, produces the probable maximum loss amounts
we allocate to our reinsurance departments internal global
property catastrophe zones. Notwithstanding the probable maximum
loss modeling we undertake, the reinsurance segment focuses on
gross treaty limits deployed in each critical catastrophe zone.
For casualty treaty contracts, we track accumulations by line of
business. Ceilings for the limits of liability we sell are
established based on modeled loss outcomes, underwriting
experience and past performance of accounts under consideration.
In addition, accumulations among treaty acceptances within the
same line of business are monitored, such that the maximum loss
sustainable from any one casualty catastrophe should not exceed
pre-established targets.
Security
Arrangements
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd is neither licensed nor
admitted as an insurer nor is it accredited as a reinsurer in
any jurisdiction in the United States. As a result, it is
required to post collateral security with respect to any
reinsurance liabilities it assumes from ceding insurers
domiciled in the United States in order for U.S. ceding
companies to obtain credit on their U.S. statutory
financial statements with respect to insurance liabilities ceded
by them. Under applicable statutory provisions, the security
arrangements may be in the form of letters of credit,
reinsurance trusts maintained by trustees or funds-withheld
arrangements where assets are held by the ceding company. For a
description of the security arrangements used by us, see
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Liquidity and
Capital Resources Restrictions and Specific
Requirements.
Business
Strategy
Our business objective is to generate attractive returns on our
equity and book value per share growth for our shareholders. We
seek to achieve this objective by executing the following
strategies:
|
|
|
|
|
Leverage Our Diversified Underwriting
Franchises. Our business is diversified by both
product line and geography. We underwrite a broad array of
property, casualty and reinsurance risks from our operations in
Bermuda, Europe and the United States. Our underwriting skills
across multiple lines and multiple geographies allow us to
remain flexible and opportunistic in our business selection in
the face of fluctuating market conditions.
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
Expand Our Distribution and Our Access to Markets in the
United States. We have made substantial investments to
expand our U.S. business, which grew in 2007 and which we
expect will continue to grow in size and importance in the
coming years. We employ a regional distribution strategy in the
United States predominantly focused on underwriting direct
casualty and property insurance for middle-market and
non-Fortune 1000 client accounts. Through our U.S. excess
and surplus lines capability, we believe we have a strong
presence in specialty casualty lines and maintain an attractive
base of U.S. middle-market clients, especially in the
professional liability market. We are also expanding our
reinsurance presence into the United States in order to further
diversify our reinsurance portfolios.
|
|
|
|
Grow Our European Business. We intend to grow
our European business, with an emphasis on the United Kingdom
and Western Europe, where we believe the insurance and
reinsurance markets are developed and stable. Our European
strategy is predominantly focused on property and casualty
insurance for large European and international accounts. The
European operations provide us with diversification and the
ability to spread our underwriting risks. We have access to the
London wholesale market through our reinsurance subsidiary in
Ireland.
|
|
|
|
Actively Monitor Our Property Catastrophe
Exposure. We have historically managed our
property catastrophe exposure by closely monitoring our policy
limits in addition to utilizing complex risk models. This
discipline has substantially reduced our historical loss
experience and our exposure. In addition to our continued focus
on aggregate limits and modeled probable maximum loss, we have
implemented a strategy based on gross exposed policy limits in
critical earthquake and hurricane zones. Our gross exposed
policy limits approach focuses on exposures in catastrophe-prone
geographic zones and takes into consideration flood severity,
demand surge and business interruption exposures for each
critical area. During the third quarter of 2007, we redefined
our risk tolerance relating to property catastrophe events. For
our direct property, workers compensation and accident and
health catastrophe and property reinsurance business, we seek to
manage our risk exposure so that our probable maximum loss for a
single catastrophic event, after all applicable reinsurance, in
any one-in-250 year event does not exceed
approximately 20% of our total capital.
|
|
|
|
Opportunistically Underwrite Diversified Reinsurance
Risks. As part of our reinsurance segment, we
target certain niche reinsurance markets, including professional
liability, specialty casualty, property for U.S. regional
carriers, and accident and health because we believe we
understand the risks and opportunities in these markets. We seek
to selectively deploy our capital in reinsurance lines where we
believe there are profitable opportunities. In order to
diversify our portfolio and complement our direct insurance
business, we target the overall contribution from reinsurance to
be approximately 35% of our total annual gross premiums written.
We strive to maintain a well managed reinsurance portfolio,
balanced by line of business, ceding source, geography and
contract configuration. Our primary customer focus is on
highly-rated carriers with proven underwriting skills and
dependable operating models.
|
Competition
The insurance and reinsurance industries are highly competitive.
Insurance and reinsurance companies compete on the basis of many
factors, including premium rates, general reputation and
perceived financial strength, the terms and conditions of the
products offered, ratings assigned by independent rating
agencies, speed of claims payments and reputation and experience
in risks underwritten.
During 2007, there were no significant catastrophic events that
materially impacted our financial condition or results of
operations. We saw rate declines and increased competition
across all of our operating segments. We believe increased
competition was principally the result of increased capacity in
the insurance and reinsurance marketplaces. We believe the trend
of increased capacity and decreasing rates will continue through
2008. Given this trend, we continue to be selective in the
insurance policies and reinsurance contracts we underwrite.
We compete with major U.S. and
non-U.S. insurers
and reinsurers, including other Bermuda-based insurers and
reinsurers, on an international and regional basis. Many of our
competitors have greater financial, marketing and management
resources. Since September 2001, a number of new Bermuda-based
insurance and reinsurance companies have been formed and some of
those companies compete in the same market segments in which we
8
operate. Some of these companies have more capital than our
company. In our direct insurance business, we compete with
insurers that provide property and casualty-based lines of
insurance such as: ACE Limited, AIG, Arch Capital Group Ltd.,
Axis Capital Holdings Limited, Chubb, Endurance Specialty
Holdings Ltd., Factory Mutual Insurance Company, HCC Insurance
Holdings, Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Lloyds
of London, Munich Re Group, Swiss Re, XL Capital Ltd and Zurich
Financial Services. In our reinsurance business, we compete with
reinsurers that provide property and casualty-based lines of
reinsurance such as: ACE Limited, Arch Capital Group Ltd.,
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., Everest Re Group, Ltd., Harbor Point
Limited, Lloyds of London, Montpelier Re Holdings Ltd.,
Munich Re Group, PartnerRe Ltd., Platinum Underwriters Holdings,
Ltd., RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd., Swiss Re, Transatlantic
Holdings, Inc. and XL Capital Ltd.
In addition, risk-linked securities and derivative and other
non-traditional risk transfer mechanisms and vehicles are being
developed and offered by other parties, including entities other
than insurance and reinsurance companies. The availability of
these non-traditional products could reduce the demand for
traditional insurance and reinsurance. A number of new, proposed
or potential industry or legislative developments could further
increase competition in our industry. New competition from these
developments may result in fewer contracts written, lower
premium rates, increased expenses for customer acquisition and
retention and less favorable policy terms and conditions, which
could have a material adverse impact on our growth and
profitability.
Our
Financial Strength Ratings
Ratings have become an increasingly important factor in
establishing the competitive position of insurance and
reinsurance companies. A.M. Best, Standard &
Poors and Moodys have each developed a rating system
to provide an opinion of an insurers or reinsurers
financial strength and ability to meet ongoing obligations to
its policyholders. Each rating reflects the opinion of
A.M. Best, Standard & Poors and
Moodys, respectively, of the capitalization, management
and sponsorship of the entity to which it relates, and is
neither an evaluation directed to investors in our common shares
nor a recommendation to buy, sell or hold our common shares.
A.M. Best ratings currently range from A+
(Superior) to F (In Liquidation) and include 16
separate ratings categories. Standard & Poors
maintains a letter scale rating system ranging from
AAA (Extremely Strong) to R (under
regulatory supervision) and includes 21 separate ratings
categories. Moodys maintains a letter scale rating from
Aaa (Exceptional) to NP (Not Prime) and
includes 21 separate ratings categories. Our principal operating
subsidiaries have A (Excellent) ratings from A.M. Best and
A− (Strong) ratings from Standard & Poors.
Our Bermuda and U.S. operating subsidiaries are rated A2
(Good) by Moodys. In addition, our $500 million
aggregate principal amount of senior notes were assigned a
senior unsecured debt rating of bbb by A.M. Best, BBB by
Standard & Poors and Baa1 by Moodys. These
ratings are subject to periodic review, and may be revised
downward or revoked, at the sole discretion of the rating
agencies.
Distribution
of Our Insurance Products
We market our insurance and reinsurance products worldwide
through insurance and reinsurance brokers. This distribution
channel provides us with access to an efficient, variable cost
and international distribution system without the significant
time and expense that would be incurred in creating our own
distribution network.
We distribute through major excess and surplus lines wholesalers
and regional retailers in the United States targeting
middle-market and non-Fortune 1000 companies. For the year
ended December 31, 2007, U.S. excess and surplus lines
wholesalers accounted for 67% of our U.S. distribution and
included: Colemont Insurance Brokers, AmWins Group, Inc., CRC
Insurance Services, Inc., Swett & Crawford Group, Inc.
and CV Starr & Co. Inc. The remaining 33% of our
U.S. distribution was conducted through national retailers
and regional brokers such as Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., Aon Corporation, Willis Group Holdings Ltd.,
Lockton Companies, Inc. and Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co.
9
In the year ended December 31, 2007, our top four brokers
represented approximately 68% of gross premiums written by us. A
breakdown of our distribution by broker is provided in the table
below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of Gross
|
|
|
|
Premiums Written
|
|
|
|
for the Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
Broker
|
|
|
|
|
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
|
|
|
30
|
%
|
Aon Corporation
|
|
|
24
|
%
|
Willis Group Holdings Ltd.
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group plc
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
All Others
|
|
|
32
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claims
Management
We have a well-developed process in place for identifying,
tracking and resolving claims. Claims responsibilities include
reviewing loss reports, monitoring claims developments,
requesting additional information where appropriate, performing
claims audits of cedents, establishing initial case reserves and
approving payment of individual claims. We have established
authority levels for all individuals involved in the reserving
and settlement of claims.
With respect to reinsurance, in addition to managing reported
claims and conferring with ceding companies on claims matters,
the claims management staff and personnel conduct periodic
audits of specific claims and the overall claims procedures of
our reinsureds. Through these audits, we are able to evaluate
ceding companies claims-handling practices, including the
organization of their claims departments, their fact-finding and
investigation techniques, their loss notifications, the adequacy
of their reserves, their negotiation and settlement practices
and their adherence to claims-handling guidelines.
Reserve
for Losses and Loss Expenses
We are required by applicable insurance laws and regulations in
Bermuda, the United States, the United Kingdom and Ireland and
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States to
establish loss reserves to cover our estimated liability for the
payment of all losses and loss expenses incurred with respect to
premiums earned on the policies and treaties that we write.
These reserves are balance sheet liabilities representing
estimates of losses and loss expenses we are required to pay for
insured or reinsured claims that have occurred as of or before
the balance sheet date. It is our policy to establish these
losses and loss expense reserves using prudent actuarial methods
after reviewing all information known to us as of the date they
are recorded.
We use statistical and actuarial methods to reasonably estimate
ultimate expected losses and loss expenses. We utilize a variety
of standard actuarial methods in our analysis. These include the
Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods, the reported loss development
method, the paid loss development method and the expected loss
ratio method. The selections from these various methods are
based on the loss development characteristics of the specific
line of business. During 2007, we adjusted our reliance on
actuarial methods utilized for certain lines of business and
loss years within our casualty segment from using a blend of the
Bornhuetter-Ferguson reported loss method and the expected loss
ratio method to using only the Bornhuetter-Ferguson reported
loss method. We believe utilizing only the Bornhuetter-Ferguson
reported loss method for older loss years will more accurately
reflect the reported loss activity we have had thus far in our
ultimate loss ratio selections and will better reflect how the
ultimate losses will develop over time. We will continue to
utilize the expected loss ratio method for the most recent loss
years until we have sufficient historical experience to utilize
other acceptable actuarial methodologies.
Loss reserves do not represent an exact calculation of
liability; rather, loss reserves are estimates of what we expect
the ultimate resolution and administration of claims will cost.
These estimates are based on actuarial and statistical
projections and on our assessment of currently available data,
as well as estimates of future trends in
10
claims severity and frequency, judicial theories of liability
and other factors. Loss reserve estimates are refined as
experience develops and as claims are reported and resolved.
Establishing an appropriate level of loss reserves is an
inherently uncertain process. The uncertainties may be greater
for insurers like us than for insurers with an established
operating and claims history and a larger number of insurance
and reinsurance transactions. The relatively large limits of net
liability for any one risk in our excess casualty and
professional liability lines of business serve to increase the
potential for volatility in the development of our loss
reserves. In addition, the relatively long reporting periods
between when a loss occurs and when it may be reported to our
claims department for our casualty lines of business also
increase the uncertainties of our reserve estimates in such
lines. See Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Critical Accounting Policies Reserve for Losses and
Loss Expenses for further information regarding the
actuarial models we utilize and the uncertainties in
establishing the reserve for losses and loss expenses.
To the extent we determine that the loss emergence of actual
losses or loss expenses, whether due to frequency, severity or
both, vary from our expectations and reserves reflected in our
financial statements, we are required to increase or decrease
our reserves to reflect our changed expectations. Any such
increase could cause a material increase in our liabilities and
a reduction in our profitability, including operating losses and
a reduction of capital.
To assist us in establishing appropriate reserves for losses and
loss expenses, we analyze a significant amount of insurance
industry information with respect to the pricing environment and
loss settlement patterns. In combination with our individual
pricing analyses and our internal loss settlement patterns, this
industry information is used to guide our loss and loss expense
estimates. These estimates are reviewed regularly, and any
adjustments are reflected in earnings in the periods in which
they are determined.
The following tables show the development of gross and net
reserves for losses and loss expenses, respectively. The tables
do not present accident or policy year development data. Each
table begins by showing the original year-end reserves recorded
at the balance sheet date for each of the years presented
(as originally estimated). This represents the
estimated amounts of losses and loss expenses arising in all
prior years that are unpaid at the balance sheet date, including
reserves for losses incurred but not reported
(IBNR). The re-estimated liabilities reflect
additional information regarding claims incurred prior to the
end of the preceding financial year. A redundancy (or
deficiency) arises when the re-estimation of reserves recorded
at the end of each prior year is less than (or greater than) its
estimation at the preceding year-end. The cumulative
redundancies (or deficiencies) represent cumulative differences
between the original reserves and the currently re-estimated
liabilities over all prior years. Annual changes in the
estimates are reflected in the consolidated statement of
operations and comprehensive income for each year, as the
liabilities are re-estimated.
The lower sections of the tables show the portions of the
original reserves that were paid (claims paid) as of the end of
subsequent years. This section of each table provides an
indication of the portion of the re-estimated liability that is
settled and is unlikely to develop in the future. For our
proportional treaty reinsurance business, we have estimated the
allocation of claims paid to applicable years based on a review
of large losses and earned premium percentages.
11
Development
of Reserve for Losses and Loss Expenses
Cumulative Deficiency (Redundancy)
Gross Losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
As Originally Estimated:
|
|
$
|
213
|
|
|
$
|
310,508
|
|
|
$
|
1,058,653
|
|
|
$
|
2,037,124
|
|
|
$
|
3,405,407
|
|
|
$
|
3,636,997
|
|
|
$
|
3,919,772
|
|
Liability Re-estimated as of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
253,691
|
|
|
|
979,218
|
|
|
|
1,929,571
|
|
|
|
3,318,359
|
|
|
|
3,469,216
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
226,943
|
|
|
|
896,649
|
|
|
|
1,844,258
|
|
|
|
3,172,105
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
217,712
|
|
|
|
842,976
|
|
|
|
1,711,212
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
199,860
|
|
|
|
809,117
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
205,432
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative (Redundancy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(105,076
|
)
|
|
|
(249,536
|
)
|
|
|
(325,912
|
)
|
|
|
(233,302
|
)
|
|
|
(167,781
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative Claims Paid as of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,288
|
|
|
|
138,793
|
|
|
|
372,823
|
|
|
|
712,032
|
|
|
|
544,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83,465
|
|
|
|
237,394
|
|
|
|
571,149
|
|
|
|
1,142,878
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,978
|
|
|
|
300,707
|
|
|
|
721,821
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
124,109
|
|
|
|
371,638
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
163,516
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Development
of Reserve for Losses and Loss Expenses
Cumulative Deficiency (Redundancy)
Gross Losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Liability Re-estimated as of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
82
|
%
|
|
|
92
|
%
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
|
|
97
|
%
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
73
|
%
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
91
|
%
|
|
|
93
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
70
|
%
|
|
|
80
|
%
|
|
|
84
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
64
|
%
|
|
|
76
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
66
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative (Redundancy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(34
|
)%
|
|
|
(24
|
)%
|
|
|
(16
|
)%
|
|
|
(7
|
)%
|
|
|
(5
|
)%
|
Gross Loss and Loss Expense Cumulative Paid as a
Percentage of Originally Estimated Liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative Claims Paid as of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
13
|
%
|
|
|
18
|
%
|
|
|
21
|
%
|
|
|
15
|
%
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
27
|
%
|
|
|
22
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
34
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
33
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
53
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
Losses
Net of Reinsurance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
As Originally Estimated:
|
|
$
|
213
|
|
|
$
|
299,946
|
|
|
$
|
964,810
|
|
|
$
|
1,777,953
|
|
|
$
|
2,688,526
|
|
|
$
|
2,947,892
|
|
|
$
|
3,237,007
|
|
Liability Re-estimated as of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
243,129
|
|
|
|
885,375
|
|
|
|
1,728,868
|
|
|
|
2,577,808
|
|
|
|
2,824,815
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
216,381
|
|
|
|
830,969
|
|
|
|
1,626,334
|
|
|
|
2,474,788
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
207,945
|
|
|
|
771,781
|
|
|
|
1,528,620
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
191,471
|
|
|
|
745,289
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
197,656
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative (Redundancy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(102,290
|
)
|
|
|
(219,521
|
)
|
|
|
(249,333
|
)
|
|
|
(213,738
|
)
|
|
|
(123,077
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative Claims Paid as of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,077
|
|
|
|
133,286
|
|
|
|
305,083
|
|
|
|
455,079
|
|
|
|
365,251
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76,843
|
|
|
|
214,384
|
|
|
|
478,788
|
|
|
|
747,253
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93,037
|
|
|
|
271,471
|
|
|
|
620,760
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
116,494
|
|
|
|
342,349
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
155,904
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Losses
Net of Reinsurance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Liability Re-estimated as of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
81
|
%
|
|
|
92
|
%
|
|
|
97
|
%
|
|
|
96
|
%
|
|
|
96
|
%
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
72
|
%
|
|
|
86
|
%
|
|
|
91
|
%
|
|
|
92
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
69
|
%
|
|
|
80
|
%
|
|
|
86
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
64
|
%
|
|
|
77
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
66
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative (Redundancy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(34
|
)%
|
|
|
(23
|
)%
|
|
|
(14
|
)%
|
|
|
(8
|
)%
|
|
|
(4
|
)%
|
Net Loss and Loss Expense Cumulative Paid as a
Percentage of Originally Estimated Liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative Claims Paid as of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
14
|
%
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
12
|
%
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
26
|
%
|
|
|
22
|
%
|
|
|
27
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
31
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
39
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
52
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
liability for unpaid losses and loss expenses for the years
ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred and
paid are reflected net of reinsurance recoveries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
Gross liability at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
3,636,997
|
|
|
$
|
3,405,353
|
|
|
$
|
2,037,124
|
|
Reinsurance recoverable at beginning of year
|
|
|
(689,105
|
)
|
|
|
(716,333
|
)
|
|
|
(259,171
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net liability at beginning of year
|
|
|
2,947,892
|
|
|
|
2,689,020
|
|
|
|
1,777,953
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current year
|
|
|
805,417
|
|
|
|
849,850
|
|
|
|
1,393,685
|
|
Prior years
|
|
|
(123,077
|
)
|
|
|
(110,717
|
)
|
|
|
(49,085
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
|
682,340
|
|
|
|
739,133
|
|
|
|
1,344,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net paid losses related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current year
|
|
|
32,599
|
|
|
|
27,748
|
|
|
|
125,018
|
|
Prior years
|
|
|
365,251
|
|
|
|
455,079
|
|
|
|
305,082
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
|
397,850
|
|
|
|
482,827
|
|
|
|
430,100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
4,625
|
|
|
|
2,566
|
|
|
|
(3,433
|
)
|
Net liability at end of year
|
|
|
3,237,007
|
|
|
|
2,947,892
|
|
|
|
2,689,020
|
|
Reinsurance recoverable at end of year
|
|
|
682,765
|
|
|
|
689,105
|
|
|
|
716,333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross liability at end of year
|
|
$
|
3,919,772
|
|
|
$
|
3,636,997
|
|
|
$
|
3,405,353
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments
Investment
Strategy and Guidelines
We follow a conservative investment strategy designed to
emphasize the preservation of our invested assets and provide
sufficient liquidity for the prompt payment of claims. In that
regard, we attempt to correlate the maturity and duration of our
investment portfolio to our general liability profile. In making
investment decisions, we consider the impact of various
catastrophic events to which we may be exposed. Our portfolio
therefore consists primarily of high-investment-grade-rated,
liquid, fixed-maturity securities of
short-to-medium
term duration. Including a high-yield bond fund investment, 99%
of our fixed income portfolio consists of investment grade
securities. In addition, we may invest up to 20% of our
shareholders equity in alternative investments, including
public and private equities, preferred equities and hedge funds.
In an effort to meet business needs and mitigate risks, our
investment guidelines specify minimum criteria on the overall
credit quality and liquidity characteristics of the portfolio.
They include limitations on the size of some holdings as well as
restrictions on purchasing specified types of securities,
convertible bonds or investing in certain regions. Permissible
investments are also limited by the type of issuer, the
counterpartys creditworthiness and other factors. Our
investment managers may choose to invest some of the investment
portfolio in currencies other than the U.S. dollar based on
the business we have written, the currency in which our loss
reserves are denominated on our books or regulatory requirements.
Our investment performance is subject to a variety of risks,
including risks related to general economic conditions, market
volatility, interest rate fluctuations, liquidity risk and
credit and default risk. Investment guideline restrictions have
been established in an effort to minimize the effect of these
risks but may not always be effective due to factors beyond our
control. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors,
including governmental monetary policies, domestic and
international economic and political conditions and other
factors beyond our control. A significant increase in interest
rates could result in significant losses, realized or
unrealized, in the value of our investment portfolio.
Additionally, with respect to some of our investments, we are
subject to prepayment and therefore reinvestment risk.
Alternative investments, such as our hedge fund investments,
subject us to restrictions on redemption, which may limit our
ability to
14
withdraw funds for some period of time after our initial
investment. The values of, and returns on, such investments may
also be more volatile.
Investment
Committee and Investment Manager
The investment committee of our board of directors establishes
investment guidelines and supervises our investment activity.
The investment committee regularly monitors our overall
investment results, compliance with investment objectives and
guidelines, and ultimately reports our overall investment
results to the board of directors.
We have engaged affiliates of the Goldman Sachs Funds to provide
certain discretionary investment management services. We have
agreed to pay investment management fees based on the month-end
market values of the investments in the portfolio. The fees,
which vary depending on the amount of assets under management,
are included in net investment income. These investment
management agreements are generally in force for an initial
three-year term with subsequent one-year period renewals, during
which they may be terminated by either party subject to
specified notice requirements. Also, the investment manager of a
hedge fund we invest in is a subsidiary of AIG.
Our
Portfolio
Composition
as of December 31, 2007
As of December 31, 2007, our aggregate invested assets
totaled approximately $6.2 billion. Aggregate invested
assets include cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash,
fixed-maturity securities, a fund consisting of global
high-yield fixed-income securities, several hedge fund
investments, balances receivable on sale of investments and
balances due on purchase of investments. The average credit
quality of our investments is rated AA by Standard &
Poors and Aa1 by Moodys. Short-term instruments must
be rated a minimum of
A-1/P-1. As
of December 31, 2007, the target duration range was 1.25 to
3.75 years. As of January 1, 2008, the target duration
range is 1.75 to 4.25 years. The portfolio has a total
return rather than income orientation. As of December 31,
2007, the average duration of our investment portfolio was
3.1 years and there were approximately $136.2 million
of net unrealized gains in the portfolio, net of applicable tax.
The global high-yield bond fund invests primarily in high-yield
fixed income securities rated below investment grade and had a
fair market value of $79.5 million as of December 31,
2007. Our hedge fund investments had a total fair market value
of $241.5 million as of December 31, 2007.
The following table shows the types of securities in our
portfolio, excluding cash equivalents, and their fair market
values and amortized costs as of December 31, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Market
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Gains
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Type of Investment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government and agencies
|
|
$
|
1,987.6
|
|
|
$
|
65.7
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,053.3
|
|
Non-U.S.
government securities
|
|
|
100.4
|
|
|
|
18.7
|
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
118.8
|
|
Corporate securities
|
|
|
1,248.3
|
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
|
(5.8
|
)
|
|
|
1,252.6
|
|
Mortgage-backed securities
|
|
|
2,095.6
|
|
|
|
22.8
|
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
2,117.5
|
|
Asset-backed securities
|
|
|
164.0
|
|
|
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
164.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed income subtotal
|
|
|
5,595.9
|
|
|
|
118.2
|
|
|
|
(7.0
|
)
|
|
|
5,707.1
|
|
Global high-yield bond fund
|
|
|
75.1
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79.5
|
|
Hedge funds
|
|
|
215.2
|
|
|
|
27.3
|
|
|
|
(1.0
|
)
|
|
|
241.5
|
|
Other invested assets
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,887.4
|
|
|
$
|
149.9
|
|
|
$
|
(8.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
6,029.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S.
Government and Agencies
U.S. government and agency securities are comprised
primarily of bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury, the Federal
Home Loan Bank, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
the Federal National Mortgage Association.
15
Non-U.S.
Government Securities
Non-U.S. government
securities represent the fixed income obligations of
non-U.S. governmental
entities.
Corporate
Securities
Corporate securities are comprised of bonds issued by
corporations that on acquisition are rated A-/A3 or higher and
are diversified across a wide range of issuers and industries.
The principal risks of corporate securities are interest rate
risk and the potential loss of income and potential realized and
unrealized principal losses due to insolvencies or deteriorating
credit. The largest corporate credit in our portfolio was HSBC
Holdings Plc, which represented 1.5% of aggregate invested
assets and had an average rating of AA- by Standard &
Poors, as of December 31, 2007. We actively monitor
our corporate credit exposures and have had one credit-related
write-down of $2.2 million to date.
Asset-Backed
Securities
Asset-backed securities are purchased both to diversify the
overall risks of our fixed maturity portfolio and to provide
attractive returns. Our asset-backed securities are diversified
both by type of asset and by issuer and are comprised of
primarily AAA-rated bonds backed by pools of automobile loan
receivables, home equity loans and credit card receivables
originated by a variety of financial institutions.
The principal risks in holding asset-backed securities are
structural, credit and capital market risks. Structural risks
include the securitys priority in the issuers
capital structure, the adequacy of and ability to realize
proceeds from the collateral and the potential for prepayments.
Credit risks include consumer or corporate credits such as
credit card holders and corporate obligors. Capital market risks
include the general level of interest rates and the liquidity
for these securities in the market place.
Mortgage-Backed
Securities
Mortgage-backed securities are purchased to diversify our
portfolio risk characteristics from primarily corporate credit
risk to a mix of credit risk and cash flow risk. However, the
majority of the mortgage-backed securities in our investment
portfolio have relatively low cash flow variability.
The principal risks inherent in holding mortgage-backed
securities are prepayment and extension risks, which will affect
the timing of when cash flows will be received. The active
monitoring of our mortgage-backed securities mitigates exposure
to losses from cash flow risk associated with interest rate
fluctuations. Our mortgage-backed securities are principally
comprised of AAA-rated pools of residential and commercial
mortgages originated by both agency (such as the Federal
National Mortgage Association) and non-agency originators.
Non-Fixed
Income Investments
As of December 31, 2007, we invested in various hedge funds
with a cost of $215.2 million and a market value of
$241.4 million. Investments in hedge funds involve certain
risks related to, among other things, the illiquid nature of the
fund shares, the limited operating history of the fund, as well
as risks associated with the strategies employed by managers of
the funds. The funds objectives are generally to seek
attractive long-term returns with lower volatility by investing
in a range of diversified investment strategies. As our reserves
and capital continue to build, we may consider additional
investments in these or other alternative investments.
16
Ratings
as of December 31, 2007
The investment ratings (provided by major rating agencies) for
fixed maturity securities held as of December 31, 2007 and
the percentage of our total fixed maturity securities they
represented on that date were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Total
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Fair Market
|
|
|
Fair Market
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Ratings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government and government agencies
|
|
$
|
1,987.6
|
|
|
$
|
2,053.3
|
|
|
|
36.0
|
%
|
AAA/Aaa
|
|
|
2,609.3
|
|
|
|
2,655.2
|
|
|
|
46.5
|
%
|
AA/Aa
|
|
|
411.8
|
|
|
|
411.8
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
A/A
|
|
|
519.6
|
|
|
|
519.3
|
|
|
|
9.1
|
%
|
BBB/Baa
|
|
|
67.6
|
|
|
|
67.5
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,595.9
|
|
|
$
|
5,707.1
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2007, $106.7 million of AAA/Aaa
rated fixed maturity securities, or 1.8% of total fixed maturity
investments, were guaranteed by various financial guaranty
insurance companies, some of which may be adversely impacted by
their subprime exposures.
Maturity
Distribution as of December 31, 2007
The maturity distribution for fixed maturity securities held as
of December 31, 2007 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Total
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Fair Market
|
|
|
Fair Market
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due within one year
|
|
$
|
468.5
|
|
|
$
|
474.1
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
%
|
Due after one year through five years
|
|
|
1,931.1
|
|
|
|
1,982.1
|
|
|
|
34.7
|
%
|
Due after five years through ten years
|
|
|
840.7
|
|
|
|
869.0
|
|
|
|
15.2
|
%
|
Due after ten years
|
|
|
96.0
|
|
|
|
99.5
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
%
|
Mortgage-backed securities
|
|
|
2,095.6
|
|
|
|
2,117.5
|
|
|
|
37.1
|
%
|
Asset-backed securities
|
|
|
164.0
|
|
|
|
164.9
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,595.9
|
|
|
$
|
5,707.1
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
Returns for the Year Ended December 31, 2007
Our investment returns for year ended December 31, 2007
were as follows ($ in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
$
|
297.9
|
|
Net realized loss on sales of investments
|
|
$
|
(7.6
|
)
|
Net change in unrealized gains and losses
|
|
$
|
129.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net investment return
|
|
$
|
420.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
return(1)
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
Effective annualized
yield(2)
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total return for our investment portfolio is calculated using
beginning and ending market values adjusted for external cash
flows and includes unrealized gains and losses. |
17
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Effective annualized yield is calculated by dividing net
investment income by the average balance of aggregate invested
assets, on an amortized cost basis. |
Our
Principal Operating Subsidiaries
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd is a registered Class 4
Bermuda insurance and reinsurance company that began operations
in November 2001. Senior management and all of the staff of
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd are located in our Bermuda
headquarters.
Allied World Assurance Company (Europe) Limited was incorporated
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allied World Assurance Holdings
(Ireland) Ltd and has been approved to carry on business in the
European Union from its office in Ireland since October 2002 and
from a branch office in London since May 2003. Since its
formation, Allied World Assurance Company (Europe) Limited has
written business originating from Ireland, the United Kingdom
and Continental Europe. Allied World Assurance Company
(Reinsurance) Limited was incorporated as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allied World Assurance Holdings (Ireland) Ltd and
has been licensed to write reinsurance throughout the European
Union from its office in Ireland since July 2003 and from a
branch office in London since August 2004. The company writes
primarily property business directly sourced from London market
producers; however, the risk location can be worldwide.
Allied World Assurance Holdings (Ireland) Ltd acquired Allied
World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc. and Allied World National
Assurance Company (formerly Newmarket Underwriters Insurance
Company) in July 2002. These two companies are authorized or
eligible to write insurance on a surplus lines basis in all
states of the United States and licensed to write insurance on
an admitted basis in over 35 jurisdictions.
The activities of Newmarket Administrative Services (Bermuda)
Ltd, Newmarket Administrative Services (Ireland) Limited and
Newmarket Administrative Services, Inc. are limited to providing
certain administrative services to various subsidiaries of our
company.
Our
Employees
As of February 22, 2008, we had a total of
297 full-time employees of which 163 worked in Bermuda, 84
in the United States and 50 in Europe. We believe that our
employee relations are good. No employees are subject to
collective bargaining agreements.
Regulatory
Matters
General
The business of insurance and reinsurance is regulated in most
countries, although the degree and type of regulation varies
significantly from one jurisdiction to another. Our insurance
subsidiaries are required to comply with a wide variety of laws
and regulations applicable to insurance and reinsurance
companies, both in the jurisdictions in which they are organized
and where they sell their insurance and reinsurance products.
The insurance and regulatory environment, in particular for
offshore insurance and reinsurance companies, has become subject
to increased scrutiny in many jurisdictions, including the
United States, various states within the United States and the
United Kingdom. In the past, there have been Congressional and
other initiatives in the United States regarding increased
supervision and regulation of the insurance industry, including
proposals to supervise and regulate offshore reinsurers. For
example, in response to the tightening of supply in some
insurance and reinsurance markets resulting from, among other
things, the World Trade Center tragedy, the United States
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), the
Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (the TRIA
Extension of 2005) and the Terrorism Risk Insurance
Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (the TRIA Extension of
2007) were enacted to ensure the availability of insurance
coverage for terrorist acts in the United States. This law
establishes a federal assistance program through the end of 2014
to help the commercial property and casualty insurance industry
cover claims related to future terrorism related losses and
regulates the terms of insurance relating to terrorism coverage.
The TRIA, the TRIA Extension of 2005 and the TRIA Extension of
2007 have had little impact on our business because few of our
clients are purchasing this coverage.
18
Bermuda
General
The Insurance Act 1978 of Bermuda and related regulations, as
amended (the Insurance Act), regulates the insurance
and reinsurance business of Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd.
The Insurance Act provides that no person may carry on any
insurance business in or from within Bermuda unless registered
as an insurer by the Bermuda Monetary Authority (the
BMA). Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd has been
registered as a Class 4 insurer by the BMA. Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd and Allied World Assurance
Holdings (Ireland) Ltd are holding companies and Newmarket
Administrative Services (Bermuda), Ltd is a services company
that do not carry on any insurance business, and as such each is
not subject to Bermuda insurance regulations; however, like all
Bermuda companies, including Bermuda insurers, they are subject
to the provisions and regulations of the Companies Act 1981 of
Bermuda, as amended (the Companies Act). The BMA, in
deciding whether to grant registration, has broad discretion to
act as it thinks fit in the public interest. The BMA is required
by the Insurance Act to determine whether the applicant is a fit
and proper body to be engaged in the insurance business and, in
particular, whether it has, or has available to it, adequate
knowledge and expertise to operate an insurance business. The
continued registration of an applicant as an insurer is subject
to its complying with the terms of its registration and any
other conditions the BMA may impose from time to time.
An Insurance Advisory Committee appointed by the Bermuda
Minister of Finance advises the BMA on matters connected with
the discharge of the BMAs functions. Subcommittees of the
Insurance Advisory Committee advise on the law and practice of
insurance in Bermuda, including reviews of accounting and
administrative procedures. The
day-to-day
supervision of insurers is the responsibility of the BMA. The
Insurance Act also imposes on Bermuda insurance companies
solvency and liquidity standards and auditing and reporting
requirements and grants the BMA powers to supervise,
investigate, require information and the production of documents
and intervene in the affairs of insurance companies. Some
significant aspects of the Bermuda insurance regulatory
framework are set forth below.
Classification
of Insurers
The Insurance Act distinguishes between insurers carrying on
long-term business and insurers carrying on general business.
There are four classifications of insurers carrying on general
business, with Class 4 insurers subject to the strictest
regulation. Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd, which is
incorporated to carry on general insurance and reinsurance
business, is registered as a Class 4 insurer in Bermuda and
is regulated as that class of insurer under the Insurance Act.
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd is not licensed to carry on
long-term business. Long-term business broadly includes life
insurance and disability insurances with terms in excess of five
years. General business broadly includes all types of insurance
that is not long-term.
Cancellation
of Insurers Registration
An insurers registration may be cancelled by the BMA on
certain grounds specified in the Insurance Act. Failure of the
insurer to comply with its obligations under the Insurance Act
or if the BMA believes that the insurer has not been carrying on
business in accordance with sound insurance principles would be
such grounds.
Principal
Representative
An insurer is required to maintain a principal office in Bermuda
and to appoint and maintain a principal representative in
Bermuda. For the purpose of the Insurance Act, Allied World
Assurance Company, Ltds principal office is its executive
offices in Pembroke, Bermuda, and its principal representative
is our Chief Financial Officer. Without a reason acceptable to
the BMA, an insurer may not terminate the appointment of its
principal representative, and the principal representative may
not cease to act in that capacity, unless the BMA is given
30 days written notice of any intention to do so. It is the
duty of the principal representative, upon reaching the view
that there is a likelihood that the insurer will become
insolvent or that a reportable event has, to the
principal representatives knowledge, occurred or is
believed to have occurred, to forthwith notify the BMA of that
fact and within 14 days therefrom to make a report in
writing to the BMA setting forth all the particulars of the case
that are available to the principal representative. For example,
any failure by the insurer to comply substantially with a
condition imposed on the insurer by the BMA relating to a
solvency margin or a liquidity or other ratio would be a
reportable event.
19
Independent
Approved Auditor
Every registered insurer must appoint an independent auditor who
will audit and report annually on the statutory financial
statements and the statutory financial return of the insurer,
both of which, in the case of Allied World Assurance Company,
Ltd, are required to be filed annually with the BMA. Allied
World Assurance Company, Ltds independent auditor must be
approved by the BMA and may be the same person or firm that
audits our companys consolidated financial statements and
reports for presentation to its shareholders.
Loss
Reserve Specialist
As a registered Class 4 insurer, Allied World Assurance
Company, Ltd is required to submit the opinion of its approved
loss reserve specialist with its statutory financial return in
respect of its losses and loss expenses provisions. The loss
reserve specialist, who will normally be a qualified casualty
actuary, must be approved by the BMA. Our Chief Corporate
Actuary is our approved loss reserve specialist.
Statutory
Financial Statements
An insurer must prepare annual statutory financial statements.
The Insurance Act prescribes rules for the preparation and
substance of these statements, which include, in statutory form,
a balance sheet, an income statement, a statement of capital and
surplus and related notes. The insurer is required to give
detailed information and analyses regarding premiums, claims,
reinsurance and investments. The statutory financial statements
are not prepared in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States and are distinct from
the financial statements prepared for presentation to the
insurers shareholders under the Companies Act (those
financial statements, in the case of Allied World Assurance
Company Holdings, Ltd, will be prepared in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America (U.S. GAAP)). As a general business
insurer, Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd is required to
submit the annual statutory financial statements as part of the
annual statutory financial return. The statutory financial
statements and the statutory financial return do not form part
of the public records maintained by the BMA.
Annual
Statutory Financial Return
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd is required to file with the
BMA a statutory financial return no later than four months after
its financial year end (unless specifically extended upon
application to the BMA). The statutory financial return for a
Class 4 insurer includes, among other matters, a report of
the approved independent auditor on the statutory financial
statements of the insurer, solvency certificate, declaration of
statutory ratios, the statutory financial statements, the
opinion of the loss reserve specialist and a schedule of
reinsurance ceded. The solvency certificate must be signed by
the principal representative and at least two directors of the
insurer certifying that the minimum solvency margin has been met
and whether the insurer complied with the conditions attached to
its certificate of registration. The approved independent
auditor is required to state whether, in its opinion, it was
reasonable for the directors to make this certification. If an
insurers accounts have been audited for any purpose other
than compliance with the Insurance Act, a statement to that
effect must be filed with the statutory financial return.
Minimum
Solvency Margin and Restrictions on Dividends and
Distributions
Under the Insurance Act, the value of the general business
assets of a Class 4 insurer, such as Allied World Assurance
Company, Ltd, must exceed the amount of its general business
liabilities by an amount greater than the prescribed minimum
solvency margin.
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd:
|
|
|
|
|
is required, with respect to its general business, to maintain a
minimum solvency margin equal to the greatest of
(1) $100,000,000, (2) 50% of net premiums written
(being gross premiums written less any premiums ceded, but the
company may not deduct more than 25% of gross premiums written
when computing net premiums written) and (3) 15% of net
losses and loss expense reserves;
|
|
|
|
is prohibited from declaring or paying any dividends during any
financial year if it is in breach of its minimum solvency margin
or minimum liquidity ratio or if the declaration or payment of
those dividends would cause it to fail to meet that margin or
ratio (and if it has failed to meet its minimum solvency margin
or minimum liquidity
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
ratio on the last day of any financial year, Allied World
Assurance Company, Ltd would be prohibited, without the approval
of the BMA, from declaring or paying any dividends during the
next financial year);
|
|
|
|
|
|
is prohibited from declaring or paying in any financial year
dividends of more than 25% of its total statutory capital and
surplus (as shown on its previous financial years
statutory balance sheet) unless it files with the BMA (at least
seven days before payment of those dividends) an affidavit
stating that it will continue to meet the required margins;
|
|
|
|
is prohibited, without the approval of the BMA, from reducing by
15% or more its total statutory capital as set out in its
previous years financial statements, and any application
for an approval of that type must include an affidavit stating
that it will continue to meet the required margins; and
|
|
|
|
is required, at any time it fails to meet its solvency margin,
within 30 days (45 days where total statutory capital
and surplus falls to $75 million or less) after becoming
aware of that failure or having reason to believe that a failure
has occurred, to file with the BMA a written report containing
specified information.
|
Additionally, under the Companies Act, Allied World Assurance
Company Holdings, Ltd and each of its Bermuda subsidiaries may
not declare or pay a dividend if such company has reasonable
grounds for believing that it is, or would after the payment be,
unable to pay its liabilities as they become due, or that the
realizable value of its assets would thereby be less than the
aggregate of its liabilities and its issued share capital and
share premium accounts.
Minimum
Liquidity Ratio
The Insurance Act provides a minimum liquidity ratio for general
business insurers like Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd. An
insurer engaged in general business is required to maintain the
value of its relevant assets at not less than 75% of the amount
of its relevant liabilities. Relevant assets include cash and
time deposits, quoted investments, unquoted bonds and
debentures, first liens on real estate, investment income due
and accrued, accounts and premiums receivable and reinsurance
balances receivable. There are specified categories of assets
which, unless specifically permitted by the BMA, do not
automatically qualify as relevant assets, such as unquoted
equity securities, investments in and advances to affiliates and
real estate and collateral loans. The relevant liabilities are
total general business insurance reserves and total other
liabilities less deferred income tax and sundry liabilities (by
interpretation, those not specifically defined).
Supervision,
Investigation and Intervention
The BMA may appoint an inspector with extensive powers to
investigate the affairs of Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd
if the BMA believes that an investigation is in the best
interests of its policyholders or persons who may become
policyholders. In order to verify or supplement information
otherwise provided to the BMA, the BMA may direct Allied World
Assurance Company, Ltd to produce documents or information
relating to matters connected with its business. In addition,
the BMA has the power to require the production of documents
from any person who appears to be in possession of those
documents. Further, the BMA has the power, in respect of a
person registered under the Insurance Act, to appoint a
professional person to prepare a report on any aspect of any
matter about which the BMA has required or could require
information. If it appears to the BMA to be desirable in the
interests of the clients of a person registered under the
Insurance Act, the BMA may also exercise the foregoing powers in
relation to any company which is, or has at any relevant time
been, (1) a parent company, subsidiary company or related
company of that registered person, (2) a subsidiary company
of a parent company of that registered person, (3) a parent
company of a subsidiary company of that registered person or
(4) a company in the case of which a shareholder controller
of that registered person, either alone or with any associate or
associates, holds 50% or more of the shares or is entitled to
exercise, or control the exercise, of more than 50% of the
voting power at a general meeting of shareholders.
If it appears to the BMA that there is a risk of Allied World
Assurance Company, Ltd becoming insolvent, or that Allied World
Assurance Company, Ltd is in breach of the Insurance Act or any
conditions imposed upon its registration, the BMA may, among
other things, direct Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd
(1) not to take on any new insurance business, (2) not
to vary any insurance contract if the effect would be to
increase its liabilities, (3) not to make specified
investments, (4) to liquidate specified investments,
(5) to maintain in, or transfer to the custody of a
specified bank, certain assets, (6) not to declare or pay
any dividends or other distributions or to restrict the making
of those payments
and/or
(7) to
21
limit its premium income. The BMA generally meets with each
Class 4 insurance company on a voluntary basis, every two
years.
Disclosure
of Information
In addition to powers under the Insurance Act to investigate the
affairs of an insurer, the BMA may require an insurer (or
certain other persons) to produce specified information.
Further, the BMA has been given powers to assist other
regulatory authorities, including foreign insurance regulatory
authorities, with their investigations involving insurance and
reinsurance companies in Bermuda, subject to restrictions. For
example, the BMA must be satisfied that the assistance being
requested is in connection with the discharge of regulatory
responsibilities of the foreign regulatory authority. Further,
the BMA must consider whether cooperation is in the public
interest. The grounds for disclosure are limited and the
Insurance Act provides sanctions for breach of the statutory
duty of confidentiality. Under the Companies Act, the Minister
of Finance has been given powers to assist a foreign regulatory
authority which has requested assistance in connection with
enquiries being carried out by it in the performance of its
regulatory functions. The Ministers powers include
requiring a person to furnish him or her with information, to
produce documents to him or her, to attend and answer questions
and to give assistance in connection with enquiries. The
Minister must be satisfied that the assistance requested by the
foreign regulatory authority is for the purpose of its
regulatory functions and that the request is in relation to
information in Bermuda which a person has in his possession or
under his control. The Minister must consider, among other
things, whether it is in the public interest to give the
information sought.
Shareholder
Controllers
Any person who, directly or indirectly, becomes a holder of at
least 10%, 20%, 33% or 50% of the common shares of Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd must notify the BMA in writing
within 45 days of becoming such a holder or 30 days
from the date they have knowledge of having such a holding,
whichever is later. The BMA may, by written notice, object to
such a person if it appears to the BMA that the person is not
fit and proper to be such a holder. The BMA may require the
holder to reduce their holding of common shares in Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd and direct, among other things,
that voting rights attaching to the common shares shall not be
exercisable. A person that does not comply with such a notice or
direction from the BMA will be guilty of an offense.
For so long as Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd has
an insurance subsidiary registered under the Insurance Act, the
BMA may at any time, by written notice, object to a person
holding 10% or more of its common shares if it appears to the
BMA that the person is not or is no longer fit and proper to be
such a holder. In such a case, the BMA may require the
shareholder to reduce its holding of common shares in Allied
World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd and direct, among other
things, that such shareholders voting rights attaching to
the common shares shall not be exercisable. A person who does
not comply with such a notice or direction from the BMA will be
guilty of an offense.
Selected
Other Bermuda Law Considerations
Although we, Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd, Allied World
Assurance Holdings (Ireland) Ltd and Newmarket Administrative
Services (Bermuda), Ltd are incorporated in Bermuda, each is
classified as a non-resident of Bermuda for exchange control
purposes by the BMA. Pursuant to the non-resident status, we,
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd, Allied World Assurance
Holdings (Ireland) Ltd and Newmarket Administrative Services
(Bermuda), Ltd may engage in transactions in currencies other
than Bermuda dollars and there are no restrictions on our
ability to transfer funds (other than funds denominated in
Bermuda dollars) in and out of Bermuda or to pay dividends to
U.S. residents who are holders of its common shares.
Under Bermuda law, exempted companies are companies formed for
the purpose of conducting business outside Bermuda. As exempted
companies, Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd and our
Bermuda subsidiaries may not, without the express authorization
of the Bermuda legislature or under a license or consent granted
by the Minister of Finance, participate in specified business
transactions, including (1) the acquisition or holding of
land in Bermuda (except that held by way of lease or tenancy
agreement which is required for its business and held for a term
not exceeding 50 years, or which is used to provide
accommodation or recreational facilities for its officers and
employees and held with the consent of the Bermuda Minister of
Finance, for a term not exceeding 21 years), (2) the
taking of mortgages on land in Bermuda to secure an amount in
excess of $50,000 or (3) the carrying on of business of any
kind for which it is not
22
licensed in Bermuda, except in limited circumstances including
doing business with another exempted undertaking in furtherance
of our business or our Bermuda subsidiaries business, as
applicable, carried on outside Bermuda. Allied World Assurance
Company, Ltds is a licensed insurer in Bermuda, and so may
carry on activities from Bermuda that are related to and in
support of its insurance business.
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd and its Bermuda
subsidiaries are not currently subject to taxes computed on
profits or income or computed on any capital asset, gain or
appreciation or any tax in the nature of estate duty or
inheritance tax.
As part of the BMAs ongoing review of Bermudas
insurance supervisory framework, the BMA is introducing a new
risk-based capital model (BSCR) as a tool to assist
both insurers and the BMA in measuring risk and determining
appropriate capitalization. It is expected that formal
legislation will become effective in 2008. In addition, the BMA
intends to allow insurers to make application to the BMA to use
their own internal capital models where an insurer can establish
that its internal capital model better reflects its risk and
capitalization profile.
Ireland
Since October 2002, Allied World Assurance Company (Europe)
Limited, an insurance company with its principal office in
Dublin, Ireland, has been authorized as a non-life insurance
undertaking. Allied World Assurance Company (Europe) Limited is
regulated by the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority
(the Irish Financial Regulator) pursuant to the
Insurance Acts 1909 to 2000, the Central Bank and Financial
Services Authority of Ireland Acts 2003 and 2004, and all
statutory instruments relating to insurance made or adopted
under the European Communities Acts 1972 to 2006 (the
Irish Insurance Acts and Regulations). The Third
Non-Life Directive of the European Union (the Non-Life
Directive) established a common framework for the
authorization and regulation of non-life insurance undertakings
within the European Union. The Non-Life Directive permits
non-life insurance undertakings authorized in a member state of
the European Union to operate in other member states of the
European Union either directly from the home member state (on a
freedom to provide services basis) or through local branches (by
way of permanent establishment). Allied World Assurance Company
(Europe) Limited established a branch in the United Kingdom on
May 19, 2003 and operates on a freedom to provide services
basis in other European Union member states.
On July 18, 2003, Allied World Assurance Company
(Reinsurance) Limited was incorporated as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allied World Assurance Holdings (Ireland) Ltd and
licensed in Ireland to write reinsurance throughout the European
Union. We capitalized Allied World Assurance Company
(Reinsurance) Limited with $50 million in capital. We
include the business produced by this entity in our property
segment even though the majority of the coverages written are
structured as facultative reinsurance. Allied World Assurance
Company (Reinsurance) Limited is regulated by the Irish
Financial Regulator pursuant to the provisions of the European
Communities (Reinsurance) Regulations 2006 (which transposed the
E.U. Reinsurance Directive into Irish law) and operates a branch
in London. Pursuant to the provisions of these regulations,
reinsurance undertakings may, subject to the satisfaction of
certain formalities, carry on reinsurance business in other
European Union member states either directly from the home
member state (on a freedom to provide services basis) or through
local branches (by way of permanent establishment).
United
States
Our
U.S. Subsidiaries
Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc., a Delaware domiciled
insurer, and Allied World National Assurance Company, a New
Hampshire domiciled insurer, are together licensed or surplus
line eligible in all states including the District of Columbia.
Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc. is licensed in three
states, including Delaware, its state of domicile, surplus lines
eligible in 48 jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia
and an accredited reinsurer in over 30 jurisdictions, including
the District of Columbia. Allied World National Assurance
Company, is licensed in over 30 jurisdictions, including New
Hampshire, its state of domicile, surplus lines eligible in
three states and an accredited reinsurer in one state. As
U.S. licensed and authorized insurers and reinsurers,
Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc. and Allied World
National Assurance Company, are subject to considerable
regulation and supervision by state insurance regulators. The
extent of regulation varies but generally has its source in
statutes that delegate regulatory, supervisory and
administrative authority to a department of insurance in each
state. Among other things, state insurance commissioners
regulate insurer solvency standards, insurer and agent
licensing, authorized
23
investments, premium rates, restrictions on the size of risks
that may be insured under a single policy, loss and expense
reserves and provisions for unearned premiums, and deposits of
securities for the benefit of policyholders. The states
regulatory schemes also extend to policy form approval and
market conduct regulation, including the use of credit
information in underwriting and other underwriting and claims
practices. In addition, some states have enacted variations of
competitive rate making laws, which allow insurers to set
premium rates for certain classes of insurance without obtaining
the prior approval of the state insurance department. State
insurance departments also conduct periodic examinations of the
affairs of authorized insurance companies and require the filing
of annual and other reports relating to the financial condition
of companies and other matters.
Holding Company Regulation. We and our
U.S. insurance subsidiaries are subject to regulation under
the insurance holding company laws of certain states. The
insurance holding company laws and regulations vary from state
to state, but generally require licensed insurers that are
subsidiaries of insurance holding companies to register and file
with state regulatory authorities certain reports including
information concerning their capital structure, ownership,
financial condition and general business operations. Generally,
all transactions involving the insurers in a holding company
system and their affiliates must be fair and, if material,
require prior notice and approval or non-disapproval by the
state insurance department. Further, state insurance holding
company laws typically place limitations on the amounts of
dividends or other distributions payable by insurers. Payment of
ordinary dividends by Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc.
requires prior approval of the Delaware Insurance Commissioner
unless dividends will be paid out of earned surplus.
Earned surplus is an amount equal to the unassigned
funds of an insurer as set forth in the most recent annual
statement of the insurer including all or part of the surplus
arising from unrealized capital gains or revaluation of assets.
Extraordinary dividends generally require 30 days prior
notice to and non-disapproval of the Insurance Commissioner
before being declared. An extraordinary dividend includes any
dividend whose fair market value together with that of other
dividends or distributions made within the preceding
12 months exceeds the greater of: (1) 10% of the
insurers surplus as regards policyholders as of December
31 of the prior year, or (2) the net income of the insurer,
not including realized capital gains, for the
12-month
period ending December 31 of the prior year, but does not
include pro rata distributions of any class of the
insurers own securities.
Allied World National Assurance Company may declare an ordinary
dividend only upon 15 days prior notice to the New
Hampshire Insurance Commissioner and if its surplus as regards
policyholders is reasonable in relation to its outstanding
liabilities and adequate to its financial needs. Extraordinary
dividends generally require 30 days notice to and
non-disapproval of the Insurance Commissioner before being
declared. An extraordinary dividend includes a dividend whose
fair market value together with that of other dividends or
distributions made within the preceding 12 months exceeds
10% of such insurers surplus as regards policyholders as
of December 31 of the prior year.
State insurance holding company laws also require prior notice
and state insurance department approval of changes in control of
an insurer or its holding company. Any purchaser of 10% or more
of the outstanding voting securities of an insurance company or
its holding company is presumed to have acquired control, unless
this presumption is rebutted. Therefore, an investor who intends
to acquire 10% or more of our outstanding voting securities may
need to comply with these laws and would be required to file
notices and reports with the Delaware and New Hampshire
Insurance Departments before such acquisition.
Guaranty Fund Assessments. Virtually all
states require licensed insurers to participate in various forms
of guaranty associations in order to bear a portion of the loss
suffered by certain insureds caused by the insolvency of other
insurers. Depending upon state law, insurers can be assessed an
amount that is generally equal to between 1% and 2% of the
annual premiums written for the relevant lines of insurance in
that state to pay the claims of insolvent insurers. Most of
these assessments are recoverable through premium rates, premium
tax credits or policy surcharges. Significant increases in
assessments could limit the ability of our insurance
subsidiaries to recover such assessments through tax credits. In
addition, there have been legislative efforts to limit or repeal
the tax offset provisions, which efforts, to date, have been
generally unsuccessful. These assessments may increase or
decrease in the future depending upon the rate of insolvencies
of insurance companies.
Involuntary Pools. In the states where they
are licensed, our insurance subsidiaries are also required to
participate in various involuntary assigned risk pools,
principally involving workers compensation and automobile
insurance, which provide various insurance coverages to
individuals or other entities that otherwise are unable to
purchase such coverage in
24
the voluntary market. Participation in these pools in most
states is generally in proportion to voluntary writings of
related lines of business in that state.
Risk-Based Capital. U.S. insurers are
also subject to risk-based capital (or RBC) guidelines which
provide a method to measure the total adjusted capital
(statutory capital and surplus plus other adjustments) of
insurance companies taking into account the risk characteristics
of the companys investments and products. The RBC formulas
establish capital requirements for four categories of risk:
asset risk, insurance risk, interest rate risk and business
risk. For each category, the capital requirement is determined
by applying factors to asset, premium and reserve items, with
higher factors applied to items with greater underlying risk and
lower factors for less risky items. Insurers that have less
statutory capital than the RBC calculation requires are
considered to have inadequate capital and are subject to varying
degrees of regulatory action depending upon the level of capital
inadequacy. The RBC formulas have not been designed to
differentiate among adequately capitalized companies that
operate with higher levels of capital. Therefore, it is
inappropriate and ineffective to use the formulas to rate or to
rank such companies. Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries have
satisfied the RBC formula since their acquisition and have
exceeded all recognized industry solvency standards. As of
December 31, 2007, all of our U.S. insurance
subsidiaries had adjusted capital in excess of amounts requiring
company or regulatory action.
NAIC Ratios. The NAIC Insurance Regulatory
Information System, or IRIS, was developed to help state
regulators identify companies that may require special
attention. IRIS is comprised of statistical and analytical
phases consisting of key financial ratios whereby financial
examiners review annual statutory basis statements and financial
ratios. Each ratio has an established usual range of
results and assists state insurance departments in executing
their statutory mandate to oversee the financial condition of
insurance companies. A ratio result falling outside the usual
range of IRIS ratios is not considered a failing result; rather
unusual values are viewed as part of the regulatory early
monitoring system. Furthermore, in some years, it may not be
unusual for financially sound companies to have several ratios
with results outside the usual ranges. An insurance company may
fall out of the usual range for one or more ratios because of
specific transactions that are in themselves immaterial.
Generally, an insurance company will become subject to
regulatory scrutiny and may be subject to regulatory action if
it falls outside the usual ranges of four or more of the ratios.
As of December 31, 2007, none of our U.S. insurance
subsidiaries had an IRIS ratio range warranting any regulatory
action.
Surplus Lines Regulation. The regulation of
Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc. and Allied World
National Assurance Company as excess and surplus lines insurers
differs significantly from their regulation as licensed or
authorized insurers. The regulations governing the surplus lines
market have been designed to facilitate the procurement of
coverage through specially licensed surplus lines brokers for
hard-to-place
risks that do not fit standard underwriting criteria and are
otherwise eligible to be written on a surplus lines basis. In
particular, surplus lines regulation generally provides for more
flexible rules relating to insurance rates and forms. However,
strict regulations apply to surplus lines placements under the
laws of every state, and state insurance regulations generally
require that a risk be declined by three licensed insurers
before it may be placed in the surplus lines market. Initial
eligibility requirements and annual re-qualification standards
and filing obligations must also be met. In most states, surplus
lines brokers are responsible for collecting and remitting the
surplus lines tax payable to the state where the risk is
located. Companies such as Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.)
Inc. and Allied World National Assurance Company, which conduct
business on a surplus lines basis in a particular state are
generally exempt from that states guaranty fund laws and
from participation in its involuntary pools.
Federal Initiatives. Although the
U.S. federal government typically does not directly
regulate the business of insurance, federal initiatives often
have an impact on the insurance industry. For example, new
federal legislation, the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act
of 2007 (the NRRA), was introduced in the
U.S. House of Representatives in February 2007 to
streamline the regulation of surplus lines insurance and
reinsurance. The bill was passed without amendment by the
U.S. House of Representatives on June 25, 2007 and
referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
in the U.S. Senate. If enacted in its current form, the NRRA
would set federal standards regarding state regulation of both
reinsurance and the surplus lines insurance market. The NRRA
would (i) grant sole regulatory authority with respect to
the placement of non-admitted insurance to the
policyholders home state; (ii) limit states to
uniform standards for surplus lines eligibility in conformity
with the NAIC Nonadmitted Insurance Model Act;
(iii) establish a streamlined insurance procurement process
for exempt commercial purchasers by eliminating the requirement
that brokers conduct a due diligence search to determine whether
the insurance is available from admitted insurers;
(iv) establish the domicile state of the ceding insurer as
the sole regulatory authority with respect to credit for
reinsurance
25
and solvency determinations if such state is an NAIC-accredited
state or has financial solvency requirements substantially
similar to those required for such accreditation; and
(v) require that premium taxes related to non-admitted
insurance only be paid to the policyholders home state,
although the states may enter into a compact or establish
procedures to allocate such premium taxes among the states.
There has been little activity in connection with this bill
since its passage by the U.S. House of Representatives.
In addition, the Insurance Industry Competition Act of 2007 (the
IICA) was introduced in the U.S. Senate and the
U.S. House of Representatives in February 2007. The IICA,
if enacted in its current form, would remove the insurance
industrys antitrust exemption created by the
McCarran-Ferguson Act, which provides that insurance companies
are exempted from federal antitrust law so long as they are
regulated by state law, absent boycott, coercion or
intimidation. If enacted in its current form, the IICA would,
among other things, (i) effect a different judicial
standard providing that joint conduct by insurance companies,
such as price sharing, would be subject to scrutiny by the
U.S. Department of Justice unless the conduct was
undertaken pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy that
is actively supervised by the state; and (ii) delegate
authority to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to identify
insurance industry practices that are not anti-competitive.
There has been little activity in connection with this bill
since its introduction.
We are unable to predict whether any of the foregoing proposed
legislation or any other proposed laws and regulations will be
adopted, the form in which any such laws and regulations would
be adopted, or the effect, if any, these developments would have
on our operations and financial condition.
In 2002, President George W. Bush signed TRIA into law. TRIA
provides for the federal government to share with the insurance
industry the risk of loss arising from future acts of terrorism.
Participation in the program for U.S. commercial property
and casualty insurers is mandatory. Each participating insurance
company must pay covered losses equal to a deductible based on a
percentage of direct earned premiums for specified commercial
insurance lines from the previous calendar year. Prior to 2008,
the federal backstop covered 85% of losses in excess of the
company deductible subject to an annual cap of
$100 billion. While TRIA appears to provide the property
and casualty sector with an increased ability to withstand the
effect of potential terrorist events, any companys results
of operations or equity could nevertheless be materially
adversely impacted, in light of the unpredictability of the
nature, severity or frequency of such potential events. TRIA was
originally scheduled to expire at the end of 2005, but the
President of the United States signed the TRIA Extension of 2005
into law on December 22, 2005, which extended TRIA, with
some amendments, through December 31, 2007. TRIA was again
extended by the President of the United States on
December 26, 2007 when he signed into law the TRIA
Extension of 2007. The TRIA Extension of 2007 reauthorized TRIA
through December 31, 2014. The TRIA Extension of 2007 is
substantially similar to the original TRIA and the TRIA
Extension of 2005. One notable difference was the revised
definition of an act of terrorism. Prior to the TRIA
Extension of 2007, TRIA and the TRIA Extension of 2005 applied
only to acts of terrorism carried out on behalf of foreign
persons or interests. Under the TRIA Extension of 2007, the
definition of acts of terrorism has been expanded to
include domestic terrorism, which could impact
insurance coverage and have an adverse effect on our clients,
the industry and us. There is also no assurance that TRIA will
be extended beyond 2014 on either a temporary or permanent basis
and its expiration could have an adverse effect on our clients,
the industry or us.
Available
Information
We maintain a website at www.awac.com. The information on our
website is not incorporated by reference in this Annual Report
on
Form 10-K.
We make available, free of charge through our website, our
financial information, including the information contained in
our Annual Reports on
Form 10-K,
Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q
and Current Reports on
Form 8-K
filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), as soon as reasonably practicable
after we electronically file such material with, or furnish such
material to, the SEC. We also make available, free of charge
through our website, our Audit Committee Charter, Compensation
Committee Charter, Investment Committee Charter,
Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee Charter,
Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Ethics for CEO and
Senior Financial Officers and Code of Business Conduct and
Ethics. Such information is also available in print for any
shareholder who sends a request to Allied World Assurance
Company Holdings, Ltd, 27 Richmond Road, Pembroke
HM 08, Bermuda, attention Wesley D. Dupont, Secretary.
Reports and other information we file with the SEC may also be
viewed at the SECs website at www.sec.gov or viewed or
obtained at
26
the SEC Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E.,
Washington, DC 20549. Information on the operation of the SEC
Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330.
Factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially
from those in the forward-looking statements contained in this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
and other documents we file with the SEC include the following:
Risks
Related to Our Company
Downgrades
or the revocation of our financial strength ratings would affect
our standing among brokers and customers and may cause our
premiums and earnings to decrease.
Ratings have become an increasingly important factor in
establishing the competitive position of insurance and
reinsurance companies. Each of our principal operating insurance
subsidiaries has been assigned a financial strength rating of
A (Excellent) from A.M. Best and
A− (Strong) from Standard &
Poors. Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd and our
U.S. operating insurance subsidiaries are rated A2 (Good)
by Moodys. Each rating is subject to periodic review by,
and may be revised downward or revoked at the sole discretion
of, the rating agency. The ratings are neither an evaluation
directed to our investors nor a recommendation to buy, sell or
hold our securities. If the rating of any of our subsidiaries is
revised downward or revoked, our competitive position in the
insurance and reinsurance industry may suffer, and it may be
more difficult for us to market our products. Specifically, any
revision or revocation of this kind could result in a
significant reduction in the number of insurance and reinsurance
contracts we write and in a substantial loss of business as
customers and brokers that place this business move to
competitors with higher financial strength ratings.
Additionally, it is increasingly common for our reinsurance
contracts to contain terms that would allow the ceding companies
to cancel the contract for the portion of our obligations if our
insurance subsidiaries are downgraded below an A− by
A.M. Best. Whether a ceding company would exercise this
cancellation right would depend, among other factors, on the
reason for such downgrade, the extent of the downgrade, the
prevailing market conditions and the pricing and availability of
replacement reinsurance coverage. Therefore, we cannot predict
in advance the extent to which this cancellation right would be
exercised, if at all, or what effect any such cancellations
would have on our financial condition or future operations, but
such effect could be material.
We also cannot assure you that A.M. Best,
Standard & Poors or Moodys will not
downgrade our insurance subsidiaries.
Actual
claims may exceed our reserves for losses and loss
expenses.
Our success depends on our ability to accurately assess the
risks associated with the businesses that we insure and
reinsure. We establish loss reserves to cover our estimated
liability for the payment of all losses and loss expenses
incurred with respect to the policies we write. Loss reserves do
not represent an exact calculation of liability. Rather, loss
reserves are estimates of what we expect the ultimate resolution
and administration of claims will cost. These estimates are
based on actuarial and statistical projections and on our
assessment of currently available data, as well as estimates of
future trends in claims severity and frequency, judicial
theories of liability and other factors. Loss reserve estimates
are refined as experience develops and claims are reported and
resolved. Establishing an appropriate level of loss reserves is
an inherently uncertain process. It is therefore possible that
our reserves at any given time will prove to be inadequate.
To the extent we determine that actual losses or loss expenses
exceed our expectations and reserves reflected in our financial
statements, we will be required to increase our reserves to
reflect our changed expectations. This could cause a material
increase in our liabilities and a reduction in our
profitability, including operating losses and a reduction of
capital. Our results for the year ended December 31, 2007
included $246.4 million and $123.3 million of
favorable (i.e., a loss reserve decrease) and adverse
development (i.e., a loss reserve increase), respectively, of
reserves relating to losses incurred for prior loss years. In
comparison, for the year ended December 31, 2006, our
results included $135.9 million and $25.2 million of
favorable and adverse development, respectively, of reserves
relating to losses incurred for prior loss years. Our results
for the year ended December 31, 2005 included
$72.1 million of adverse development of reserves, which
included $62.5 million of adverse development from 2004
catastrophes, and $121.1 million of favorable development
relating to losses incurred for prior loss years.
27
We have estimated our net losses from catastrophes based on
actuarial analysis of claims information received to date,
industry modeling and discussions with individual insureds and
reinsureds. Accordingly, actual losses may vary from those
estimated and will be adjusted in the period in which further
information becomes available.
A
complaint filed against our Bermuda insurance subsidiary could,
if adversely determined or resolved, subject us to a material
loss.
On April 4, 2006, a complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta Division) by a group of several corporations and
certain of their related entities in an action entitled New
Cingular Wireless Headquarters, LLC et al, as plaintiffs,
against certain defendants, including Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., Marsh Inc. and Aon Corporation, in their
capacities as insurance brokers, and 78 insurers, including our
insurance subsidiary in Bermuda, Allied World Assurance Company,
Ltd.
The action generally relates to broker defendants
placement of insurance contracts for plaintiffs with the 78
insurer defendants. Plaintiffs maintain that the defendants used
a variety of illegal schemes and practices designed to, among
other things, allocate customers, rig bids for insurance
products and raise the prices of insurance products paid by the
plaintiffs. In addition, plaintiffs allege that the broker
defendants steered policyholders business to preferred
insurer defendants. Plaintiffs claim that as a result of these
practices, policyholders either paid more for insurance products
or received less beneficial terms than the competitive market
would have produced. The eight counts in the complaint allege,
among other things, (i) unreasonable restraints of trade
and conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act,
(ii) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, (iii) that broker defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs, (iv) that
insurer defendants participated in and induced this alleged
breach of fiduciary duty, (v) unjust enrichment,
(vi) common law fraud by broker defendants and
(vii) statutory and consumer fraud under the laws of
certain U.S. states. Plaintiffs seek equitable and legal
remedies, including injunctive relief, unquantified
consequential and punitive damages, and treble damages under the
Sherman Act and RICO. On October 16, 2006, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that the litigation be
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings occurring in that court. Neither Allied
World Assurance Company, Ltd nor any of the other defendants
have responded to the complaint. Written discovery has begun but
has not been completed. As a result of the court granting
motions to dismiss in the related putative class action
proceeding, prosecution of this case is currently stayed and the
court is deciding whether to extend the current stay during the
pendency of an appeal filed by the class action plaintiffs with
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. While this matter is in an
early stage, it is not possible to predict its outcome, the
company does not, however, currently believe that the outcome
will have a material adverse effect on the companys
operations or financial position.
Government
authorities are continuing to investigate the insurance
industry, which may adversely affect our business.
The attorneys general for multiple states and other insurance
regulatory authorities have been investigating a number of
issues and practices within the insurance industry, and in
particular insurance brokerage practices. These investigations
of the insurance industry in general, whether involving the
company specifically or not, together with any legal or
regulatory proceedings, related settlements and industry reform
or other changes arising therefrom, may materially adversely
affect our business and future prospects.
When
we act as a property insurer and as a property, workers
compensation and personal accident reinsurer, we are
particularly vulnerable to losses from
catastrophes.
Our direct property insurance and our property, workers
compensation and personal accident reinsurance operations expose
us to claims arising out of catastrophes. Catastrophes can be
caused by various unpredictable events, including earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, windstorms, hailstorms, severe
winter weather, floods, fires, tornadoes, explosions and other
natural or man-made disasters. Over the past several years,
changing weather patterns and climactic conditions such as
global warming have added to the unpredictability and frequency
of natural disasters in certain parts of the world and created
additional uncertainty as to future trends and exposures. In
addition, some experts have attributed the recent high incidence
of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean to a
permanent change in weather patterns resulting from rising ocean
temperature in the region. The international geographic
distribution of our business subjects us to catastrophe exposure
from natural events occurring in a number of areas throughout
the world, including floods and
28
windstorms in Europe, hurricanes and windstorms in Mexico,
Florida, the Gulf Coast and the Atlantic coast regions of the
United States, typhoons and earthquakes in Japan and Taiwan and
earthquakes in California and parts of the Midwestern United
States known as the New Madrid zone. The loss experience of
catastrophe insurers and reinsurers has historically been
characterized as low frequency but high severity in nature. In
recent years, the frequency of major catastrophes appears to
have increased. Increases in the values and concentrations of
insured property and the effects of inflation have resulted in
increased severity of losses to the industry in recent years,
and we expect this trend to continue.
In the event we experience further losses from catastrophes that
have already occurred, there is a possibility that loss reserves
for such catastrophes will be inadequate to cover the losses. In
addition, because accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America do not permit insurers and
reinsurers to reserve for catastrophes until they occur, claims
from these events could cause substantial volatility in our
financial results for any fiscal quarter or year and could have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results
of operations.
We
could face losses from terrorism, political unrest and pandemic
diseases.
We have exposure to losses resulting from acts of terrorism and
political instability. Although we generally exclude acts of
terrorism from our property insurance policies and property
reinsurance treaties where practicable, we provide coverage in
circumstances where we believe we are adequately compensated for
assuming those risks. A pandemic disease could also cause us to
suffer increased insurance losses on a variety of coverages we
offer. Our reinsurance protections may only partially offset
these losses. Moreover, even in cases where we seek to exclude
coverage, we may not be able to completely eliminate our
exposure to these events. It is impossible to predict the timing
or severity of these events with statistical certainty or to
estimate the amount of loss that any given occurrence will
generate. We could also suffer losses from a disruption of our
business operations and our investments may suffer a decrease in
value due to the occurrence of any of these events. To the
extent we suffer losses from these risks, such losses could be
significant.
The
failure of any of the loss limitation methods we employ could
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or
results of operations.
We seek to limit our loss exposure by adhering to maximum
limitations on policies written in defined geographical zones
(which limits our exposure to losses in any one geographic
area), limiting program size for each client (which limits our
exposure to losses with respect to any one client), adjusting
retention levels and establishing per risk and per occurrence
limitations for each event and prudent underwriting guidelines
for each insurance program written (all of which limit our
liability on any one policy). Most of our direct liability
insurance policies include maximum aggregate limitations. We
cannot assure you that any of these loss limitation methods will
be effective. In particular, geographic zone limitations involve
significant underwriting judgments, including the determination
of the areas of the zones and whether a policy falls within
particular zone limits. Disputes relating to coverage and choice
of legal forum may also arise. As a result, various provisions
of our policies that are designed to limit our risks, such as
limitations or exclusions from coverage (which limit the range
and amount of liability to which we are exposed on a policy) or
choice of forum (which provides us with a predictable set of
laws to govern our policies and the ability to lower costs by
retaining legal counsel in fewer jurisdictions), may not be
enforceable in the manner we intend and some or all of our other
loss limitation methods may prove to be ineffective. One or more
catastrophic or other events could result in claims and expenses
that substantially exceed our expectations and could have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations.
We may
be impacted by claims relating to the recent credit market
downturn and subprime insurance exposures.
We write corporate directors and officers, errors and omissions
and other insurance coverages for financial institutions and
financial services companies. This industry segment has been
impacted by the recent credit market downturn. As a result, this
industry segment has been the subject of heightened scrutiny and
in some cases investigations by regulators with respect to the
industrys actions as they relate to subprime mortgages,
collateralized debt obligations, structured investment vehicles
and swap and derivative transactions. These events may give rise
to increased claim litigation, including class action suits,
which may involve our insureds. To the extent we have claims
relating to these events, it could cause substantial volatility
in our financial results and could have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
29
For
our reinsurance business, we depend on the policies, procedures
and expertise of ceding companies; these companies may fail to
accurately assess the risks they underwrite which may lead us to
inaccurately assess the risks we assume.
Because we participate in reinsurance markets, the success of
our reinsurance underwriting efforts depends in part on the
policies, procedures and expertise of the ceding companies
making the original underwriting decisions (when an insurer
transfers some or all of its risk to a reinsurer, the insurer is
sometimes referred to as a ceding company).
Underwriting is a matter of judgment, involving important
assumptions about matters that are inherently unpredictable and
beyond the ceding companies control and for which
historical experience and statistical analysis may not provide
sufficient guidance. We face the risk that the ceding companies
may fail to accurately assess the risks they underwrite, which,
in turn, may lead us to inaccurately assess the risks we assume
as reinsurance; if this occurs, the premiums that are ceded to
us may not adequately compensate us and we could face
significant losses on these reinsurance contracts.
The
availability and cost of security arrangements for reinsurance
transactions may materially impact our ability to provide
reinsurance from Bermuda to insurers domiciled in the United
States.
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd is neither licensed nor
admitted as an insurer, nor is it accredited as a reinsurer, in
any jurisdiction in the United States. As a result, it is
required to post collateral security with respect to any
reinsurance liabilities it assumes from ceding insurers
domiciled in the United States in order for U.S. ceding
companies to obtain credit on their U.S. statutory
financial statements with respect to the insurance liabilities
ceded to them. Under applicable statutory provisions, the
security arrangements may be in the form of letters of credit,
reinsurance trusts maintained by trustees or funds-withheld
arrangements where assets are held by the ceding company. Allied
World Assurance Company, Ltd uses trust accounts and has access
to up to $1.55 billion in letters of credit under two
letter of credit facilities. The letter of credit facilities
impose restrictive covenants, including restrictions on asset
sales, limitations on the incurrence of certain liens and
required collateral and financial strength levels. Violations of
these or other covenants could result in the suspension of
access to letters of credit or such letters of credit becoming
due and payable. If these letter of credit facilities are not
sufficient or drawable or if Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd
is unable to renew either or both of these facilities or to
arrange for trust accounts or other types of security on
commercially acceptable terms, its ability to provide
reinsurance to
U.S.-domiciled
insurers may be severely limited.
In addition, security arrangements with ceding insurers may
subject our assets to security interests or may require that a
portion of our assets be pledged to, or otherwise held by, third
parties. Although the investment income derived from our assets
while held in trust typically accrues to our benefit, the
investment of these assets is governed by the terms of the
letter of credit facilities and the investment regulations of
the state of domicile of the ceding insurer, which generally
regulate the amount and quality of investments permitted and
which may be more restrictive than the investment regulations
applicable to us under Bermuda law. These restrictions may
result in lower investment yields on these assets, which could
adversely affect our profitability.
We
depend on a small number of brokers for a large portion of our
revenues. The loss of business provided by any one of them could
adversely affect us.
We market our insurance and reinsurance products worldwide
through insurance and reinsurance brokers. For the year ended
December 31, 2007, our top four brokers represented
approximately 68% of our gross premiums written.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Aon Corporation and
Willis Group Holdings Ltd were responsible for the distribution
of approximately 30%, 24% and 10%, respectively, of our gross
premiums written for the year ended December 31, 2007. Loss
of all or a substantial portion of the business provided by any
one of those brokers could have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition and results of operations.
Our
reliance on brokers subjects us to their credit
risk.
In accordance with industry practice, we frequently pay amounts
owed on claims under our insurance and reinsurance contracts to
brokers, and these brokers, in turn, pay these amounts to the
customers that have purchased insurance or reinsurance from us.
If a broker fails to make such a payment, it is likely that, in
most cases, we will be liable to the client for the deficiency
because of local laws or contractual obligations. Likewise, when
a customer pays premiums for policies written by us to a broker
for further payment to us, these premiums are generally
considered to have been paid
30
and, in most cases, the client will no longer be liable to us
for those amounts, whether or not we actually receive the
premiums. Consequently, we assume a degree of credit risk
associated with the brokers we use with respect to our insurance
and reinsurance business.
We may
be unable to purchase reinsurance for our own account on
commercially acceptable terms or to collect under any
reinsurance we have purchased.
We acquire reinsurance purchased for our own account to mitigate
the effects of large or multiple losses on our financial
condition. From time to time, market conditions have limited,
and in some cases prevented, insurers and reinsurers from
obtaining the types and amounts of reinsurance they consider
adequate for their business needs. For example, following the
events of September 11, 2001, terms and conditions in the
reinsurance markets generally became less attractive to buyers
of such coverage. Similar conditions may occur at any time in
the future, and we may not be able to purchase reinsurance in
the areas and for the amounts required or desired. Even if
reinsurance is generally available, we may not be able to
negotiate terms that we deem appropriate or acceptable or to
obtain coverage from entities with satisfactory financial
resources.
In addition, a reinsurers insolvency, or inability or
refusal to make payments under a reinsurance or retrocessional
reinsurance agreement with us, could have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition and results of operations
because we remain liable to the insured under the corresponding
coverages written by us.
Our
investment performance may adversely affect our financial
performance and ability to conduct business.
We derive a significant portion of our income from our invested
assets. As a result, our operating results depend in part on the
performance of our investment portfolio. Our investment
performance is subject to a variety of risks, including risks
related to general economic conditions, market volatility and
interest rate fluctuations, liquidity risk, and credit and
default risk. Additionally, with respect to some of our
investments, we are subject to pre-payment or reinvestment risk.
We may invest up to 20% of our shareholders equity in
alternative investments, including public and private equities,
preferred equities and hedge funds. As a result, we may be
subject to restrictions on redemption, which may limit our
ability to withdraw funds for some period of time after our
initial investment. The values of, and returns on, such
investments may also be more volatile.
Because of the unpredictable nature of losses that may arise
under insurance or reinsurance policies written by us, our
liquidity needs could be substantial and may arise at any time.
To the extent we are unsuccessful in correlating our investment
portfolio with our expected liabilities, we may be forced to
liquidate our investments at times and prices that are not
optimal. This could have a material adverse effect on the
performance of our investment portfolio. If our liquidity needs
or general liability profile unexpectedly change, we may not be
successful in continuing to structure our investment portfolio
in its current manner.
Any
increase in interest rates could result in significant losses in
the fair value of our investment portfolio.
Our investment portfolio contains interest-rate-sensitive
instruments that may be adversely affected by changes in
interest rates. Fluctuations in interest rates affect our
returns on fixed income investments. Generally, investment
income will be reduced during sustained periods of lower
interest rates as higher-yielding fixed income securities are
called, mature or are sold and the proceeds reinvested at lower
rates. During periods of rising interest rates, prices of fixed
income securities tend to fall and realized gains upon their
sale are reduced. In addition, we are exposed to changes in the
level or volatility of equity prices that affect the value of
securities or instruments that derive their value from a
particular equity security, a basket of equity securities or a
stock index. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many
factors, including governmental monetary policies, domestic and
international economic and political conditions and other
factors beyond our control. We may not be able to effectively
mitigate interest rate sensitivity. In particular, a significant
increase in interest rates could result in significant losses,
realized or unrealized, in the fair value of our investment
portfolio and, consequently, could have an adverse effect on our
results of operations.
In addition, our investment portfolio includes mortgage-backed
securities. As of December 31, 2007, mortgage-backed
securities constituted approximately 33.9% of the fair market
value of our aggregate invested assets. Aggregate invested
assets include cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash,
fixed-maturity securities, a fund consisting of global
high-yield fixed-income securities, several hedge funds,
balances receivable on sale of investments and balances due on
31
purchase of investments. As with other fixed income investments,
the fair market value of these securities fluctuates depending
on market and other general economic conditions and the interest
rate environment. Changes in interest rates can expose us to
prepayment risks on these investments. In periods of declining
interest rates, mortgage prepayments generally increase and
mortgage-backed securities are prepaid more quickly, requiring
us to reinvest the proceeds at the then current market rates.
In recent months, delinquencies and losses with respect to
residential mortgage loans generally have increased and may
continue to increase, particularly in the subprime sector. In
addition, in recent months residential property values in many
states have declined or remained stable, after extended periods
during which those values appreciated. A continued decline or an
extended flattening in those values may result in additional
increases in delinquencies and losses on residential mortgage
loans generally, especially with respect to second homes and
investor properties, and with respect to any residential
mortgage loans where the aggregate loan amounts (including any
subordinate loans) are close to or greater than the related
property values. As of December 31, 2007, our
mortgage-backed securities that have exposure to subprime
mortgages was limited to $2.8 million or 0.05% of fixed
maturity investments.
We may
be adversely affected by fluctuations in currency exchange
rates.
The U.S. dollar is our reporting currency and the
functional currency of all of our operating subsidiaries. We
enter into insurance and reinsurance contracts where the
premiums receivable and losses payable are denominated in
currencies other than the U.S. dollar. In addition, we
maintain a portion of our investments and liabilities in
currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Assets in
non-U.S. currencies
are generally converted into U.S. dollars at the time of
receipt. When we incur a liability in a
non-U.S. currency,
we carry such liability on our books in the original currency.
These liabilities are converted from the
non-U.S. currency
to U.S. dollars at the time of payment. We may incur
foreign currency exchange gains or losses as we ultimately
receive premiums and settle claims required to be paid in
foreign currencies.
We have currency hedges in place that seek to alleviate our
potential exposure to volatility in foreign exchange rates and
intend to consider the use of additional hedges when we are
advised of known or probable significant losses that will be
paid in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. To the
extent that we do not seek to hedge our foreign currency risk or
our hedges prove ineffective, the impact of a movement in
foreign currency exchange rates could adversely affect our
operating results.
We may
require additional capital in the future that may not be
available to us on commercially favorable terms.
Our future capital requirements depend on many factors,
including our ability to write new business and to establish
premium rates and reserves at levels sufficient to cover losses.
To the extent that the funds generated by insurance premiums
received and sale proceeds and income from our investment
portfolio are insufficient to fund future operating requirements
and cover losses and loss expenses, we may need to raise
additional funds through financings or curtail our growth and
reduce our assets. Any future financing, if available at all,
may be on terms that are not favorable to us. In the case of
equity financing, dilution to our shareholders could result, and
the securities issued may have rights, preferences and
privileges that are senior or otherwise superior to those of our
common shares.
Conflicts
of interests may arise because affiliates of some of our
principal shareholders have continuing agreements and business
relationships with us, and also may compete with us in several
of our business lines.
Affiliates of some of our principal shareholders engage in
transactions with our company. Affiliates of the Goldman Sachs
Funds serve as investment managers for nearly our entire
investment portfolio, except for a portion that includes an
investment in the AIG Select Hedge Fund Ltd., which is
managed by a subsidiary of AIG. On December 14, 2007, we
entered into a stock purchase agreement with AIG pursuant to
which we purchased an AIG subsidiary whose sole asset was its
holding of 11,693,333 of our common shares. The interests of
these affiliates of our principal shareholders may conflict with
the interests of our company. Affiliates of our principal
shareholders, AIG and Chubb, are also customers of our company.
Furthermore, affiliates of AIG, Chubb and the Goldman Sachs
Funds may from time to time compete with us, including by
assisting or investing in the formation of other entities
engaged in the insurance and reinsurance business. Conflicts of
interest could also arise with respect to business opportunities
that could be advantageous to AIG, Chubb, the
32
Goldman Sachs Funds or other existing shareholders or any of
their affiliates, on the one hand, and us, on the other hand.
AIG, Chubb and the Goldman Sachs Funds either directly or
through affiliates, also maintain business relationships with
numerous companies that may directly compete with us. In
general, these affiliates could pursue business interests or
exercise their voting power as shareholders in ways that are
detrimental to us, but beneficial to themselves or to other
companies in which they invest or with whom they have a material
relationship.
Our
business could be adversely affected if we lose any member of
our management team or are unable to attract and retain our
personnel.
Our success depends in substantial part on our ability to
attract and retain our employees who generate and service our
business. We rely substantially on the services of our executive
management team. If we lose the services of any member of our
executive management team, our business could be adversely
affected. If we are unable to attract and retain other talented
personnel, the further implementation of our business strategy
could be impeded. This, in turn, could have a material adverse
effect on our business. The location of our global headquarters
in Bermuda may also impede our ability to attract and retain
talented employees. We currently have written employment
agreements with our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer, General Counsel and Chief Corporate Actuary and certain
other members of our executive management team. We do not
maintain key man life insurance policies for any of our
employees.
Our
participation in a securities lending program subjects us to
risk of default by the borrowers.
We participate in a securities lending program whereby our
securities are loaned to third parties through a lending agent.
The loaned securities are collateralized by cash, government
securities and letters of credit in excess of the fair market
value of the securities held by the lending agent. However,
sharp changes in market values of substantial amounts of
securities and the failure of the borrowers to honor their
commitments, or default by the lending agent in remitting the
collateral to us, could have a material adverse effect on our
fixed maturity investments or our results of operations.
Risks
Related to the Insurance and Reinsurance Business
The
insurance and reinsurance business is historically cyclical and
we expect to experience periods with excess underwriting
capacity and unfavorable premium rates and policy terms and
conditions.
Historically, insurers and reinsurers have experienced
significant fluctuations in operating results due to
competition, frequency of occurrence or severity of catastrophic
events, levels of underwriting capacity, general economic
conditions and other factors. The supply of insurance and
reinsurance is related to prevailing prices, the level of
insured losses and the level of industry surplus which, in turn,
may fluctuate in response to changes in rates of return on
investments being earned in the insurance and reinsurance
industry. As a result, the insurance and reinsurance business
historically has been a cyclical industry characterized by
periods of intense competition on price and policy terms due to
excessive underwriting capacity as well as periods when
shortages of capacity permit favorable premium rates and policy
terms and conditions. Because premium levels for many products
have increased over the past several years, the supply of
insurance and reinsurance has increased and is likely to
increase further, either as a result of capital provided by new
entrants or by the commitment of additional capital by existing
insurers or reinsurers. Continued increases in the supply of
insurance and reinsurance may have consequences for us,
including fewer contracts written, lower premium rates,
increased expenses for customer acquisition and retention, and
less favorable policy terms and conditions.
Increased
competition in the insurance and reinsurance markets in which we
operate could adversely impact our operating
margins.
The insurance and reinsurance industries are highly competitive.
We compete with major U.S. and
non-U.S. insurers
and reinsurers, including other Bermuda-based insurers and
reinsurers, on an international and regional basis. Many of our
competitors have greater financial, marketing and management
resources. Since September 2001, a number of new Bermuda-based
insurance and reinsurance companies have been formed and some of
those companies compete in the same market segments in which we
operate. Some of these companies have more capital than us. As a
result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the insurance
industrys largest natural catastrophe loss, and two
subsequent substantial hurricanes (Rita and Wilma), existing
insurers and reinsurers raised new capital and significant
investments were made in new insurance and reinsurance companies
in Bermuda.
33
In addition, risk-linked securities and derivative and other
non-traditional risk transfer mechanisms and vehicles are being
developed and offered by other parties, including entities other
than insurance and reinsurance companies. The availability of
these non-traditional products could reduce the demand for
traditional insurance and reinsurance. A number of new, proposed
or potential industry or legislative developments could further
increase competition in our industry.
New competition from these developments could result in fewer
contracts written, lower premium rates, increased expenses for
customer acquisition and retention and less favorable policy
terms and conditions, which could have a material adverse impact
on our growth and profitability.
The
effects of emerging claims and coverage issues on our business
are uncertain.
As industry practices and legal, judicial, social and other
conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to
claims and coverage may emerge. These issues may adversely
affect our business by either extending coverage beyond our
underwriting intent or by increasing the number or size of
claims. In some instances, these changes may not become apparent
until some time after we have issued insurance or reinsurance
contracts that are affected by the changes. As a result, the
full extent of liability under our insurance and reinsurance
contracts may not be known for many years after a contract is
issued. Examples of emerging claims and coverage issues include:
|
|
|
|
|
larger settlements and jury awards in cases involving
professionals and corporate directors and officers covered by
professional liability and directors and officers liability
insurance; and
|
|
|
|
a trend of plaintiffs targeting property and casualty insurers
in class action litigation related to claims handling, insurance
sales practices and other practices related to the conduct of
our business.
|
Risks
Related to Laws and Regulations Applicable to Us
Compliance
by our insurance subsidiaries with the legal and regulatory
requirements to which they are subject is expensive. Any failure
to comply could have a material adverse effect on our
business.
Our insurance subsidiaries are required to comply with a wide
variety of laws and regulations applicable to insurance or
reinsurance companies, both in the jurisdictions in which they
are organized and where they sell their insurance and
reinsurance products. The insurance and regulatory environment,
in particular for offshore insurance and reinsurance companies,
has become subject to increased scrutiny in many jurisdictions,
including the United States, various states within the United
States and the United Kingdom. In the past, there have been
Congressional and other initiatives in the United States
regarding increased supervision and regulation of the insurance
industry, including proposals to supervise and regulate offshore
reinsurers. It is not possible to predict the future impact of
changes in laws and regulations on our operations. The cost of
complying with any new legal requirements affecting our
subsidiaries could have a material adverse effect on our
business.
In addition, our subsidiaries may not always be able to obtain
or maintain necessary licenses, permits, authorizations or
accreditations. They also may not be able to fully comply with,
or to obtain appropriate exemptions from, the laws and
regulations applicable to them. Any failure to comply with
applicable law or to obtain appropriate exemptions could result
in restrictions on either the ability of the company in
question, as well as potentially its affiliates, to do business
in one or more of the jurisdictions in which they operate or on
brokers on which we rely to produce business for us. In
addition, any such failure to comply with applicable laws or to
obtain appropriate exemptions could result in the imposition of
fines or other sanctions. Any of these sanctions could have a
material adverse effect on our business.
Our principal insurance subsidiary, Allied World Assurance
Company, Ltd, is registered as a Class 4 Bermuda insurance
and reinsurance company and is subject to regulation and
supervision in Bermuda. The applicable Bermudian statutes and
regulations generally are designed to protect insureds and
ceding insurance companies rather than shareholders or
noteholders. Among other things, those statutes and regulations:
|
|
|
|
|
require Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd to maintain minimum
levels of capital and surplus,
|
|
|
|
impose liquidity requirements which restrict the amount and type
of investments it may hold,
|
|
|
|
prescribe solvency standards that it must meet and
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
restrict payments of dividends and reductions of capital and
provide for the performance of periodic examinations of Allied
World Assurance Company, Ltd and its financial condition.
|
These statutes and regulations may, in effect, restrict the
ability of Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd to write new
business. Although it conducts its operations from Bermuda,
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd is not authorized to
directly underwrite local risks in Bermuda.
Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc., a Delaware domiciled
insurer, and Allied World National Assurance Company, a New
Hampshire domiciled insurer, are both subject to the statutes
and regulations of their relevant state of domicile as well as
any other state in the United States where they conduct
business. In the states where the companies are admitted, the
companies must comply with all insurance laws and regulations,
including insurance rate and form requirements. Insurance laws
and regulations may vary significantly from state to state. In
those states where the companies act as surplus lines carriers,
the states regulation focuses mainly on the companys
solvency.
Allied World Assurance Company (Europe) Limited, an Irish
domiciled insurer, operates within the European Union non-life
insurance legal and regulatory framework as established under
the Third Non-Life Directive of the European Union. Allied World
Assurance Company (Europe) Limited is required to operate in
accordance with the provisions of the Irish Insurance Acts
1909-2000;
the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland
Acts 2003 and 2004; all statutory instruments made thereunder;
all statutory instruments relating to insurance made under the
European Communities Acts 1972 to 2006; and the requirements of
the Irish Financial Regulator.
Allied World Assurance Company (Reinsurance) Limited, an Irish
domiciled reinsurer, is regulated by the Irish Financial
Regulator pursuant to the provisions of the European Communities
(Reinsurance) Regulations 2006 (which transposed the E.U.
Reinsurance Directive into Irish law) and operates a branch in
London. Pursuant to the provisions of these regulations,
reinsurance undertakings may, subject to the satisfaction of
certain formalities, carry on reinsurance business in other
European Union member states either directly from the home
member state (on a freedom to provide services basis) or through
local branches (by way of permanent establishment).
Our
Bermuda entities could become subject to regulation in the
United States.
None of our Bermuda entities is licensed or admitted as an
insurer, nor is any of them accredited as a reinsurer, in any
jurisdiction in the United States. For the year ended
December 31, 2007, more than 85% of the gross premiums
written by Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd, however, are
derived from insurance or reinsurance contracts entered into
with entities domiciled in the United States. The insurance laws
of each state in the United States regulate the sale of
insurance and reinsurance within the states jurisdiction
by foreign insurers. Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd
conducts its business through its offices in Bermuda and does
not maintain an office, and its personnel do not solicit
insurance business, resolve claims or conduct other insurance
business, in the United States. While Allied World Assurance
Company, Ltd does not believe it is in violation of insurance
laws of any jurisdiction in the United States, we cannot be
certain that inquiries or challenges to our insurance and
reinsurance activities will not be raised in the future. It is
possible that, if Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd were to
become subject to any laws of this type at any time in the
future, we would not be in compliance with the requirements of
those laws.
Our
holding company structure and regulatory and other constraints
affect our ability to pay dividends and make other
payments.
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd is a holding
company, and as such has no substantial operations of its own.
It does not have any significant assets other than its ownership
of the shares of its direct and indirect subsidiaries. Dividends
and other permitted distributions from subsidiaries are expected
to be the sole source of funds for Allied World Assurance
Company Holdings, Ltd to meet any ongoing cash requirements,
including any debt service payments and other expenses, and to
pay any dividends to shareholders. Bermuda law, including
Bermuda insurance regulations and the Companies Act, restricts
the declaration and payment of dividends and the making of
distributions by our Bermuda entities, unless specified
requirements are met. Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd is
prohibited from paying dividends of more than 25% of its total
statutory capital and surplus (as shown in its previous
financial years statutory balance sheet) unless it files
with the BMA at least seven days before payment of such dividend
an affidavit stating that the declaration of such dividends has
not caused it to fail to meet its minimum solvency margin and
minimum liquidity ratio. Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd is
also prohibited from declaring or paying dividends without the
approval of the
35
BMA if Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd failed to meet its
minimum solvency margin and minimum liquidity ratio on the last
day of the previous financial year.
Furthermore, in order to reduce its total statutory capital by
15% or more, Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd would require
the prior approval of the BMA. In addition, Bermuda corporate
law prohibits a company from declaring or paying a dividend if
there are reasonable grounds for believing that (i) the
company is, or would after the payment be, unable to pay its
liabilities as they become due; or (ii) the realizable
value of the companys assets would thereby be less than
the aggregate of its liabilities, its issued share capital and
its share premium accounts.
In addition, Allied World Assurance Company (Europe) Limited,
Allied World Assurance Company (Reinsurance) Limited, Allied
World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc. and Allied World National
Assurance Company are subject to significant regulatory
restrictions limiting their ability to declare and pay any
dividends.
In general, a U.S. insurance company subsidiary may not pay
an extraordinary dividend or distribution until
30 days after the applicable insurance regulator has
received notice of the intended payment and has not objected to,
or has approved, the payment within the
30-day
period. In general, an extraordinary dividend or
distribution is defined by these laws and regulations as a
dividend or distribution that, together with other dividends and
distributions made within the preceding 12 months, exceeds
the greater (or, in some jurisdictions, the lesser) of:
(a) 10% of the insurers statutory surplus as of the
immediately prior year end; or (b) or the statutory net
income during the prior calendar year. The laws and regulations
of some of these U.S. jurisdictions also prohibit an
insurer from declaring or paying a dividend except out of its
earned surplus. For example, payments of dividends by
U.S. insurance companies are subject to restrictions on
statutory surplus pursuant to state law. In addition, insurance
regulators may prohibit the payment of ordinary dividends or
other payments by our U.S. insurance subsidiaries (such as
a payment under a tax sharing agreement or for employee or other
services) if they determine that such payment could be adverse
to such subsidiaries policyholders.
Without the consent of the Irish Financial Regulator, Allied
World Assurance Company (Europe) Limited and Allied World
Assurance Company (Reinsurance) Limited are not permitted to
reduce the level of its capital, may not make any dividend
payments, may not make inter-company loans and must maintain a
minimum solvency margin. These rules and regulations may have
the effect of restricting the ability of these companies to
declare and pay dividends.
In addition, to the extent we have insurance subsidiaries that
are the parent company for another insurance subsidiary,
dividends and other distributions will be subject to multiple
layers of the regulations discussed above as funds are pushed up
to our ultimate parent company. The inability of any of our
insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends in an amount sufficient
to enable Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd to meet
its cash requirements at the holding company level could have a
material adverse effect on our business, our ability to make
payments on any indebtedness, our ability to transfer capital
from one subsidiary to another and our ability to declare and
pay dividends to our shareholders.
Our
business could be adversely affected by Bermuda employment
restrictions.
We will need to hire additional employees to work in Bermuda.
Under Bermuda law, non-Bermudians (other than spouses of
Bermudians, holders of a permanent residents certificate
and holders of a working residents certificate) may not
engage in any gainful occupation in Bermuda without an
appropriate governmental work permit. Work permits may be
granted or extended by the Bermuda government if it is shown
that, after proper public advertisement in most cases, no
Bermudian (or spouse of a Bermudian, holder of a permanent
residents certificate or holder of a working
residents certificate) is available who meets the minimum
standard requirements for the advertised position. In 2001, the
Bermuda government announced a new immigration policy limiting
the total duration of work permits, including renewals, to six
to nine years, with specified exemptions for key employees. In
March 2004, the Bermuda government announced an amendment to
this policy which expanded the categories of occupations
recognized by the government as key and with respect
to which businesses can apply to be exempt from the
six-to-nine-year
limitations. The categories include senior executives, managers
with global responsibility, senior financial posts, certain
legal professionals and senior insurance professionals,
experienced/specialized brokers, actuaries, specialist
investment traders/analysts and senior information technology
engineers and managers. All of our Bermuda-based professional
employees who require work permits have been granted permits by
the Bermuda government. It is possible that the Bermuda
government could deny work permits for our employees in the
future, which could have a material adverse effect on our
business.
36
Risks
Related to Ownership of Our Common Shares
Future
sales of our common shares may adversely affect the market
price.
As of February 22, 2008, we had 60,498,920 common
shares outstanding. Up to an additional 2,861,921 common shares
may be issuable upon the vesting and exercise of outstanding
stock options, restricted stock units (RSUs) and
performance based equity awards. In addition, our principal
shareholders and their transferees have the right to require us
to register their common shares under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the Securities Act), for sale to
the public. Following any registration of this type, the common
shares to which the registration relates will be freely
transferable. We have also filed a registration statement on
Form S-8
under the Securities Act to register common shares issued or
reserved for issuance under the Allied World Assurance Company
Holdings, Ltd Amended and Restated 2001 Employee Stock Option
Plan, the Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd Amended
and Restated 2004 Stock Incentive Plan and the Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd Amended and Restated Long-Term
Incentive Plan. Subject to the exercise of issued and
outstanding stock options, shares registered under the
registration statement on
Form S-8
will be available for sale to the public. We cannot predict what
effect, if any, future sales of our common shares, or the
availability of common shares for future sale, will have on the
market price of our common shares. Sales of substantial amounts
of our common shares in the public market, or the perception
that sales of this type could occur, could depress the market
price of our common shares and may make it more difficult for
you to sell your common shares at a time and price that you deem
appropriate.
Our
Bye-laws contain restrictions on ownership, voting and transfers
of our common shares.
Under our Amended and Restated Bye-laws (the
Bye-laws), our directors (or their designees) are
required to decline to register any transfer of common shares
that would result in a U.S. person owning our common shares
and shares of any other class or classes, in excess of certain
prescribed limitations. These limitations take into account
attribution and constructive ownership rules under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and
beneficial ownership rules under the Exchange Act. Similar
restrictions apply to our ability to issue or repurchase shares.
Our directors (or their designees), in their absolute
discretion, may also decline to register the transfer of any
common shares if they have reason to believe that (1) the
transfer could expose us or any of our subsidiaries, any
shareholder or any person ceding insurance to us or any of our
subsidiaries, to, or materially increase the risk of, material
adverse tax or regulatory treatment in any jurisdiction; or
(2) the transfer is required to be registered under the
Securities Act or under the securities laws of any state of the
United States or any other jurisdiction, and such registration
has not occurred. These restrictions apply to a transfer of
common shares even if the transfer has been executed on the New
York Stock Exchange. Any person wishing to transfer common
shares will be deemed to own the shares for dividend, voting and
reporting purposes until the transfer has been registered on our
register of members. We are authorized to request information
from any holder or prospective acquiror of common shares as
necessary to give effect to the transfer, issuance and
repurchase restrictions described above, and may decline to
effect that kind of transaction if complete and accurate
information is not received as requested.
Our Bye-laws also contain provisions relating to voting powers
that may cause the voting power of certain shareholders to
differ significantly from their ownership of common shares. Our
Bye-laws specify the voting rights of any owner of shares to
prevent any person from owning, beneficially, constructively or
by attribution, shares carrying 10% or more of the total voting
rights attached to all of our outstanding shares. Because of the
attribution and constructive ownership provisions of the Code,
and the rules of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding determination of beneficial ownership, this
requirement may have the effect of reducing the voting rights of
a shareholder even if that shareholder does not directly or
indirectly hold 10% or more of the total combined voting power
of our company. Further, our directors (or their designees) have
the authority to request from any shareholder specified
information for the purpose of determining whether that
shareholders voting rights are to be reduced. If a
shareholder fails to respond to this request or submits
incomplete or inaccurate information, the directors (or their
designees) have the discretion to disregard all votes attached
to that shareholders shares. No person, including any of
our current shareholders, may exercise 10% or more of our total
voting rights. To our knowledge, as of this date, none of our
current shareholders is anticipated to own 10% or more of the
total voting rights attached to all of our outstanding shares
after giving effect to the voting cutback.
37
Anti-takeover
provisions in our Bye-laws could impede an attempt to replace or
remove our directors, which could diminish the value of our
common shares.
Our Bye-laws contain provisions that may entrench directors and
make it more difficult for shareholders to replace directors
even if the shareholders consider it beneficial to do so. In
addition, these provisions could delay or prevent a change of
control that a shareholder might consider favorable. For
example, these provisions may prevent a shareholder from
receiving the benefit from any premium over the market price of
our shares offered by a bidder in a potential takeover. Even in
the absence of an attempt to effect a change in management or a
takeover attempt, these provisions may adversely affect the
prevailing market price of our common shares if they are viewed
as discouraging changes in management and takeover attempts in
the future.
For example, the following provisions in our Bye-laws could have
such an effect:
|
|
|
|
|
the election of our directors is staggered, meaning that members
of only one of three classes of our directors are elected each
year, thus limiting your ability to replace directors,
|
|
|
|
our shareholders have a limited ability to remove directors,
|
|
|
|
the total voting power of any shareholder beneficially owning
10% or more of the total voting power of our voting shares will
be reduced to less than 10% of the total voting power.
Conversely, shareholders owning less than 10% of the total
voting power may gain increased voting power as a result of
these cutbacks,
|
|
|
|
no shareholder may transfer shares if as a result of such
transfer any U.S. person owns 10% or more of our shares by
vote or value (other than some of our principal shareholders,
whose share ownership may not exceed the percentage of our
common shares owned immediately after our initial public
offering of common shares in July 2006 (IPO)),
|
|
|
|
if our directors determine that share ownership of any person
may result in a violation of our ownership limitations, our
board of directors has the power to force that shareholder to
sell its shares and
|
|
|
|
our board of directors has the power to issue preferred shares
without any shareholder approval, which effectively allows the
board to dilute the holdings of any shareholder and could be
used to institute a poison pill that would work to
dilute the share ownership of a potential hostile acquirer,
effectively preventing acquisitions that have not been approved
by our board of directors.
|
As a
shareholder of our company, you may have greater difficulties in
protecting your interests than as a shareholder of a U.S.
corporation.
The Companies Act, which applies to our company, our Bermuda
insurance subsidiary, Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd, and
Allied World Assurance Holdings (Ireland) Ltd, differs in
material respects from laws generally applicable to
U.S. corporations and their shareholders. Taken together
with the provisions of our Bye-laws, some of these differences
may result in your having greater difficulties in protecting
your interests as a shareholder of our company than you would
have as a shareholder of a U.S. corporation. This affects,
among other things, the circumstances under which transactions
involving an interested director are voidable, whether an
interested director can be held accountable for any benefit
realized in a transaction with our company, what approvals are
required for business combinations by our company with a large
shareholder or a wholly-owned subsidiary, what rights you may
have as a shareholder to enforce specified provisions of the
Companies Act or our Bye-laws, and the circumstances under which
we may indemnify our directors and officers.
It may
be difficult to enforce service of process and enforcement of
judgments against us and our officers and
directors.
Our company is a Bermuda company and it may be difficult for
investors to enforce judgments against it or its directors and
executive officers.
We are incorporated pursuant to the laws of Bermuda and our
business is based in Bermuda. In addition, certain of our
directors and officers reside outside the United States, and all
or a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of such
persons are located in jurisdictions outside the United States.
As such, it may be difficult or impossible to effect
38
service of process within the United States upon us or those
persons or to recover against us or them on judgments of
U.S. courts, including judgments predicated upon civil
liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws.
Further, no claim may be brought in Bermuda against us or our
directors and officers in the first instance for violation of
U.S. federal securities laws because these laws have no
extraterritorial jurisdiction under Bermuda law and do not have
force of law in Bermuda. A Bermuda court may, however, impose
civil liability, including the possibility of monetary damages,
on us or our directors and officers if the facts alleged in a
complaint constitute or give rise to a cause of action under
Bermuda law.
We have been advised by Conyers Dill & Pearman, our
Bermuda counsel, that there is doubt as to whether the courts of
Bermuda would enforce judgments of U.S. courts obtained in
actions against us or our directors and officers, predicated
upon the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal
securities laws or original actions brought in Bermuda against
us or such persons predicated solely upon U.S. federal
securities laws. Further, we have been advised by Conyers
Dill & Pearman that there is no treaty in effect
between the United States and Bermuda providing for the
enforcement of judgments of U.S. courts. Some remedies
available under the laws of U.S. jurisdictions, including
some remedies available under the U.S. federal securities
laws, may not be allowed in Bermuda courts as contrary to that
jurisdictions public policy. Because judgments of
U.S. courts are not automatically enforceable in Bermuda,
it may be difficult for investors to recover against us based
upon such judgments.
There
are regulatory limitations on the ownership and transfer of our
common shares.
The BMA must approve all issuances and transfers of securities
of a Bermuda exempted company like us. We have received from the
BMA their permission for the issue and subsequent transfer of
our common shares, as long as the shares are listed on the New
York Stock Exchange or other appointed exchange, to and among
persons resident and non-resident of Bermuda for exchange
control purposes.
Before any shareholder acquires 10% or more of the voting
shares, either directly or indirectly, of Allied World Assurance
Company (U.S.) Inc. or Allied World National Assurance Company,
that shareholder must file an acquisition statement with and
obtain prior approval from the domiciliary insurance
commissioner of the respective company.
Risks
Related to Taxation
U.S.
taxation of our
non-U.S.
companies could materially adversely affect our financial
condition and results of operations.
We believe that our
non-U.S. companies,
including our Bermuda and Irish companies (collectively, the
non-U.S. companies),
have operated and will operate their respective businesses in a
manner that will not cause them to be subject to U.S. tax
(other than U.S. federal excise tax on insurance and
reinsurance premiums and withholding tax on specified investment
income from U.S. sources) on the basis that none of them
are engaged in a U.S. trade or business. However, there are
no definitive standards under current law as to those activities
that constitute a U.S. trade or business and the
determination of whether a
non-U.S. company
is engaged in a U.S. trade or business is inherently
factual. Therefore, we cannot assure you that the
U.S. Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) will
not contend that a
non-U.S. company
is engaged in a U.S. trade or business. If any of the
non-U.S. companies
are engaged in a U.S. trade or business and does not
qualify for benefits under the applicable income tax treaty,
such company may be subject to U.S. federal income taxation
at regular corporate rates on its premium income from
U.S. sources and investment income that is effectively
connected with its U.S. trade or business. In addition, a
U.S. federal branch profits tax at the rate of 30% will be
imposed on the earnings and profits attributable to such income.
All of the premium income from U.S. sources and a
significant portion of investment income of such company, as
computed under Section 842 of the Code, requiring that a
foreign company carrying on a U.S. insurance or reinsurance
business have a certain minimum amount of effectively connected
net investment income, determined in accordance with a formula
that depends, in part, on the amount of U.S. risks insured
or reinsured by such company, may be subject to
U.S. federal income and branch profits taxes.
If Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd (the Bermuda
insurance subsidiary) or any Bermuda insurance subsidiary
we form or acquire in the future is engaged in a U.S. trade
or business and qualifies for benefits under the United
States-Bermuda tax treaty, U.S. federal income taxation of
such subsidiary will depend on whether (i) it maintains a
U.S. permanent establishment and (ii) the relief from
taxation under the treaty generally applies to non-
39
premium income. We believe that the Bermuda insurance subsidiary
has operated and will operate its business in a manner that will
not cause it to maintain a U.S. permanent establishment.
However, the determination of whether an insurance company
maintains a U.S. permanent establishment is inherently
factual. Therefore, we cannot assure you that the IRS will not
successfully assert that a Bermuda insurance subsidiary
maintains a U.S. permanent establishment. In such case, the
Bermuda insurance subsidiary will be subject to
U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates and
branch profit tax at the rate of 30% with respect to its income
attributable to the permanent establishment. Furthermore,
although the provisions of the treaty clearly apply to premium
income, it is uncertain whether they generally apply to other
income of a Bermuda insurance company. Therefore, if a Bermuda
insurance subsidiary of our company is engaged in a
U.S. trade or business, qualifies for benefits under the
treaty and does not maintain a U.S. permanent establishment
but the treaty is interpreted not to apply to income other than
premium income, such subsidiary will be subject to
U.S. federal income and branch profits taxes on its
investment and other non-premium income as described in the
preceding paragraph.
If any of Allied World Assurance Holdings (Ireland) Ltd or our
Irish companies are engaged in a U.S. trade or business and
qualifies for benefits under the
Ireland-United
States income tax treaty, U.S. federal income taxation of
such company will depend on whether it maintains a
U.S. permanent establishment. We believe that each such
company has operated and will operate its business in a manner
that will not cause it to maintain a U.S. permanent
establishment. However, the determination of whether a
non-U.S. company
maintains a U.S. permanent establishment is inherently
factual. Therefore, we cannot assure you that the IRS will not
successfully assert that any of such companies maintains a
U.S. permanent establishment. In such case, the company
will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular
corporate rates and branch profits tax at the rate of 5% with
respect to its income attributable to the permanent
establishment.
U.S. federal income tax, if imposed, will be based on
effectively connected or attributable income of a
non-U.S. company
computed in a manner generally analogous to that applied to the
income of a U.S. corporation, except that all deductions
and credits claimed by a
non-U.S. company
in a taxable year can be disallowed if the company does not file
a U.S. federal income tax return for such year. Penalties
may be assessed for failure to file such return. None of our
non-U.S. companies
filed U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2002 and 2001
taxable years. However, we have filed protective
U.S. federal income tax returns on a timely basis for each
non-U.S. company
for subsequent years in order to preserve our right to claim tax
deductions and credits in such years if any of such companies is
determined to be subject to U.S. federal income tax.
If any of our
non-U.S. companies
is subject to such U.S. federal taxation, our financial
condition and results of operations could be materially
adversely affected.
Our
U.S. subsidiaries may be subject to additional U.S. taxes in
connection with our interaffiliate arrangements.
Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc. and Allied World
National Assurance Company (the U.S. insurance
subsidiaries) are U.S. companies. They reinsure a
significant portion of their insurance policies with Allied
World Assurance Company, Ltd. While we believe that the terms of
these reinsurance arrangements are arms length, we cannot
assure you that the IRS will not successfully assert that the
payments made by the U.S. insurance subsidiaries with
respect to such arrangements exceed arms length amounts.
In such case, our U.S. insurance subsidiaries will be
treated as realizing additional income that may be subject to
additional U.S. income tax, possibly with interest and
penalties. Such excess amount may also be deemed to have been
distributed as dividends to the direct parent of the
U.S. insurance subsidiaries, Allied World Assurance
Holdings (Ireland) Ltd, in which case this deemed dividend will
also be subject to a U.S. federal withholding tax of 5%,
assuming that the parent is eligible for benefits under the
United States-Ireland income tax treaty (or a withholding tax of
30% if the parent is not so eligible). If any of these
U.S. taxes are imposed, our financial condition and results
of operations could be materially adversely affected.
You
may be subject to U.S. income taxation with respect to income of
our non-U.S.
companies and ordinary income characterization of gains on
disposition of our shares under the controlled foreign
corporation (CFC) rules.
We believe that U.S. persons holding our shares should not
be subject to U.S. federal income taxation with respect to
income of our
non-U.S. companies
prior to the distribution of earnings attributable to such
income or ordinary income characterization of gains on
disposition of shares on the basis that such persons should not
be United States shareholders
40
subject to the CFC rules of the Code. Generally, each
United States shareholder of a CFC will be subject
to (i) U.S. federal income taxation on its ratable
share of the CFCs subpart F income, even if the earnings
attributable to such income are not distributed, provided that
such United States shareholder holds directly or
through
non-U.S. entities
shares of the CFC; and (ii) potential ordinary income
characterization of gains from sale or exchange of the directly
owned shares of the
non-U.S. corporation.
For these purposes, any U.S. person who owns directly,
through
non-U.S. entities,
or under applicable constructive ownership rules, 10% or more of
the total combined voting power of all classes of stock of any
non-U.S. company
will be considered to be a United States
shareholder. Although our
non-U.S. companies
may be or become CFCs and certain of our principal
U.S. shareholders currently own 10% or more of our common
shares, for the following reasons we believe that no
U.S. person holding our shares directly, or through
non-U.S. entities,
should be a United States shareholder. First, our
Bye-laws provide that if a U.S. person (including any
principal shareholder) owns directly or through
non-U.S. entities
any of our shares, the number of votes conferred by the shares
owned directly, indirectly or under applicable constructive
ownership rules by such person will be less than 10% of the
aggregate number of votes conferred by all issued shares of
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd. Second, our
Bye-laws restrict issuance, conversion, transfer and repurchase
of the shares to the extent such transaction would cause a
U.S. person holding directly or through
non-U.S. entities
any of our shares to own directly, through
non-U.S. entities
or under applicable constructive ownership rules shares
representing 10% or more of the voting power in Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd. Third, our Bye-laws and the
bye-laws of our
non-U.S. subsidiaries
require (i) the board of directors of Allied World
Assurance Company, Ltd to consist only of persons who have been
elected as directors of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings,
Ltd (with the number and classification of directors of Allied
World Assurance Company, Ltd being identical to those of Allied
World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd) and (ii) the board
of directors of each other
non-U.S. subsidiary
of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd to consist only
of persons approved by our shareholders as persons eligible to
be elected as directors of such subsidiary. Therefore,
U.S. persons holding our shares should not be subject to
the CFC rules of the Code (except that a U.S. person may be
subject to the ordinary income characterization of gains on
disposition of shares if such person owned 10% or more of our
total voting power solely under the applicable constructive
ownership rules at any time during the
5-year
period ending on the date of the disposition when we were a
CFC). We cannot assure you, however, that the Bye-law provisions
referenced in this paragraph will operate as intended or that we
will be otherwise successful in preventing a U.S. person
from exceeding, or being deemed to exceed, these voting
limitations. Accordingly, U.S. persons who hold our shares
directly or through
non-U.S. entities
should consider the possible application of the CFC rules.
You
may be subject to U.S. income taxation under the related person
insurance income (RPII) rules.
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd, Allied World Assurance
Company (Europe) Limited and Allied World Assurance Company
(Reinsurance) Limited (the
non-U.S. insurance
subsidiaries), are
non-U.S. companies
which currently insure and reinsure and are expected to continue
to insure and reinsure directly or indirectly certain of our
U.S. shareholders and persons related to such shareholders.
We believe that U.S. persons that hold our shares directly
or through
non-U.S. entities
will not be subject to U.S. federal income taxation with
respect to the income realized in connection with such insurance
and reinsurance prior to distribution of earnings attributable
to such income on the basis that RPII, determined on gross
basis, realized by each
non-U.S. insurance
subsidiary will be less than 20% of its gross insurance income
in each taxable year. We currently monitor and will continue to
monitor the amount of RPII realized and, when appropriate, will
decline to write primary insurance and reinsurance for our
U.S. shareholders and persons related to such shareholders.
However, we cannot assure you that the measures described in
this paragraph will operate as intended. In addition, some of
the factors that determine the extent of RPII in any period may
be beyond our knowledge or control. For example, we may be
considered to insure indirectly the risk of our shareholder if
an unrelated company that insured such risk in the first
instance reinsures such risk with us. Therefore, we cannot
assure you that we will be successful in keeping the RPII
realized by the
non-U.S. insurance
subsidiaries below the 20% limit in each taxable year.
Furthermore, even if we are successful in keeping the RPII below
the 20% limit, we cannot assure you that we will be able to
establish that fact to the satisfaction of the U.S. tax
authorities. If we are unable to establish that the RPII of any
non-U.S. insurance
subsidiary is less than 20% of that subsidiarys gross
insurance income in any taxable year, and no other exception
from the RPII rules applies, each U.S. person who owns our
shares, directly or through
non-U.S. entities,
on the last day of the taxable year will be generally required
to include in its income for U.S. federal income tax
purposes that persons ratable share of that
subsidiarys RPII for the taxable year, determined as if
that RPII were distributed proportionately to U.S. holders
at that date, regardless of whether that income was actually
distributed.
41
The RPII rules provide that if a holder who is a
U.S. person disposes of shares in a foreign insurance
corporation that has RPII (even if the amount of RPII is less
than 20% of the corporations gross insurance income) and
in which U.S. persons own 25% or more of the shares, any
gain from the disposition will generally be treated as a
dividend to the extent of the holders share of the
corporations undistributed earnings and profits that were
accumulated during the period that the holder owned the shares
(whether or not those earnings and profits are attributable to
RPII). In addition, such a shareholder will be required to
comply with specified reporting requirements, regardless of the
amount of shares owned. These rules should not apply to
dispositions of our shares because Allied World Assurance
Company Holdings, Ltd is not itself directly engaged in the
insurance business and these rules appear to apply only in the
case of shares of corporations that are directly engaged in the
insurance business. We cannot assure you, however, that the IRS
will interpret these rules in this manner or that the proposed
regulations addressing the RPII rules will not be promulgated in
final form in a manner that would cause these rules to apply to
dispositions of our shares.
U.S.
tax-exempt entities may recognize unrelated business taxable
income (UBTI).
A U.S. tax-exempt entity holding our shares generally will
not be subject to U.S. federal income tax with respect to
dividends and gains on our shares, provided that such entity
does not purchase our shares with borrowed funds. However, if a
U.S. tax-exempt entity realizes income with respect to our
shares under the CFC or RPII rules, as discussed above, such
entity will be generally subject to U.S. federal income tax
with respect to such income as UBTI. Accordingly,
U.S. tax-exempt entities that are potential investors in
our shares should consider the possible application of the CFC
and RPII rules.
You
may be subject to additional U.S. federal income taxation with
respect to distributions on and gains on dispositions of our
shares under the passive foreign investment company
(PFIC) rules.
We believe that U.S. persons holding our shares should not
be subject to additional U.S. federal income taxation with
respect to distributions on and gains on dispositions of shares
under the PFIC rules. We expect that our insurance subsidiaries
will be predominantly engaged in, and derive their income from
the active conduct of, an insurance business and will not hold
reserves in excess of reasonable needs of their business, and
therefore qualify for the insurance exception from the PFIC
rules. However, the determination of the nature of such business
and the reasonableness of such reserves is inherently factual.
Furthermore, we cannot assure you, as to what positions the IRS
or a court might take in the future regarding the application of
the PFIC rules to us. Therefore, we cannot assure you that we
will not be considered to be a PFIC. If we are considered to be
a PFIC, U.S. persons holding our shares could be subject to
additional U.S. federal income taxation on distributions on
and gains on dispositions of shares. Accordingly, each
U.S. person who is considering an investment in our shares
should consult his or her tax advisor as to the effects of the
PFIC rules.
Application
of a published IRS Revenue Ruling with respect to our insurance
or reinsurance arrangements can materially adversely affect
us.
The IRS published Revenue Ruling
2005-40 (the
Ruling) addressing the requirement of adequate risk
distribution among insureds in order for a primary insurance
arrangement to constitute insurance for U.S. federal income
tax purposes. If the IRS successfully contends that our
insurance or reinsurance arrangements, including such
arrangements with affiliates of our principal shareholders, and
with our U.S. subsidiaries, do not provide for adequate
risk distribution under the principles set forth in the Ruling,
we could be subject to material adverse U.S. federal income
tax consequences.
Future
U.S. legislative action or other changes in U.S. tax law might
adversely affect us.
The tax treatment of
non-U.S. insurance
companies and their U.S. insurance subsidiaries has been
the subject of discussion and legislative proposals in the
U.S. Congress. We cannot assure you that future legislative
action will not increase the amount of U.S. tax payable by
our
non-U.S. companies
or our U.S. subsidiaries. If this happens, our financial
condition and results of operations could be materially
adversely affected.
We may
be subject to U.K. tax, which may have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations.
None of our companies are incorporated in the United Kingdom.
Accordingly, none of our companies should be treated as being
resident in the United Kingdom for corporation tax purposes
unless the central management and control of any such company is
exercised in the United Kingdom. The concept of central
management and control is indicative of
42
the highest level of control of a company, which is wholly a
question of fact. Each of our companies currently intend to
manage our affairs so that none of our companies are resident in
the United Kingdom for tax purposes.
The rules governing the taxation of foreign companies operating
in the United Kingdom through a branch or agency were amended by
the Finance Act 2003. The current rules apply to the
accounting periods of non-U.K. resident companies which start on
or after January 1, 2003. Accordingly, a
non-U.K. resident
company will only be subject to U.K. corporation tax if it
carries on a trade in the United Kingdom through a permanent
establishment in the United Kingdom. In that case, the company
is, in broad terms, taxable on the profits and gains
attributable to the permanent establishment in the United
Kingdom. Broadly a company will have a permanent establishment
if it has a fixed place of business in the United Kingdom
through which the business of the company is wholly or partly
carried on or if an agent acting on behalf of the company has
and habitually exercises authority in the United Kingdom to do
business on behalf of the company. Each of our companies, other
than Allied World Assurance Company (Reinsurance) Limited and
Allied World Assurance Company (Europe) Limited (which have
established branches in the United Kingdom), currently intend
that we will operate in such a manner so that none of our
companies, other than Allied World Assurance Company
(Reinsurance) Limited and Allied World Assurance Company
(Europe) Limited, carry on a trade through a permanent
establishment in the United Kingdom.
If any of our U.S. subsidiaries were trading in the United
Kingdom through a branch or agency and the
U.S. subsidiaries were to qualify for benefits under the
applicable income tax treaty between the United Kingdom and the
United States, only those profits which were attributable to a
permanent establishment in the United Kingdom would be subject
to U.K. corporation tax.
If Allied World Assurance Holdings (Ireland) Ltd was trading in
the United Kingdom through a branch or agency and it was
entitled to the benefits of the tax treaty between Ireland and
the United Kingdom, it would only be subject to U.K. taxation on
its profits which were attributable to a permanent establishment
in the United Kingdom. The branches established in the United
Kingdom by Allied World Assurance Company (Reinsurance) Limited
and Allied World Assurance Company (Europe) Limited constitute a
permanent establishment of those companies and the profits
attributable to those permanent establishments are subject to
U.K. corporation tax.
The United Kingdom has no income tax treaty with Bermuda.
There are circumstances in which companies that are neither
resident in the United Kingdom nor entitled to the protection
afforded by a double tax treaty between the United Kingdom and
the jurisdiction in which they are resident may be exposed to
income tax in the United Kingdom (other than by deduction or
withholding) on income arising in the United Kingdom (including
the profits of a trade carried on there even if that trade is
not carried on through a branch agency or permanent
establishment), but each of our companies currently operates in
such a manner that none of our companies will fall within the
charge to income tax in the United Kingdom (other than by
deduction or withholding) in this respect.
If any of our companies were treated as being resident in the
United Kingdom for U.K. corporation tax purposes, or if any of
our companies, other than Allied World Assurance Company
(Reinsurance) Limited and Allied World Assurance Company
(Europe) Limited, were to be treated as carrying on a trade in
the United Kingdom through a branch agency or of having a
permanent establishment in the United Kingdom, our results of
operations and your investment could be materially adversely
affected.
We may
be subject to Irish tax, which may have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations.
Companies resident in Ireland are generally subject to Irish
corporation tax on their worldwide income and capital gains.
None of our companies, other than our Irish companies and Allied
World Assurance Holdings (Ireland) Ltd, which resides in
Ireland, should be treated as being resident in Ireland unless
the central management and control of any such company is
exercised in Ireland. The concept of central management and
control is indicative of the highest level of control of a
company, and is wholly a question of fact. Each of our
companies, other than Allied World Assurance Holdings (Ireland)
Ltd and our Irish companies, currently intend to operate in such
a manner so that the central management and control of each of
our companies, other than Allied World Assurance Holdings
(Ireland) Ltd and our Irish companies, is exercised outside of
Ireland. Nevertheless, because central management and control is
a question of fact to be determined based on a number of
different factors, the Irish Revenue Commissioners might contend
successfully that the central management and control of any of
our companies, other than Allied World Assurance Holdings
(Ireland) Ltd or our Irish
43
companies, is exercised in Ireland. Should this occur, such
company will be subject to Irish corporation tax on their
worldwide income and capital gains.
The trading income of a company not resident in Ireland for
Irish tax purposes can also be subject to Irish corporation tax
if it carries on a trade through a branch or agency in Ireland.
Each of our companies currently intend to operate in such a
manner so that none of our companies carry on a trade through a
branch or agency in Ireland. Nevertheless, because neither case
law nor Irish legislation definitively defines the activities
that constitute trading in Ireland through a branch or agency,
the Irish Revenue Commissioners might contend successfully that
any of our companies, other than Allied World Assurance Holdings
(Ireland) Ltd and our Irish companies, is trading through a
branch or agency in Ireland. Should this occur, such companies
will be subject to Irish corporation tax on profits attributable
to that branch or agency.
If any of our companies, other than Allied World Assurance
Holdings (Ireland) Ltd and our Irish companies, were treated as
resident in Ireland for Irish corporation tax purposes, or as
carrying on a trade in Ireland through a branch or agency, our
results of operations and your investment could be materially
adversely affected.
If
corporate tax rates in Ireland increase, our business and
financial results could be adversely affected.
Trading income derived from the insurance and reinsurance
businesses carried on in Ireland by our Irish companies is
generally taxed in Ireland at a rate of 12.5%. Over the past
number of years, various European Union Member States have, from
time to time, called for harmonization of corporate tax rates
within the European Union. Ireland, along with other member
states, has consistently resisted any movement towards
standardized corporate tax rates in the European Union. The
Government of Ireland has also made clear its commitment to
retain the 12.5% rate of corporation tax until at least the year
2025. Should, however, tax laws in Ireland change so as to
increase the general corporation tax rate in Ireland, our
results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
If
investments held by our Irish companies are determined not to be
integral to the insurance and reinsurance businesses carried on
by those companies, additional Irish tax could be imposed and
our business and financial results could be adversely
affected.
Based on administrative practice, taxable income derived from
investments made by our Irish companies is generally taxed in
Ireland at the rate of 12.5% on the grounds that such
investments either form part of the permanent capital required
by regulatory authorities, or are otherwise integral to the
insurance and reinsurance businesses carried on by those
companies. Our Irish companies intend to operate in such a
manner so that the level of investments held by such companies
does not exceed the amount that is integral to the insurance and
reinsurance businesses carried on by our Irish companies. If,
however, investment income earned by our Irish companies exceeds
these thresholds, or if the administrative practice of the Irish
Revenue Commissioners changes, Irish corporations tax could
apply to such investment income at a higher rate (currently 25%)
instead of the general 12.5% rate, and our results of operations
could be materially adversely affected
We may
become subject to taxes in Bermuda after March 28, 2016,
which may have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations and our investment.
The Bermuda Minister of Finance, under the Exempted Undertakings
Tax Protection Act, 1966 of Bermuda, has given Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd and each of its Bermuda
subsidiaries an assurance that if any legislation is enacted in
Bermuda that would impose tax computed on profits or income, or
computed on any capital asset, gain or appreciation, or any tax
in the nature of estate duty or inheritance tax, then the
imposition of any such tax will not be applicable to such
entities or their operations, shares, debentures or other
obligations until March 28, 2016. Given the limited
duration of the Minister of Finances assurance, we cannot
be certain that we will not be subject to any Bermuda tax after
March 28, 2016.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments.
|
None.
44
We currently lease office space in Pembroke, Bermuda (which
houses our corporate headquarters); Boston, Massachusetts;
Chicago, Illinois; New York, New York; San Francisco,
California; Dublin, Ireland; and London, England. Our
reinsurance segment operates out of our Bermuda and New York
offices and our property and casualty segments operate out of
each of our office locations. Except for our office space in
Bermuda, which has 14 years remaining on the lease term,
our leases have remaining terms ranging from approximately two
years to approximately ten years in length. While we believe
that the office space from these leased properties is sufficient
for us to conduct our operations for the foreseeable future, we
may need to expand into additional facilities to accommodate any
future growth.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings.
|
On April 4, 2006, a complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta Division) by a group of several corporations and
certain of their related entities in an action entitled New
Cingular Wireless Headquarters, LLC et al, as plaintiffs,
against certain defendants, including Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., Marsh Inc. and Aon Corporation, in their
capacities as insurance brokers, and 78 insurers, including our
insurance subsidiary in Bermuda, Allied World Assurance Company,
Ltd.
The action generally relates to broker defendants
placement of insurance contracts for plaintiffs with the 78
insurer defendants. Plaintiffs maintain that the defendants used
a variety of illegal schemes and practices designed to, among
other things, allocate customers, rig bids for insurance
products and raise the prices of insurance products paid by the
plaintiffs. In addition, plaintiffs allege that the broker
defendants steered policyholders business to preferred
insurer defendants. Plaintiffs claim that as a result of these
practices, policyholders either paid more for insurance products
or received less beneficial terms than the competitive market
would have produced. The eight counts in the complaint allege,
among other things, (i) unreasonable restraints of trade
and conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act,
(ii) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, (iii) that broker defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs, (iv) that
insurer defendants participated in and induced this alleged
breach of fiduciary duty, (v) unjust enrichment,
(vi) common law fraud by broker defendants and
(vii) statutory and consumer fraud under the laws of
certain U.S. states. Plaintiffs seek equitable and legal
remedies, including injunctive relief, unquantified
consequential and punitive damages, and treble damages under the
Sherman Act and RICO. On October 16, 2006, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that the litigation be
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings occurring in that court. Neither Allied
World Assurance Company, Ltd nor any of the other defendants
have responded to the complaint. Written discovery has begun but
has not been completed. As a result of the court granting
motions to dismiss in the related putative class action
proceeding, prosecution of this case is currently stayed and the
court is deciding whether to extend the current stay during the
pendency of an appeal filed by the class action plaintiffs with
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. While this matter is in an
early stage, it is not possible to predict its outcome, the
company does not, however, currently believe that the outcome
will have a material adverse effect on the companys
operations or financial position.
We may become involved in various claims and legal proceedings
that arise in the normal course of our business, which are not
likely to have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
|
None.
45
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
|
Our common shares began publicly trading on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol AWH on July 12, 2006.
The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the
high and low sales prices per share of our common shares as
reported on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Tape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
$
|
46.50
|
|
|
$
|
40.87
|
|
Second quarter
|
|
$
|
52.00
|
|
|
$
|
42.10
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
$
|
52.37
|
|
|
$
|
42.75
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
53.48
|
|
|
$
|
43.44
|
|
2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third quarter (commencing July 12, 2006)
|
|
$
|
41.00
|
|
|
$
|
34.10
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
44.28
|
|
|
$
|
39.20
|
|
On February 22, 2008, the last reported sale price for our
common shares was $44.50 per share. At February 22, 2008,
there were 103 holders of record of our common shares. At
February 22, 2008, there were approximately 60,000
beneficial holders of our common shares.
During the year ended December 31, 2006, we declared one
regular quarterly dividend of $0.15 per common share. During the
year ended December 31, 2007, we declared a regular
quarterly dividend of $0.15 per common share during for the
first, second and third quarters, and a regular quarterly
dividend of $0.18 per common share for the fourth quarter. The
continued declaration and payment of dividends to holders of
common shares is expected but will be at the discretion of our
board of directors and subject to specified legal, regulatory,
financial and other restrictions.
As a holding company, our principal source of income is
dividends or other statutorily permissible payments from our
subsidiaries. The ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends
is limited by the applicable laws and regulations of the various
countries in which we operate, including Bermuda, the United
States and Ireland. See Item 1 Business
Regulatory Matters and Item 7 Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations - Liquidity and Capital Resources
Restrictions and Specific Requirements and Note 13 of
the notes to consolidated financial statements included in this
report.
The following table summarizes the purchases of our common
shares for the quarter ended December 31, 2007:
Issuer
Purchases of Equity Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Purchased
|
|
|
that May Yet be
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as Part of Publicly
|
|
|
Purchased Under
|
|
|
|
Total Number of
|
|
|
Average Price
|
|
|
Announced Plans
|
|
|
the Plan or
|
|
Period
|
|
Shares Purchased
|
|
|
Paid per Share
|
|
|
or Programs
|
|
|
Programs
|
|
|
10/1/2007- 10/31/2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/1/2007- 11/30/2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/1/2007- 12/31/2007
|
|
|
11,693,333
|
(1)
|
|
$
|
48.19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
11,693,333
|
|
|
$
|
48.19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In December 2007, our company entered into a stock purchase
agreement with AIG, one of our companys founding
shareholders, pursuant to which our company purchased an AIG
subsidiary holding 11,693,333 of our common shares. The
acquisition of these common shares was a privately negotiated
transaction and was not part of any publicly announced
repurchase plan or program. The purchase price per share was
based on and reflects a 0.5% discount from the volume-weighted
average trading price of our companys common shares during
the ten |
46
|
|
|
|
|
consecutive trading-day period leading up to December 14,
2007. The stock purchase agreement we entered with AIG to
acquire these shares and the transactions contemplated thereby
were approved by our companys board of directors and the
purchase price was funded using existing capital. |
Performance
Graph
The following information is not deemed to be soliciting
material or to be filed with the SEC or
subject to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Exchange
Act, and the report shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any prior or subsequent filing by the company
under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.
The following graph shows the cumulative total return, including
reinvestment of dividends, on the common shares compared to such
return for Standard & Poors 500 Composite Stock
Price Index (S&P 500), and Standard &
Poors Property & Casualty Insurance Index for
the period beginning on July 11, 2006 and ending on
December 31, 2007, assuming $100 was invested on
July 11, 2006. The measurement point on the graph
represents the cumulative shareholder return as measured by the
last reported sale price on such date during the relevant period.
TOTAL
RETURN TO SHAREHOLDERS
(INCLUDES REINVESTMENT OF DIVIDENDS)
COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data.
|
The following table sets forth our summary historical statement
of operations data and summary balance sheet data as of and for
the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and
2003. Statement of operations data and balance sheet data are
derived from our audited consolidated financial statements,
which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP.
These historical results are not necessarily indicative of
results to be expected from any future period. For further
discussion of this risk see Item 1.A. Risk
Factors in this
Form 10-K.
You should read the following selected financial data in
conjunction with the other information contained in this
Form 10-K,
including Item 7 Managements
47
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations and Item 8 Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
($ in millions, except per share amounts and ratios)
|
|
|
Summary Statement of Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
1,505.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,659.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,560.3
|
|
|
$
|
1,708.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,573.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
$
|
1,153.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,306.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,222.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,372.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,346.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
$
|
1,159.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,252.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,271.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,325.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,167.2
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
297.9
|
|
|
|
244.4
|
|
|
|
178.6
|
|
|
|
129.0
|
|
|
|
101.0
|
|
Net realized investment (losses) gains
|
|
|
(7.6
|
)
|
|
|
(28.7
|
)
|
|
|
(10.2
|
)
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
682.3
|
|
|
|
739.1
|
|
|
|
1,344.6
|
|
|
|
1,013.4
|
|
|
|
762.1
|
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
119.0
|
|
|
|
141.5
|
|
|
|
143.4
|
|
|
|
170.9
|
|
|
|
162.6
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
141.6
|
|
|
|
106.1
|
|
|
|
94.3
|
|
|
|
86.3
|
|
|
|
66.5
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
37.8
|
|
|
|
32.6
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
(4.9
|
)
|
Income tax expense (recovery)
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
469.2
|
|
|
$
|
442.8
|
|
|
$
|
(159.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
197.2
|
|
|
$
|
288.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Share Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
7.84
|
|
|
$
|
8.09
|
|
|
$
|
(3.19
|
)
|
|
$
|
3.93
|
|
|
$
|
5.75
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
7.53
|
|
|
|
7.75
|
|
|
|
(3.19
|
)
|
|
|
3.83
|
|
|
|
5.66
|
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
59,846,987
|
|
|
|
54,746,613
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
62,331,165
|
|
|
|
57,115,172
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
51,425,389
|
|
|
|
50,969,715
|
|
Dividends paid per share
|
|
$
|
0.63
|
|
|
$
|
0.15
|
|
|
$
|
9.93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Selected Ratios:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio(2)
|
|
|
58.8
|
%
|
|
|
59.0
|
%
|
|
|
105.7
|
%
|
|
|
76.5
|
%
|
|
|
65.3
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio(3)
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
13.9
|
|
General and administrative expense ratio(4)
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
Expense ratio(5)
|
|
|
22.5
|
|
|
|
19.8
|
|
|
|
18.7
|
|
|
|
19.4
|
|
|
|
19.6
|
|
Combined ratio(6)
|
|
|
81.3
|
|
|
|
78.8
|
|
|
|
124.4
|
|
|
|
95.9
|
|
|
|
84.9
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
($ in millions, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Summary Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
202.6
|
|
|
$
|
366.8
|
|
|
$
|
172.4
|
|
|
$
|
190.7
|
|
|
$
|
66.1
|
|
Investments at fair market value
|
|
|
6,029.3
|
|
|
|
5,440.3
|
|
|
|
4,687.4
|
|
|
|
4,087.9
|
|
|
|
3,184.9
|
|
Reinsurance recoverable
|
|
|
682.8
|
|
|
|
689.1
|
|
|
|
716.3
|
|
|
|
259.2
|
|
|
|
93.8
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
7,899.1
|
|
|
|
7,620.6
|
|
|
|
6,610.5
|
|
|
|
5,072.2
|
|
|
|
3,849.0
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
3,919.8
|
|
|
|
3,637.0
|
|
|
|
3,405.4
|
|
|
|
2,037.1
|
|
|
|
1,058.7
|
|
Unearned premiums
|
|
|
811.1
|
|
|
|
813.8
|
|
|
|
740.1
|
|
|
|
795.3
|
|
|
|
725.5
|
|
Total debt
|
|
|
498.7
|
|
|
|
498.6
|
|
|
|
500.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
2,239.8
|
|
|
|
2,220.1
|
|
|
|
1,420.3
|
|
|
|
2,138.5
|
|
|
|
1,979.1
|
|
Book value per share(7):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
45.95
|
|
|
$
|
36.82
|
|
|
$
|
28.31
|
|
|
$
|
42.63
|
|
|
$
|
39.45
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
42.53
|
|
|
|
35.26
|
|
|
|
28.20
|
|
|
|
41.58
|
|
|
|
38.83
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Please refer to Note 10 of the notes to consolidated
financial statements for the calculation of basic and diluted
earnings per share. |
|
(2) |
|
Calculated by dividing net losses and loss expenses by net
premiums earned. |
|
(3) |
|
Calculated by dividing acquisition costs by net premiums earned. |
|
(4) |
|
Calculated by dividing general and administrative expenses by
net premiums earned. |
|
(5) |
|
Calculated by combining the acquisition cost ratio and the
general and administrative expense ratio. |
|
(6) |
|
Calculated by combining the loss ratio, acquisition cost ratio
and general and administrative expense ratio. |
|
(7) |
|
Basic book value per share is defined as total
shareholders equity available to common shareholders
divided by the number of common shares outstanding as at the end
of the period, giving no effect to dilutive securities. Diluted
book value per share is a non-GAAP financial measure and is
defined as total shareholders equity available to common
shareholders divided by the number of common shares and common
share equivalents outstanding at the end of the period,
calculated using the treasury stock method for all potentially
dilutive securities. When the effect of dilutive securities
would be anti-dilutive, these securities are excluded from the
calculation of diluted book value per share. Certain warrants
that were anti-dilutive were excluded from the calculation of
the diluted book value per share as of December 31, 2005.
The number of warrants that were anti-dilutive were 5,873,500 as
of December 31, 2005. |
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations.
|
Some of the statements in this
Form 10-K
include forward-looking statements within the meaning of The
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that involve
inherent risks and uncertainties. These statements include in
general forward-looking statements both with respect to us and
the insurance industry. Statements that are not historical
facts, including statements that use terms such as
anticipates, believes,
expects, intends, plans,
projects, seeks and will and
that relate to our plans and objectives for future operations,
are forward-looking statements. In light of the risks and
uncertainties inherent in all forward-looking statements, the
inclusion of such statements in this
Form 10-K
should not be considered as a representation by us or any other
person that our objectives or plans will be achieved. These
statements are based on current plans, estimates and
expectations. Actual results may differ materially from those
projected in such forward-looking statements and therefore you
should not place undue reliance on them. Important factors that
could cause actual results to differ materially from those in
such forward-looking statements are set forth in Item 1.A.
Risk Factors in this
Form 10-K.
We undertake no obligation to release publicly the results of
any future revisions we make to the forward-looking statements
to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to
reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
49
Overview
Our
Business
We write a diversified portfolio of property and casualty
insurance and reinsurance lines of business internationally
through our insurance subsidiaries or branches based in Bermuda,
the United States, Ireland and the United Kingdom. We manage our
business through three operating segments: property, casualty
and reinsurance. As of December 31, 2007, we had
$7.9 billion of total assets, $2.2 billion of
shareholders equity and $2.7 billion of total
capital, which includes shareholders equity and senior
notes.
During the year ended December 31, 2007, we experienced
rate declines and increased competition across all of our
operating segments. Increased competition has principally
resulted from increased capacity in the insurance and
reinsurance marketplaces. We believe the trend of increased
capacity and decreasing rates will continue into 2008. Given
this trend, we continue to be selective in the insurance
policies and reinsurance contracts we underwrite. Our
consolidated gross premiums written decreased by
$153.5 million, or 9.3%, for the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006. Our net income for the year ended
December 31, 2007 increased by $26.4 million, or 6.0%,
to $469.2 million compared to $442.8 million for the
year ended December 31, 2006. Net income for the year ended
December 31, 2007 included net investment income of
$297.9 million compared to $244.4 million for the year
ended December 31, 2006.
Recent
Developments
In December 2007, we entered into a stock purchase agreement
with AIG, one of our founding shareholders, pursuant to which we
purchased an AIG subsidiary holding 11,693,333 common shares of
our company. The shares were the subsidiarys sole asset
and equate to approximately 19.4% of our common shares
outstanding prior to the acquisition. The purchase price per
share was $48.19 for an aggregate price of $563.4 million
and reflects a 0.5% discount from the volume-weighted average
trading price of the our common shares during the ten
consecutive trading-day period leading up to December 14,
2007.
In light of the recent turmoil caused by the subprime mortgage
market, we have reviewed our mortgage-backed investment
portfolio and as of December 31, 2007 our mortgage-backed
securities with subprime mortgage exposure was limited to
$2.8 million, or 0.05% of total fixed maturity investments.
We are currently reviewing the impact of the subprime mortgage
market on our insurance policies and reinsurance contracts, but
believe that based on claims information received to date, our
current carried IBNR is adequate to meet any potential subprime
losses.
Relevant
Factors
Revenues
We derive our revenues primarily from premiums on our insurance
policies and reinsurance contracts, net of any reinsurance or
retrocessional coverage purchased. Insurance and reinsurance
premiums are a function of the amounts and types of policies and
contracts we write, as well as prevailing market prices. Our
prices are determined before our ultimate costs, which may
extend far into the future, are known. In addition, our revenues
include income generated from our investment portfolio,
consisting of net investment income and net realized gains or
losses. Investment income is principally derived from interest
and dividends earned on investments, partially offset by
investment management fees and fees paid to our custodian bank.
Expenses
Our expenses consist largely of net losses and loss expenses,
acquisition costs and general and administrative expenses. Net
losses and loss expenses incurred are comprised of three main
components:
|
|
|
|
|
losses paid, which are actual cash payments to insureds, net of
recoveries from reinsurers;
|
|
|
|
outstanding loss or case reserves, which represent
managements best estimate of the likely settlement amount
for known claims, less the portion that can be recovered from
reinsurers; and
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
IBNR, which are reserves established by us for claims that are
not yet reported but can reasonably be expected to have occurred
based on industry information, managements experience and
actuarial evaluation. The portion recoverable from reinsurers is
deducted from the gross estimated loss.
|
Acquisition costs are comprised of commissions, brokerage fees
and insurance taxes. Commissions and brokerage fees are usually
calculated as a percentage of premiums and depend on the market
and line of business. Acquisition costs are reported after
(1) deducting commissions received on ceded reinsurance,
(2) deducting the part of acquisition costs relating to
unearned premiums and (3) including the amortization of
previously deferred acquisition costs.
General and administrative expenses include personnel expenses
including stock-based compensation charges, rent expense,
professional fees, information technology costs and other
general operating expenses. We are experiencing increases in
general and administrative expenses resulting from additional
staff, increased stock-based compensation expense, increased
rent expense for our Bermuda corporate headquarters and
additional amortization expense for building-related and
infrastructure expenditures. We believe this trend will continue
into 2008 as we continue to hire additional staff and build our
infrastructure.
Ratios
Management measures results for each segment on the basis of the
loss and loss expense ratio, acquisition cost
ratio, general and administrative expense
ratio, expense ratio and the combined
ratio. Because we do not manage our assets by segment,
investment income, interest expense and total assets are not
allocated to individual reportable segments. General and
administrative expenses are allocated to segments based on
various factors, including staff count and each segments
proportional share of gross premiums written.
Critical
Accounting Policies
It is important to understand our accounting policies in order
to understand our financial position and results of operations.
Our consolidated financial statements reflect determinations
that are inherently subjective in nature and require management
to make assumptions and best estimates to determine the reported
values. If events or other factors cause actual results to
differ materially from managements underlying assumptions
or estimates, there could be a material adverse effect on our
financial condition or results of operations. The following are
the accounting policies that, in managements judgment, are
critical due to the judgments, assumptions and uncertainties
underlying the application of those policies and the potential
for results to differ from managements assumptions.
Reserve
for Losses and Loss Expenses
The reserve for losses and loss expenses is comprised of two
main elements: outstanding loss reserves, also known as
case reserves, and reserves for IBNR. Outstanding
loss reserves relate to known claims and represent
managements best estimate of the likely loss settlement.
Thus, there is a significant amount of estimation involved in
determining the likely loss payment. IBNR reserves require
substantial judgment because they relate to unreported events
that, based on industry information, managements
experience and actuarial evaluation, can reasonably be expected
to have occurred and are reasonably likely to result in a loss
to our company.
The reserve for IBNR is estimated by management for each line of
business based on various factors, including underwriters
expectations about loss experience, actuarial analysis,
comparisons with the results of industry benchmarks and loss
experience to date. The reserve for IBNR is calculated as the
ultimate amount of losses and loss expenses less cumulative paid
losses and loss expenses and case reserves. Our actuaries employ
generally accepted actuarial methodologies to determine
estimated ultimate loss reserves.
While management believes that our case reserves and IBNR are
sufficient to cover losses assumed by us there can be no
assurance that losses will not deviate from our reserves,
possibly by material amounts. The methodology of estimating loss
reserves is periodically reviewed to ensure that the assumptions
made continue to be appropriate. To the extent actual reported
losses exceed estimated losses, the carried estimate of the
ultimate losses will be increased (i.e., unfavorable reserve
development), and to the extent actual reported losses are less
than our expectations, the carried estimate of ultimate losses
will be reduced (i.e., favorable reserve development). We record
any changes in our loss reserve estimates and the related
reinsurance recoverables in the periods in which they are
determined.
51
Reserves for losses and loss expenses as of December 31,
2007, 2006 and 2005 were comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Case reserves
|
|
$
|
963.4
|
|
|
$
|
935.2
|
|
|
$
|
921.2
|
|
IBNR
|
|
|
2,956.4
|
|
|
|
2,701.8
|
|
|
|
2,484.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
3,919.8
|
|
|
|
3,637.0
|
|
|
|
3,405.4
|
|
Reinsurance recoverables
|
|
|
(682.8
|
)
|
|
|
(689.1
|
)
|
|
|
(716.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
3,237.0
|
|
|
$
|
2,947.9
|
|
|
$
|
2,689.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimating reserves for our property segment relies primarily on
traditional loss reserving methodologies, utilizing selected
paid and reported loss development factors. In property lines of
business, claims are generally reported and paid within a
relatively short period of time (shorter tail lines)
during and following the policy coverage period. This generally
enables us to determine with greater certainty our estimate of
ultimate losses and loss expenses.
Our casualty segment includes general liability risks,
healthcare and professional liability risks. Our average
attachment points for these lines are high, making reserving for
these lines of business more difficult than shorter tail lines.
Claims may be reported or settled several years after the
coverage period has terminated (longer tail lines).
We establish a case reserve when sufficient information is
gathered to make a reasonable estimate of the liability, which
often requires a significant amount of information and time. Due
to the lengthy reporting pattern of these casualty lines,
reliance is placed on industry benchmarks of expected loss
ratios and reporting patterns in addition to our own experience.
Our reinsurance segment is a composition of shorter tail lines
similar to our property segment and longer tail lines similar to
our casualty segment. Our reinsurance treaties are reviewed
individually, based upon individual characteristics and loss
experience emergence.
Loss reserves on assumed reinsurance have unique features that
make them more difficult to estimate. Reinsurers have to rely
upon the cedents and reinsurance intermediaries to report losses
in a timely fashion. Reinsurers must rely upon cedents to price
the underlying business appropriately. Reinsurers have less
predictable loss emergence patterns than direct insurers,
particularly when writing excess of loss contracts. We establish
loss reserves upon receipt of advice from a cedent that a
reserve is merited. Our claims staff may establish additional
loss reserves where, in their judgment, the amount reported by a
cedent is potentially inadequate.
For excess of loss treaties, cedents generally are required to
report losses that either exceed 50% of the retention, have a
reasonable probability of exceeding the retention or meet
serious injury reporting criteria. All reinsurance claims that
are reserved are reviewed at least every six months. For
proportional treaties, cedents are required to give a periodic
statement of account, generally monthly or quarterly. These
periodic statements typically include information regarding
written premiums, earned premiums, unearned premiums, ceding
commissions, brokerage amounts, applicable taxes, paid losses
and outstanding losses. They can be submitted 60 to 90 days
after the close of the reporting period. Some proportional
treaties have specific language regarding earlier notice of
serious claims.
Reinsurance generally has a greater time lag than direct
insurance in the reporting of claims. The time lag is caused by
the claim first being reported to the cedent, then the
intermediary (such as a broker) and finally the reinsurer. This
lag can be up to six months or longer in certain cases. There is
also a time lag because the insurer may not be required to
report claims to the reinsurer until certain reporting criteria
are met. In some instances this could be several years, while a
claim is being litigated. We use reporting factors from the
Reinsurance Association of America to adjust for time lags. We
also use historical treaty-specific reporting factors when
applicable. Loss and premium information are entered into our
reinsurance system by our claims department and our accounting
department on a timely basis.
We record the individual case reserves sent to us by the cedents
through the reinsurance intermediaries. Individual claims are
reviewed by our reinsurance claims department and adjusted as
deemed appropriate. The loss data received from the
intermediaries is checked for reasonableness and for known
events. The loss listings are reviewed during routine claim
audits.
52
The expected loss ratios that we assign to each treaty are based
upon analysis and modeling performed by a team of actuaries. The
historical data reviewed by the team of pricing actuaries is
considered in setting the reserves for all treaty years with
each cedent. The historical data in the submissions is matched
against our carried reserves for our historical treaty years.
Loss reserves do not represent an exact calculation of
liability. Rather, loss reserves are estimates of what we expect
the ultimate resolution and administration of claims will cost.
These estimates are based on actuarial and statistical
projections and on our assessment of currently available data,
as well as estimates of future trends in claims severity and
frequency, judicial theories of liability and other factors.
Loss reserve estimates are refined as experience develops and as
claims are reported and resolved. In addition, the relatively
long periods between when a loss occurs and when it may be
reported to our claims department for our casualty insurance and
reinsurance lines of business also increase the uncertainties of
our reserve estimates in such lines.
We utilize a variety of standard actuarial methods in our
analysis. The selections from these various methods are based on
the loss development characteristics of the specific line of
business. For lines of business with extremely long reporting
periods such as casualty reinsurance, we may rely more on an
expected loss ratio method (as described below) until losses
begin to develop. The actuarial methods we utilize include:
Paid Loss Development Method. We estimate
ultimate losses by calculating past paid loss development
factors and applying them to exposure periods with further
expected paid loss development. The paid loss development method
assumes that losses are paid at a consistent rate. It provides
an objective test of reported loss projections because paid
losses contain no reserve estimates. In some circumstances, paid
losses for recent periods may be too varied for accurate
predictions. For many coverages, claim payments are made very
slowly and it may take years for claims to be fully reported and
settled. These payments may be unreliable for determining future
loss projections because of shifts in settlement patterns or
because of large settlements in the early stages of development.
Choosing an appropriate tail factor to determine the
amount of payments from the latest development period to the
ultimate development period may also require considerable
judgment, especially for coverages that have long payment
patterns. As we have limited payment history, we have had to
supplement our loss development patterns with appropriate
benchmarks.
Reported Loss Development Method. We estimate
ultimate losses by calculating past reported loss development
factors and applying them to exposure periods with further
expected reported loss development. Since reported losses
include payments and case reserves, changes in both of these
amounts are incorporated in this method. This approach provides
a larger volume of data to estimate ultimate losses than the
paid loss development method. Thus, reported loss patterns may
be less varied than paid loss patterns, especially for coverages
that have historically been paid out over a long period of time
but for which claims are reported relatively early and case loss
reserve estimates established. This method assumes that reserves
have been established using consistent practices over the
historical period that is reviewed. Changes in claims handling
procedures, large claims or significant numbers of claims of an
unusual nature may cause results to be too varied for accurate
forecasting. Also, choosing an appropriate tail
factor to determine the change in reported loss from that
latest development period to the ultimate development period may
require considerable judgment. As we have limited reported
history, we have had to supplement our loss development patterns
with appropriate benchmarks.
Expected Loss Ratio Method. To estimate
ultimate losses under the expected loss ratio method, we
multiply earned premiums by an expected loss ratio. The expected
loss ratio is selected utilizing industry data, historical
company data and professional judgment. This method is
particularly useful for new insurance companies or new lines of
business where there are no historical losses or where past loss
experience is not credible.
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Paid Loss Method. The
Bornhuetter-Ferguson paid loss method is a combination of the
paid loss development method and the expected loss ratio method.
The amount of losses yet to be paid is based upon the expected
loss ratios. These expected loss ratios are modified to the
extent paid losses to date differ from what would have been
expected to have been paid based upon the selected paid loss
development pattern. This method avoids some of the distortions
that could result from a large development factor being applied
to a small base of paid losses to calculate ultimate losses.
This method will react slowly if actual loss ratios develop
differently because of major changes in rate levels, retentions
or deductibles, the forms and conditions of reinsurance
coverage, the types of risks covered or a variety of other
changes.
53
Bornhuetter-Ferguson Reported Loss Method. The
Bornhuetter-Ferguson reported loss method is similar to the
Bornhuetter-Ferguson paid loss method with the exception that it
uses reported losses and reported loss development factors.
During 2007, we adjusted our reliance on actuarial methods
utilized for certain lines of business and loss years within our
casualty segment from using a blend of the Bornhuetter-Ferguson
reported loss method and the expected loss ratio method to using
only the Bornhuetter-Ferguson reported loss method. Placing
greater reliance on more responsive actuarial methods for
certain lines of business and loss years within our casualty
segment is a natural progression as we mature as a company and
gain sufficient historical experience of our own that allows us
to further refine our estimate of the reserve for losses and
loss expenses. We believe utilizing only the
Bornhuetter-Ferguson reported loss method for older loss years
will more accurately reflect the reported loss activity we have
had thus far in our ultimate loss ratio selections, and will
better reflect how the ultimate losses will develop over time.
We will continue to utilize the expected loss ratio method for
the most recent loss years until we have sufficient historical
experience to utilize other acceptable actuarial methodologies.
We expect that the trend of placing greater reliance on more
responsive actuarial methods, for example from the expected loss
ratio method to the Bornhuetter-Ferguson reported loss method,
to continue as both (1) our loss years mature and become
more statistically reliable and (2) as we build databases
of our internal loss development patterns. In this instance, the
expected loss ratio remains a key assumption as the
Bornhuetter-Ferguson methods rely upon an expected loss ratio
selection and a loss development pattern selection.
The key assumptions used to arrive at our best estimate of loss
reserves are the expected loss ratios, rate of loss cost
inflation, selection of benchmarks and reported and paid loss
emergence patterns. Our reporting patterns and expected loss
ratios were based on either benchmarks for longer-tail business
or historical reporting patterns for shorter-tail business. The
benchmarks selected were those that we believe are most similar
to our underwriting business.
Our expected loss ratios for property lines of business change
from year to year. As our losses from property lines of business
are reported relatively quickly, we select our expected loss
ratios for the most recent years based upon our actual loss
ratios for our older years adjusted for rate changes, inflation,
cost of reinsurance and average storm activity. For the property
lines, we initially used benchmarks for reported and paid loss
emergence patterns. As we mature as a company, we have begun
supplementing those benchmark patterns with our actual patterns
as appropriate. For the casualty lines, we continue to use
benchmark patterns, although we update the benchmark patterns as
additional information is published regarding the benchmark data.
For our property lines of business, the primary assumption that
changed during both 2007 as compared to 2006 and 2006 as
compared to 2005 was paid and reported loss emergence patterns
that were generally lower than we had previously estimated for
each year. As a result of this change, we recognized net
favorable reserve development in both 2007 and 2006. We believe
recognition of the reserve changes prior to when they were
recorded was not warranted since a pattern of reported losses
had not emerged and the loss years were too immature to deviate
from the expected loss ratio method.
The selection of the expected loss ratios for the casualty lines
of business is our most significant assumption. Due to the
lengthy reporting pattern of the casualty lines of business,
reliance is placed on industry benchmarks of expected loss
ratios and reporting patterns in addition to our own experience.
For our casualty lines of business, the primary assumption that
changed during 2007 as compared to 2006 was using only the
Bornhuetter-Ferguson loss development method for certain lines
of business and loss years as discussed above. This method
calculated a lower projected loss ratio based on loss emergence
patterns to date. As a result of the change in the projected
loss ratio, we recognized net favorable prior year reserve
development in the current year. The primary assumption that
changed during 2006 as compared to 2005 was reducing the weight
given to the expected loss ratio method and giving greater
weight to the Bornhuetter-Ferguson loss development methods. As
a result of this change, we recognized net favorable prior year
reserve development in 2006. We believe that recognition of the
reserve changes prior to when they were recorded was not
warranted since a pattern of reported losses had not emerged and
the loss years were too immature to deviate from the expected
loss ratio method.
54
Our overall loss reserve estimates related to prior years did
not change significantly as a percentage of total carried
reserves during 2007 and 2006. On an opening carried reserve
base of $2,947.9 million, after reinsurance recoverable, we
had a net decrease of $123.1 million, or 4.2%, during 2007,
and for 2006 we had a net decrease of $110.7 million, or
4.1%, on an opening carried reserve base of
$2,689.1 million, after reinsurance recoverables.
There is potential for significant variation in the development
of loss reserves, particularly for the casualty lines of
business due to their long-tail nature and high attachment
points. The maturing of our casualty segment loss reserves has
caused us to reduce what we believe is a reasonably likely
variance in the expected loss ratios for older loss years. As of
December 31, 2007, we believe a reasonably likely variance
in our expected loss ratio for the 2002 and 2003 loss years is
six and eight percentage points, respectively. This is a
reduction from ten percentage points as of December 31,
2006. We believe the reasonably likely variance in the expected
loss ratio for all other loss years continues to be ten
percentage points. As a result, we have lowered the reasonably
likely variance of our aggregate expected loss ratio for our
casualty insurance and casualty reinsurance lines of business
from ten percentage points as of December 31, 2006 to nine
percentage points as of December 31, 2007. If our final
casualty insurance and reinsurance loss ratios vary by nine
percentage points from the expected loss ratios in aggregate,
our required net reserves after reinsurance recoverable would
increase or decrease by approximately $417 million. The
$417 million is greater than the reasonably likely variance
as of December 31, 2006 due to a larger net earned premium
base to which the change in the expected loss ratio was applied.
Because we expect a small volume of large claims, it is more
difficult to estimate the ultimate loss ratios, so we believe
the variance of our loss ratio selection could be relatively
wide. This would result in either an increase or decrease to net
income and shareholders equity of approximately
$417 million. As of December 31, 2007, this
represented approximately 18.6% of shareholders equity. In
terms of liquidity, our contractual obligations for reserve for
losses and loss expenses would also decrease or increase by
$417 million after reinsurance recoverable. If our
obligations were to increase by $417 million, we believe we
currently have sufficient cash and investments to meet those
obligations. We believe showing the impact of an increase or
decrease in the expected loss ratios is useful information
despite the fact we have realized only net favorable prior year
loss development each calendar year. We continue to use industry
benchmarks to determine our expected loss ratios, and these
industry benchmarks have implicit in them both favorable and
unfavorable loss development, which we incorporate into our
selection of the expected loss ratios.
Reinsurance
Recoverable
We determine what portion of the losses will be recoverable
under our reinsurance policies by reference to the terms of the
reinsurance protection purchased. This determination is
necessarily based on the underlying loss estimates and,
accordingly, is subject to the same uncertainties as the
estimate of case reserves and IBNR reserves. Historically, our
reinsurance recoverables related primarily to our property
segment, which being short-tail in nature, are not subject to
the same variations as our casualty lines of business.
We remain liable to the extent that our reinsurers do not meet
their obligations under the reinsurance agreements, and we
therefore regularly evaluate the financial condition of our
reinsurers and monitor concentration of credit risk. No
provision has been made for unrecoverable reinsurance as of
December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, as we believe
that all reinsurance balances will be recovered.
Premiums
Premiums are recognized as written on the inception date of a
policy. For certain types of business written by us, notably
reinsurance, premium income may not be known at the policy
inception date. In the case of proportional treaties assumed by
us, the underwriter makes an estimate of premium income at
inception as the premium income is typically derived as a
percentage of the underlying policies written by the cedents.
The underwriters estimate is based on statistical data
provided by reinsureds and the underwriters judgment and
experience. Such estimations are refined over the reporting
period of each treaty as actual written premium information is
reported by ceding companies and intermediaries. Management
reviews estimated premiums at least quarterly, and any
adjustments are recorded in the period in which they become
known. As of December 31, 2007, our changes in premium
estimates have been upward adjustments ranging from
approximately 8% for the 2006 treaty year, to approximately 23%
for the 2005 treaty year. Applying this range to our 2007
proportional treaties, it is reasonably likely that our gross
premiums written in the reinsurance segment could increase by
approximately $18 million to $48 million over the next
three years. There would also be a corresponding increase in
loss and loss expenses and acquisition costs due to the increase
in gross premiums written. It is reasonably likely as our
55
historical experience develops, we may have fewer or smaller
adjustments to our estimated premiums, and therefore could have
changes in premium estimates lower than the range historically
experienced. Total premiums estimated on proportional contracts
for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005
represented approximately 16%, 17% and 17%, respectively, of
total gross premiums written.
Other insurance and reinsurance policies can require that the
premium be adjusted at the expiry of a policy to reflect the
risk assumed by us. Premiums resulting from such adjustments are
estimated and accrued based on available information.
Other-than-Temporary
Impairment of Investments
On a quarterly basis, we review the carrying value of our
investments to determine if a decline in value is considered to
be other than temporary. This review involves consideration of
several factors including: (i) the significance of the
decline in value and the resulting unrealized loss position;
(ii) the time period for which there has been a significant
decline in value; (iii) an analysis of the issuer of the
investment, including its liquidity, business prospects and
overall financial position; and (iv) our intent and ability
to hold the investment for a sufficient period of time for the
value to recover. The identification of potentially impaired
investments involves significant management judgment that
includes the determination of their fair value and the
assessment of whether any decline in value is other than
temporary. If the decline in value is determined to be other
than temporary, then we record a realized loss in the statement
of operations in the period that it is determined, and the
carrying cost basis of that investment is reduced.
During the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, we
identified 419 and 47 fixed maturity securities, respectively,
which were considered to be
other-than-temporarily
impaired. Consequently, the cost of these securities was written
down to fair value and we recognized a realized loss of
approximately $44.6 million and $23.9 million for the
years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
Results
of Operations
The following table sets forth our selected consolidated
statement of operations data for each of the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
1,505.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,659.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,560.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
$
|
1,153.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,306.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,222.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
$
|
1,159.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,252.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,271.5
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
297.9
|
|
|
|
244.4
|
|
|
|
178.6
|
|
Net realized investment losses
|
|
|
(7.6
|
)
|
|
|
(28.7
|
)
|
|
|
(10.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,450.2
|
|
|
$
|
1,467.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,439.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
682.3
|
|
|
$
|
739.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,344.6
|
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
119.0
|
|
|
|
141.5
|
|
|
|
143.4
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
141.6
|
|
|
|
106.1
|
|
|
|
94.3
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
37.8
|
|
|
|
32.6
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
979.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,019.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,600.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
$
|
470.3
|
|
|
$
|
447.8
|
|
|
$
|
(160.2
|
)
|
Income tax expense (recovery)
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
469.2
|
|
|
$
|
442.8
|
|
|
$
|
(159.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Ratios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio
|
|
|
58.8
|
%
|
|
|
59.0
|
%
|
|
|
105.7
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
General and administrative expense ratio
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
Expense ratio
|
|
|
22.5
|
|
|
|
19.8
|
|
|
|
18.7
|
|
Combined ratio
|
|
|
81.3
|
|
|
|
78.8
|
|
|
|
124.4
|
|
Comparison
of Years Ended December 31, 2007 and 2006
Premiums
Gross premiums written decreased by $153.5 million, or
9.3%, for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the
year ended December 31, 2006. The decrease in gross
premiums written was primarily the result of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
The non-renewal of business that did not meet our underwriting
requirements (which included pricing
and/or
policy terms and conditions), increased competition and
decreasing rates for new and renewal business in each of our
operating segments.
|
|
|
|
A reduction in the amount of upward adjustments on estimated
reinsurance premiums. Net upward adjustments on estimated
reinsurance premiums were lower by approximately
$69.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2007
compared to the year ended December 31, 2006. Net upward
adjustments on estimated reinsurance premiums were
$14.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2007
compared to $83.2 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006. As our historical experience develops,
we may have fewer or smaller adjustments to our estimated
premiums.
|
|
|
|
We reduced the amount of gross premiums written in our energy
line of business by $44.7 million, or 31.7%, in response to
deteriorating market conditions.
|
The table below illustrates our gross premiums written by
geographic location for the years ended December 31, 2007
and 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Bermuda
|
|
$
|
1,065.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,208.1
|
|
|
$
|
(142.2
|
)
|
|
|
(11.8
|
)%
|
Europe
|
|
|
246.9
|
|
|
|
278.5
|
|
|
|
(31.6
|
)
|
|
|
(11.3
|
)
|
United States
|
|
|
192.7
|
|
|
|
172.4
|
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
|
|
11.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,505.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,659.0
|
|
|
$
|
(153.5
|
)
|
|
|
(9.3
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decrease in gross premiums written by our Bermuda office was
primarily the result of the non-renewal of business that did not
meet our underwriting requirements (which included pricing
and/or
policy terms and conditions), increased competition and
decreasing rates for new and renewal business. Also impacting
our Bermuda office was the reduction in upward adjustments on
estimated reinsurance premiums, discussed above. The decline in
gross premiums written for our European office was primarily due
to the reduction in energy business, discussed above. Our
U.S. offices recorded an increase in gross premiums
written, despite the increased competition and rate decreases.
This increase was a result of an increase in our underwriting
staff and greater marketing efforts during 2007.
Net premiums written decreased by $153.5 million, or 11.7%,
for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2006, a higher percentage decrease than
that of gross premiums written due to increased reinsurance
utilization. The difference between gross and net premiums
written is the cost to us of purchasing reinsurance, both on a
proportional and a non-proportional basis, including the cost of
property catastrophe reinsurance coverage. We
57
ceded 23.4% of gross premiums written for the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to 21.2% for the same period in
2006. The higher percentage of ceded premiums written was due to
the following:
|
|
|
|
|
In our casualty segment, we increased the percentage of ceded
premiums on our general casualty business and began to cede a
portion of our healthcare business and professional liability
business. We have increased the amount we ceded as we have been
able to obtain adequate protection at cost-effective levels and
in order to reduce the overall volatility of our insurance
operations.
|
|
|
|
Partially offsetting the increased cessions in our casualty
segment was lower cessions in our property segment. In our
property segment, we renewed our property catastrophe
reinsurance treaty effective May 1, 2007 for a lower
premium rate than the previous treaty, and did not renew our
energy treaty, which expired June 1, 2007. Partially
offsetting these reductions in the property segment was an
increase in the percentage of ceded premiums on our general
property treaty and the purchase of property catastrophe
reinsurance protection on our international general property
business. We also amended the general property treaty to include
certain energy classes during 2007.
|
Net premiums earned decreased by $92.1 million, or 7.4%,
for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2006 as a result of lower net premiums
written for each of our segments during 2007 compared to 2006.
The percentage decrease in net premiums earned was lower than
that of net premiums written due to the continued earning of
higher net premiums that were written prior to the year ended
December 31, 2007.
We evaluate our business by segment, distinguishing between
property insurance, casualty insurance and reinsurance. The
following chart illustrates the mix of our business on a gross
premiums written basis and net premiums earned basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
|
Premiums Written
|
|
|
Premiums Earned
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
26.0
|
%
|
|
|
28.0
|
%
|
|
|
15.6
|
%
|
|
|
15.2
|
%
|
Casualty
|
|
|
38.4
|
|
|
|
37.5
|
|
|
|
41.0
|
|
|
|
42.7
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
35.6
|
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
43.4
|
|
|
|
42.1
|
|
The percentage of casualty net premiums earned was lower during
the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006 due to the increase in the amount of
reinsurance utilized during 2007 compared to 2006, discussed
above. The percentage of property net premiums earned was
considerably less than for gross premiums written because we
cede a larger portion of our property business compared to our
casualty and reinsurance business.
Net
Investment Income and Realized Gains/Losses
Net investment income increased by $53.5 million, or 21.9%,
for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2006. The increase was primarily the
result of increased interest rates on securities held and an
approximate 12.3% increase in the market value of the average
aggregate invested assets from December 31, 2006 to
December 31, 2007. Our aggregate invested assets grew due
to positive operating cash flows, proceeds received from our IPO
and appreciation in the market value of the portfolio, partially
offset by the proceeds used to acquire our common shares from
AIG. Investment management fees of $5.8 million and
$5.0 million were incurred during the year ended
December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.
The annual book yield of the investment portfolio for the year
ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 was 4.9% and 4.5%,
respectively. The annual book yield is calculated by dividing
net investment income by the average balance of aggregate
invested assets, on an amortized cost basis. The increase in
yield was primarily the result of the reduction in our aggregate
invested assets at the end of 2007 to finance our stock
acquisition from AIG, while recognizing almost a full year of
investment income on those invested assets. We continue to
maintain a conservative investment posture. As of
December 31, 2007, approximately 99% of our fixed income
investments (which included individually held securities and
securities held in a high-yield bond fund) consisted of
investment grade securities. The average credit rating of our
fixed
58
income portfolio was AA as rated by Standard &
Poors and Aa1 as rated by Moodys, with an average
duration of approximately 3.1 years as of December 31,
2007.
During the year ended December 31, 2007, we recognized
$7.6 million in net realized losses on investments, which
included a write-down of approximately $44.6 million
related to declines in market value of securities on our
available for sale portfolio that were considered to be other
than temporary, as well as net realized gains from the sale of
securities of $37.0 million. Included in the
$44.6 million in write-downs were the following other than
temporary impairment charges:
|
|
|
|
|
A write-down of $23.9 million related to our investment in
the Goldman Sachs Global Alpha Hedge Fund, plc (Global
Alpha Fund). We reviewed the carrying value of this
investment in light of the significant changes in economic
conditions that occurred during 2007, which included subprime
mortgage exposure, tightening of credit spreads and overall
market volatility. These economic conditions caused the fair
value of this investment to decline. Prior to us selling our
shares in the Global Alpha Fund, we could not reasonably
estimate when recovery would occur, and as such recorded an
other-than-temporary
charge. We sold our shares in the Global Alpha Fund on
December 31, 2007 for proceeds of $31.5 million, which
resulted in an additional realized loss of $2.1 million.
|
|
|
|
A write-down of $3.5 million related to our investment in
the Goldman Sachs Global Equity Opportunities Fund, plc. We have
submitted a redemption notice to sell our shares in this fund
and as a result have recognized an
other-than-temporary
impairment charge at December 31, 2007. We expect the sale
of shares to occur on February 29, 2008.
|
|
|
|
A write-down of $2.2 million related to our investment in
bonds issued by a mortgage lending institution. We performed an
analysis of the issuer, including its liquidity, business
prospects and overall financial position and concluded that an
other-than-temporary
charge should be recognized.
|
|
|
|
The remaining write-downs of $15.0 million were solely due
to changes in interest rates.
|
Comparatively, during the year ended December 31, 2006, we
recognized $28.7 million in net realized losses on
investments, which included a write-down of approximately
$23.9 million related to declines in the market value of
securities in our available for sale portfolio that were
considered to be other than temporary. The declines in market
value of these securities were solely due to changes in interest
rates.
The following table shows the components of net realized
investment losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net loss on investments
|
|
$
|
(7.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(29.1
|
)
|
Net gain on interest rate swaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized investment losses
|
|
$
|
(7.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(28.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
Losses and Loss Expenses
Net losses and loss expenses decreased by $56.8 million, or
7.7%, for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the
year ended December 31, 2006. The primary reasons for the
reduction in these expenses were higher favorable loss reserve
development related to prior years and lower earned premiums
during the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the
year ended December 31, 2006. We were not subject to any
material losses from catastrophes during the years ended
December 31, 2007 and 2006.
We recognized net favorable reserve development related to prior
years of approximately $123.1 million and
$110.7 million during the years ended December 31,
2007 and 2006, respectively. The following is a breakdown of the
major factors contributing to the net favorable reserve
development for the year ended December 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development of $70.6 million for our
casualty segment, which consisted of $153.7 million of
favorable reserve development primarily related to low loss
emergence in our professional liability line of business for the
2003 through 2006 loss years, low loss emergence in our
healthcare line of business for the 2002 through 2006 loss years
and low loss emergence in our general casualty business for the
2004 loss year. These favorable
|
59
|
|
|
|
|
reserve developments were partially offset by $83.1 million
of unfavorable reserve development due to higher than
anticipated loss emergence in our general casualty line of
business for the 2003 and 2005 loss years and our professional
liability line of business for the 2002 loss year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We recognized net favorable reserve development of
$35.1 million related to the 2005 windstorms and net
favorable reserve development of $4.0 million related to
the 2004 windstorms. We recognized the net favorable reserve
development for the 2004 and 2005 windstorms due to less than
anticipated reported loss activity over the past 12 months.
As of December 31, 2007, we estimated our net losses
related to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma to be
$420.9 million, which was a reduction from our original
estimate of $456.0 million.
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development of $10.1 million,
excluding the 2004 and 2005 windstorms, for our property segment
which consisted of $28.3 million in favorable reserve
development that was primarily the result of general property
business actual loss emergence being lower than the initial
expected loss emergence for the 2003 and 2006 loss years,
partially offset by unfavorable reserve development of
$18.2 million that was primarily the result of increased
loss activity for our general property business for the 2004 and
2005 loss years and our energy business for the 2006 loss year.
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development of $3.3 million,
excluding the 2004 and 2005 windstorms, for our reinsurance
segment related to low loss emergence in our property and
accident and health reinsurance lines of business for the 2004
and 2005 loss years.
|
The following is a breakdown of the major factors contributing
to the $110.7 million in net favorable reserve development
recognized during the year ended December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development of $63.4 million was
recognized due to continued low loss emergence on 2002 through
2004 loss year business in our casualty segment.
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development of $31.0 million was
recognized in our property segment primarily due to favorable
loss emergence on 2004 loss year general property and energy
business, as well as 2005 loss year general property business.
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development of $16.3 million was
recognized in our reinsurance segment, relating to business
written on our behalf by IPCRe Underwriting Services Limited
(IPCUSL) as well as certain workers compensation
business.
|
The loss and loss expense ratio for the year ended
December 31, 2007 was 58.8% compared to 59.0% for the year
ended December 31, 2006. Net favorable reserve development
recognized in the year ended December 31, 2007 reduced the
loss and loss expense ratio by 10.6 percentage points.
Thus, the loss and loss expense ratio related to the current
years business was 69.4%. Net favorable reserve
development recognized in the year ended December 31, 2006
reduced the loss and loss expense ratio by 8.9 percentage
points. Thus, the loss and loss expense ratio related to that
years business was 67.9%. The increase in the current year
loss and loss expense ratio during the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006 was primarily the result of higher loss
activity in our property segment related to the European general
property and energy business as well as lower premium rates on
new and renewal business.
The following table shows the components of the decrease in net
losses and loss expenses of $56.8 million for the year
ended December 31, 2007 from the year ended
December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net losses paid
|
|
$
|
397.9
|
|
|
$
|
482.7
|
|
|
$
|
(84.8
|
)
|
Net change in reported case reserves
|
|
|
38.0
|
|
|
|
(35.6
|
)
|
|
|
73.6
|
|
Net change in IBNR
|
|
|
246.4
|
|
|
|
292.0
|
|
|
|
(45.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
682.3
|
|
|
$
|
739.1
|
|
|
$
|
(56.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses paid have decreased by $84.8 million for the
year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006. This was primarily due to lower claim
payments relating to the 2004 and 2005 windstorms partially
60
offset by increased net paid losses in our casualty segment.
During the year ended December 31, 2007, $98.5 million
of net losses were paid in relation to the 2004 and 2005
windstorms compared to $242.8 million during the year ended
December 31, 2006, including a $25.0 million general
liability loss related to Hurricane Katrina. During the year
ended December 31, 2007, we recovered $33.0 million on
our property catastrophe reinsurance protection in relation to
losses paid as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Frances
compared to $63.2 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006. The increase in reported case reserves
was primarily due to payments on the 2004 and 2005 windstorms
during the year ended December 31, 2006, which reduced the
established case reserves. The decrease in IBNR for the year
ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006 was primarily due to net favorable
reserve development on prior year reserves and the decrease in
net premiums earned.
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the year ended
December 31, 2007 and 2006. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss expenses, January 1
|
|
$
|
2,947.9
|
|
|
$
|
2,689.1
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
805.4
|
|
|
|
849.8
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(84.0
|
)
|
|
|
(106.1
|
)
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
(39.1
|
)
|
|
|
(4.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
682.3
|
|
|
$
|
739.1
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
32.6
|
|
|
|
27.7
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
266.8
|
|
|
|
237.2
|
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
98.5
|
|
|
|
217.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
397.9
|
|
|
$
|
482.7
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
|
3,237.0
|
|
|
|
2,947.9
|
|
Losses and loss expenses recoverable
|
|
|
682.8
|
|
|
|
689.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
$
|
3,919.8
|
|
|
$
|
3,637.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition
Costs
Acquisition costs decreased by $22.5 million, or 15.9%, for
the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006. Acquisition costs as a percentage of net
premiums earned were 10.3% for the year ended December 31,
2007 compared to 11.3% for the same period in 2006. The decrease
in this rate was primarily due to increased commissions received
on ceded reinsurance in our casualty segment, as well as a
reduction in the commissions paid to IPCUSL as our underwriting
agency agreement with them was terminated in December 2006.
General
and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses increased by
$35.5 million, or 33.5%, for the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to the same period in 2006. The
following is a breakdown of the major factors contributing to
this increase:
|
|
|
|
|
Salary and employee welfare costs increased approximately
$23.3 million. This included an increase in stock-based
compensation costs of $11.7 million for the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006. The stock-based compensation costs for
the year ended December 31, 2006 included a one-time
expense of $2.8 million related to our IPO, of which
$2.6 million related to our stock options and
$0.2 million
|
61
|
|
|
|
|
related to our RSUs. See Note 9 of the consolidated
financial statements included elsewhere in this
Form 10-K.
We also increased our average staff count by approximately 11.6%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rent and amortization of leaseholds and furniture and fixtures
increased by approximately $5.0 million due to our new
offices in Bermuda and Boston, additional office space in New
York and the rental of the Lloyds of London box.
|
|
|
|
Information technology costs increased by approximately
$5.0 million due to the amortization of hardware and
software, as well as consulting costs required as part of the
development of our technological infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
Expenses of $1.5 million incurred in relation to the
evaluation of potential business opportunities.
|
|
|
|
There was also a $2.0 million reduction in the estimated
early termination fee associated with the termination of an
administrative service agreement with a subsidiary of AIG during
the year ended December 31, 2006. The final termination fee
of $3.0 million, which was less than the $5.0 million
accrued and expensed during the year ended December 31,
2005, was agreed to and paid on April 25, 2006 and thereby
reduced our general and administrative expenses for the year
ended December 31, 2006.
|
Our general and administrative expense ratio was 12.2% for the
year ended December 31, 2007 compared to 8.5% for the year
ended December 31, 2006. The increase was primarily due to
the factors discussed above, while net premiums earned declined.
Our expense ratio was 22.5% for the year ended December 31,
2007 compared to 19.8% for the year ended December 31,
2006. The increase resulted primarily from increased general and
administrative expenses, partially offset by a decrease in our
acquisition costs.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense increased $5.2 million, or 16.0%, for the
year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006. Interest expense incurred during the
year ended December 31, 2007 represented the annual
interest expense on the senior notes, which bear interest at an
annual rate of 7.50%.
Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2006
included interest expense on the senior notes from July 21,
2006 to December 31, 2006 and interest expense related to
our $500.0 million seven-year term loan secured in March
2005. This loan was repaid in full during 2006, using a portion
of the proceeds from both our IPO, including the exercise in
full by the underwriters of their over-allotment option, and the
issuance of $500.0 million aggregate principal amount of
senior notes in July 2006. Interest on the term loan was based
on London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus an
applicable margin.
Net
Income
Net income for the year ended December 31, 2007 was
$469.2 million compared to net income of
$442.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2006.
The increase was primarily the result of favorable prior year
loss reserve development, increased net investment income, as
well as lower net realized losses, which more than offset the
reduction in net premiums earned and increased general and
administrative expenses. Net income for the year ended
December 31, 2007 included a net foreign exchange gain of
$0.8 million and an income tax expense of
$1.1 million. Net income for the year ended
December 31, 2006 included a net foreign exchange loss of
$0.6 million and an income tax expense of
$5.0 million. The decrease in our income tax expense for
the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006 was due to deferred tax benefits
recognized by our U.S. subsidiaries.
Comparison
of Years Ended December 31, 2006 and 2005
Premiums
Gross premiums written increased by $98.7 million, or 6.3%,
for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2005. The increase reflected increased
gross premiums written in our reinsurance segment, where we
wrote approximately $66.6 million in new business during
the year ended December 31, 2006, including
$14.7 million related to four ILW contracts. We wrote ILW
contracts for the first time during 2006. Net upward revisions
62
to premium estimates on prior period business and differences in
treaty participations also served to increase gross premiums
written for the segment. The amount of business written by our
underwriters in our U.S. offices also increased. During the
second half of 2005, we added staff members to our New York and
Boston offices and opened offices in Chicago and
San Francisco in order to expand our U.S. distribution
platform. Gross premiums written by our underwriters in
U.S. offices were $158.3 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006, compared to $94.0 million for the
year ended December 31, 2005. In addition, we benefited
from the significant market rate increases on certain
catastrophe exposed North American general property business
resulting from record industry losses following the hurricanes
that occurred in the second half of 2005.
Offsetting these increases was a reduction in the volume of
property catastrophe business written on our behalf by IPCUSL
under an underwriting agency agreement. Gross premiums written
under this agreement during the year ended December 31,
2005 included approximately $21.6 million in reinstatement
premium. In addition, we reduced our exposure limits on this
business during 2006, which further reduced gross premiums
written. IPCUSL wrote $30.8 million less in gross premiums
written on our behalf in 2006 compared to 2005. On
December 5, 2006, we mutually agreed with IPCUSL to an
amendment to the underwriting agency agreement, pursuant to
which the parties terminated the underwriting agency agreement
effective as of November 30, 2006. As of December 1,
2006, we began to produce, underwrite and administer property
catastrophe treaty reinsurance business on our own behalf. In
addition, we did not renew one large professional liability
reinsurance treaty due to unfavorable changes in terms at
renewal which reduced gross premiums written by approximately
$27.3 million. We also had a reduction in gross premiums
written due to the cancellation of surplus lines program
administrator agreements and a reinsurance agreement with
subsidiaries of AIG. Gross premiums written under these
agreements in the year ended December 31, 2005 were
approximately $22.2 million, compared to approximately
$0.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2006.
Although the agreements were cancelled, we continued to receive
premium adjustments during 2006. Casualty gross premiums written
in our Bermuda and Europe offices also decreased due to certain
non-recurring business written in 2005, as well as reductions in
market rates.
The table below illustrates our gross premiums written by
geographic location. Gross premiums written by our
U.S. operating subsidiaries increased by 26.7% due to the
expansion of our U.S. distribution platform since the prior
period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Bermuda
|
|
$
|
1,208.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,159.2
|
|
|
$
|
48.9
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
Europe
|
|
|
278.5
|
|
|
|
265.0
|
|
|
|
13.5
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
United States
|
|
|
172.4
|
|
|
|
136.1
|
|
|
|
36.3
|
|
|
|
26.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,659.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,560.3
|
|
|
$
|
98.7
|
|
|
|
6.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written increased by $84.6 million, or 6.9%,
for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2005. The difference between gross and
net premiums written is the cost to us of purchasing
reinsurance, both on a proportional and a non-proportional
basis, including the cost of property catastrophe reinsurance
coverage. We ceded 21.2% of gross premiums written for the year
ended December 31, 2006 compared to 21.7% for the year
ended December 31, 2005. Although the annual cost of our
property catastrophe reinsurance protection increased when it
renewed in May 2006 as a result of market rate increases and
changes in the levels of coverage obtained, total premiums ceded
under this program were approximately $0.2 million greater
in 2005 due to the reinstatement of our coverage after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Net premiums earned decreased by $19.5 million, or 1.5%,
for the year ended December 31, 2006, which reflected a
decrease in net premiums written in 2005, resulting primarily
from the cancellation of the surplus lines program administrator
agreements and a reinsurance agreement with subsidiaries of AIG.
Offsetting this was a $9.7 million reduction in property
catastrophe ceded premiums earned in 2006, primarily as a result
of reinstatement premiums in 2005.
63
We evaluate our business by segment, distinguishing between
property insurance, casualty insurance and reinsurance. The
following chart illustrates the mix of our business on a gross
premiums written basis and net premiums earned basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
|
Premiums
|
|
|
Premiums
|
|
|
|
Written
|
|
|
Earned
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
28.0
|
%
|
|
|
26.5
|
%
|
|
|
15.2
|
%
|
|
|
17.8
|
%
|
Casualty
|
|
|
37.5
|
|
|
|
40.6
|
|
|
|
42.7
|
|
|
|
45.7
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
32.9
|
|
|
|
42.1
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
The increase in the percentage of property segment gross
premiums written reflects the increase in rates and
opportunities on certain catastrophe exposed North American
property risks. The proportion of gross premiums written by our
reinsurance segment increased in part due to net upward
adjustments on premium estimates of prior years. On a net
premiums earned basis, the percentage of reinsurance has
increased for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to
2005 due to the continued earning of increased premiums written
over the past two years. The percentage of property net premiums
earned was considerably less than for gross premiums written
because we cede a larger portion of our property business
compared to casualty and reinsurance.
Net
Investment Income and Realized Gains/Losses
Net investment income earned during the year ended
December 31, 2006 was $244.4 million compared to
$178.6 million during the year ended December 31,
2005. The $65.8 million, or 36.8%, increase related
primarily to increased earnings on our fixed maturity portfolio.
Net investment income related to this portfolio increased by
approximately $64.6 million, or 41.1%, in the year ended
December 31, 2006 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2005. This increase was the result of both
increases in prevailing market interest rates and an approximate
18.2% increase in average aggregate invested assets. Our
aggregate invested assets grew with the receipt of the net
proceeds of our IPO, including the exercise in full by the
underwriters of their over-allotment option, and the senior
notes issuance, after repayment of our long-term debt, as well
as increased operating cash flows. We also received an annual
dividend of $8.4 million from an investment in a high-yield
bond fund during the year ended December 31, 2006, which
was $6.3 million greater than the amount received in the year
ended December 31, 2005. Offsetting this increase was a
reduction in income from our hedge funds. In the year ended
December 31, 2006, we received distributions of
$3.9 million in
dividends-in-kind
from our hedge funds based on the final 2005 asset values, which
was included in net investment income.
Comparatively, we received approximately $17.5 million in
dividends during the year ended December 31, 2005.
Effective January 1, 2006, our class of shares or the
rights and preferences of our class of shares changed, and as a
result, we no longer receive dividends from these hedge funds.
Investment management fees of $5.0 million and
$4.4 million were incurred during the years ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
The annualized period book yield of the investment portfolio for
the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 was 4.5% and
3.9%, respectively. The increase in yield was primarily the
result of increases in prevailing market interest rates over the
past year. We continue to maintain a conservative investment
posture. At December 31, 2006, approximately 99% of our
fixed income investments (which included individually held
securities and securities held in a high-yield bond fund)
consisted of investment grade securities. The average credit
rating of our fixed income portfolio was AA as rated by
Standard & Poors and Aa2 as rated by
Moodys, with an average duration of approximately
2.8 years as of December 31, 2006.
As of December 31, 2006, we had investments in four hedge
funds, three managed by our investment managers, and one managed
by a subsidiary of AIG. The market value of our investments in
these hedge funds as of December 31, 2006 totaled
$229.5 million compared to $215.1 million as of
December 31, 2005. These investments generally impose
restrictions on redemption, which may limit our ability to
withdraw funds for some period of time. We also had an
investment in a high-yield bond fund included within other
invested assets on our balance sheet, the market value of which
was $33.0 million as of December 31, 2006 compared to
$81.9 million as of December 31, 2005. During the year
ended
64
December 31, 2006, we reduced our investment in this fund
by approximately $50 million. As our reserves and capital
build, we may consider other alternative investments in the
future.
The following table shows the components of net realized
investment losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net loss on fixed income investments
|
|
$
|
(29.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(15.0
|
)
|
Net gain on interest rate swaps
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized investment losses
|
|
$
|
(28.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We analyze gains or losses on sales of securities separately
from gains or losses on interest rate swaps. On April 21,
2005, we entered into certain interest rate swaps in order to
fix the interest cost of our $500 million floating rate
term loan, which was repaid fully on July 26, 2006. These
swaps were terminated with an effective date of June 30,
2006, resulting in cash proceeds of approximately
$5.9 million.
During the year ended December 31, 2006, the net loss on
fixed income investments included a write-down of approximately
$23.9 million related to declines in the market value of
securities in our available for sale portfolio which were
considered to be other than temporary. The declines in market
value on such securities were due solely to changes in interest
rates. During the year ended December 31, 2005, no declines
in the market value of investments were considered to be other
than temporary.
Net
Losses and Loss Expenses
Net losses and loss expenses decreased by $605.5 million,
or 45.0%, to $739.1 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 from $1,344.6 million for the year
ended December 31, 2005. The primary reason for the
reduction in these expenses was the absence of significant
catastrophic events during 2006. The net losses and loss
expenses for the year ended December 31, 2005 included the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
Approximately $456.0 million in property losses accrued in
relation to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, which occurred
in August, September and October 2005, respectively, as well as
a general liability loss of $25.0 million that related to
Hurricane Katrina;
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expenses of approximately $13.4 million
related to Windstorm Erwin, which occurred in the first quarter
of 2005;
|
|
|
|
Net adverse development of approximately $62.5 million
related to the windstorms of 2004; and
|
|
|
|
Net favorable development related to prior years of
approximately $111.5 million, excluding development related
to the 2004 windstorms. This net favorable development was
primarily due to actual loss emergence in the non-casualty lines
and the casualty claims-made lines being lower than the initial
expected loss emergence.
|
In comparison, we were not exposed to any significant
catastrophes during the year ended December 31, 2006. In
addition, net favorable reserve development related to prior
years of approximately $110.7 million was recognized during
the period. The majority of this development related to our
casualty segment, where approximately $63.4 million was
recognized, mainly in relation to continued low loss emergence
on 2002 through 2004 loss year business. A further
$31.0 million was recognized in our property segment due
primarily to favorable loss emergence on 2004 loss year general
property and energy business as well as 2005 loss year general
property business. Approximately $16.3 million was
recognized in our reinsurance segment, relating to business
written on our behalf by IPCUSL as well as certain workers
compensation catastrophe business.
We have estimated our net losses from catastrophes based on
actuarial analysis of claims information received to date,
industry modeling and discussions with individual insureds and
reinsureds. Accordingly, actual losses may vary from those
estimated and will be adjusted in the period in which further
information becomes available. Based on our estimate of losses
related to Hurricane Katrina, we believe we have exhausted our
$135 million of property catastrophe reinsurance protection
with respect to this event, leaving us with more limited
reinsurance coverage available pursuant to
65
our two remaining property quota share treaties. Under the two
remaining quota share treaties, we ceded 45% of our general
property policies and 66% of our energy-related property
policies. As of December 31, 2006, we had estimated gross
losses related to Hurricane Katrina of $559 million. Losses
ceded related to Hurricane Katrina were $135 million under
the property catastrophe reinsurance protection and
approximately $153 million under the property quota share
treaties.
The loss and loss expense ratio for the year ended
December 31, 2006 was 59.0% compared to 105.7% for the year
ended December 31, 2005. Net favorable development
recognized in the year ended December 31, 2006 reduced the
loss and loss expense ratio by 8.9 percentage points. Thus,
the loss and loss expense ratio related to the current
years business was 67.9%. Comparatively, net favorable
reserve development recognized in the year ended
December 31, 2005 reduced the loss and loss expense ratio
by 3.9 percentage points. Thus, the loss and loss expense
ratio for that years business was 109.6%. Loss and loss
expenses recognized in relation to property catastrophe losses
resulting from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and Windstorm
Erwin increased the loss and loss expense ratio for 2005 by
36.9 percentage points. We also recognized a
$25.0 million general liability loss resulting from
Hurricane Katrina. The 2005 loss and loss expense ratio was also
impacted by:
|
|
|
|
|
Higher loss and loss expense ratios for our property lines in
2005 in comparison to 2006, which reflected the impact of rate
decreases and increases in reported loss activity; and
|
|
|
|
Costs incurred in relation to our property catastrophe
reinsurance protection were approximately $9.7 million
greater in the year ended December 31, 2005 than for 2006,
primarily due to charges incurred to reinstate our coverage
after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The higher charge in 2005
resulted in lower net premiums earned and, thus, increased the
loss and loss expense ratio.
|
The following table shows the components of the decrease in net
losses and loss expenses of $605.5 million for the year
ended December 31, 2006 from the year ended
December 31, 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net losses paid
|
|
$
|
482.7
|
|
|
$
|
430.1
|
|
|
$
|
52.6
|
|
Net change in reported case reserves
|
|
|
(35.6
|
)
|
|
|
410.1
|
|
|
|
(445.7
|
)
|
Net change in IBNR
|
|
|
292.0
|
|
|
|
504.4
|
|
|
|
(212.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
739.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,344.6
|
|
|
$
|
(605.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses paid have increased $52.6 million, or 12.2%, to
$482.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2006
primarily due to claim payments made in relation to the 2004 and
2005 windstorms. During the year ended December 31, 2006,
$242.8 million of net losses were paid in relation to the
2004 and 2005 catastrophic windstorms, including a
$25.0 million general liability loss related to Hurricane
Katrina. Comparatively, $194.6 million of the total net
losses paid during the year ended December 31, 2005 related
to the 2004 and 2005 windstorms. Net paid losses for the year
ended December 31, 2006 included approximately
$63.2 million recovered from our property catastrophe
reinsurance protection as a result of losses paid due to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The decrease in case reserves during the period ended
December 31, 2006 was primarily due to the increase in net
losses paid reducing the case reserves established. The net
change in reported case reserves for the year ended
December 31, 2006 included a $185.8 million reduction
relating to the 2004 and 2005 windstorms compared to an increase
in case reserves of $325.5 million for 2004 and 2005
windstorms during the year ended December 31, 2005.
The net change in IBNR for the year ended December 31, 2006
was lower than that for the year ended December 31, 2005
primarily due to the absence of significant catastrophic
activity in the period.
66
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the years ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss expenses, January 1
|
|
$
|
2,689.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,777.9
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
849.8
|
|
|
|
924.2
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
469.4
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(106.1
|
)
|
|
|
(111.5
|
)
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
(4.6
|
)
|
|
|
62.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
739.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,344.6
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
27.7
|
|
|
|
40.8
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84.2
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
237.2
|
|
|
|
194.7
|
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
217.8
|
|
|
|
110.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
482.7
|
|
|
$
|
430.1
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
(3.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
|
2,947.9
|
|
|
|
2,689.1
|
|
Losses and loss expenses recoverable
|
|
|
689.1
|
|
|
|
716.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
$
|
3,637.0
|
|
|
$
|
3,405.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition
Costs
Acquisition costs were $141.5 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 compared to $143.4 million for the
year ended December 31, 2005. Acquisition costs as a
percentage of net premiums earned were consistent at 11.3% for
both the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005. Ceding
commissions, which are deducted from gross acquisition costs,
decreased slightly in the year ended December 31, 2006
compared to the year ended December 31, 2005 due to
reductions in rates on both our general property and energy
treaties.
AIG, previously one of our principal shareholders, was also a
principal shareholder of IPC Holdings, Ltd., the parent company
of IPCUSL, until August 2006. Pursuant to our agreement with
IPCUSL, we paid an agency commission of 6.5% of gross premiums
written by IPCUSL on our behalf plus original commissions to
producers. On December 5, 2006, we mutually agreed with
IPCUSL to an amendment to the underwriting agency agreement,
pursuant to which the parties terminated the underwriting agency
agreement effective as of November 30, 2006. Total
acquisition costs incurred by us related to this agreement for
the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 were
$8.8 million and $13.1 million, respectively.
General
and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses increased by
$11.8 million, or 12.5%, for the year ended
December 31, 2006 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2005. The increase was primarily the result of
four factors: (1) increased compensation expenses;
(2) increased costs of approximately $5.8 million
associated with our Chicago and San Francisco offices,
which opened in the fourth quarter of 2005; (3) additional
expenses required of a public company, including increases in
legal, audit and rating agency fees; and (4) accrual of a
$2.1 million estimated liability in relation to the
settlement of a pending investigation by the Attorney General of
the State of Texas, which was settled in 2007 for that amount.
Compensation expenses increased due to the addition of staff
throughout 2006, as well as an approximate $7.7 million
increased stock based compensation charge. This stock based
compensation expense increase was primarily as a result of the
adoption of a long-term incentive plan, as well as a
$2.8 million one-time charge incurred to adjust the value
of our outstanding options and RSUs due to modification of the
plans in conjunction with our IPO from book value plans to fair
value plans. We have also accrued additional compensation
expense for our Bermuda-based U.S. citizen
67
employees in light of recent changes in U.S. tax
legislation. Offsetting these increases was a $2.0 million
reduction in the estimated early termination fee associated with
the termination of an administrative service agreement with a
subsidiary of AIG. The final termination fee of
$3.0 million, which was less than the $5.0 million
accrued and expensed during the year ended December 31,
2005, was agreed to and paid on April 25, 2006. Excluding
the early termination fee, fees incurred for the provision of
certain administrative services by subsidiaries of AIG were
approximately $3.4 million and $31.9 million for the
years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Prior
to 2006, fees for these services were based on gross premiums
written. Starting in 2006, the fee basis was changed to a
combination of cost-plus and flat fee arrangements for a more
limited range of services, thus the decrease in fees expensed in
2006. The balance of the administrative services no longer
provided by AIG was provided internally through additional
company resources. Our general and administrative expense ratio
was 8.5% for the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to
7.4% for the year ended December 31, 2005; the increase was
primarily due to general and administrative expenses rising,
while net premiums earned declined.
Our expense ratio increased to 19.8% for the year ended
December 31, 2006 from 18.7% for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as the result of our higher general and
administrative expense ratio.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense increased $17.0 million, or 109.0%, to
$32.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2006
from $15.6 million for the year ended December 31,
2005. Our seven-year term loan incepted on March 30, 2005.
In July 2006 we repaid this loan with a combination of a portion
of both the proceeds from our IPO, including the exercise in
full by the underwriters of their over-allotment option, and the
issuance of $500.0 million aggregate principal amount of
senior notes. The senior notes bear interest at an annual rate
of 7.50%, whereas the term loan carried a floating rate based on
LIBOR plus an applicable margin. Interest expense increased
during the current year for two reasons: (1) we had
long-term debt outstanding for all of 2006 compared to only nine
months in 2005 and (2) the applicable interest rates on
debt outstanding during the year ended December 31, 2006
were higher than those for 2005.
Net
Income
As a result of the above, net income for the year ended
December 31, 2006 was $442.8 million compared to a net
loss of $159.8 million for the year ended December 31,
2005. The increase was primarily the result of an absence of
significant catastrophic events in 2006, combined with an
increase in net investment income. Net income for the year ended
December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005 included a net
foreign exchange loss of $0.6 million and
$2.2 million, respectively. We recognized an income tax
recovery of $0.4 million during the year ended
December 31, 2005 due to our loss before income taxes. We
recognized an income tax expense of $5.0 million during the
current period.
Underwriting
Results by Operating Segments
Our company is organized into three operating segments:
Property Segment. Our property segment
provides direct coverage of physical property and business
interruption coverage for commercial property and energy-related
risks. We write solely commercial coverages and focus on the
insurance of primary risk layers. This means that we are
typically part of the first group of insurers that cover a loss
up to a specified limit.
Casualty Segment. Our casualty segment
provides direct coverage for general and product liability,
professional liability and healthcare liability risks. We focus
primarily on insurance of excess layers, where we insure the
second
and/or
subsequent layers of a policy above the primary layer. Our
direct casualty underwriters provide a variety of specialty
insurance casualty products to large and complex organizations
around the world.
Reinsurance Segment. Our reinsurance segment
includes the reinsurance of property, general casualty,
professional liability, specialty lines and property catastrophe
coverages written by other insurance companies. We presently
write reinsurance on both a treaty and a facultative basis,
targeting several niche reinsurance markets including
professional liability lines, specialty casualty, property for
U.S. regional insurers, accident and health and to a lesser
extent marine and aviation lines.
68
Property
Segment
The following table summarizes the underwriting results and
associated ratios for the property segment for the years ended
December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
391.0
|
|
|
$
|
463.9
|
|
|
$
|
412.9
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
|
176.4
|
|
|
|
193.7
|
|
|
|
170.8
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
|
180.5
|
|
|
|
190.8
|
|
|
|
226.8
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
105.7
|
|
|
$
|
115.0
|
|
|
$
|
410.3
|
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
34.2
|
|
|
|
26.3
|
|
|
|
20.2
|
|
Underwriting income (loss)
|
|
|
40.7
|
|
|
|
51.7
|
|
|
|
(209.4
|
)
|
Ratios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio
|
|
|
58.6
|
%
|
|
|
60.3
|
%
|
|
|
180.9
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
General and administrative expense ratio
|
|
|
18.9
|
|
|
|
13.8
|
|
|
|
8.9
|
|
Expense ratio
|
|
|
18.8
|
|
|
|
12.6
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
Combined ratio
|
|
|
77.4
|
|
|
|
72.9
|
|
|
|
192.3
|
|
Comparison
of Years Ended December 31, 2007 and 2006
Premiums. Gross premiums written decreased by
$72.9 million, or 15.7%, for the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006. The decrease in gross premiums written
was primarily the result of the non-renewal of business that did
not meet our underwriting requirements (which included pricing
and/or
policy terms and conditions), increased competition, decreasing
rates averaging 10% to 15% for renewal business, as well as
decreasing rates for new business. Offsetting the decrease in
gross premiums written in our Bermuda and European offices was
an increase in gross premiums written by our U.S. offices
of $9.6 million, or 19.2%, for the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006 due to an increase in our underwriting
staff and greater marketing efforts in 2007. Gross premiums
written for our energy line of business were lower as a result
of our decision to reduce our exposures in response to
unfavorable market conditions.
The table below illustrates our gross premiums written by line
of business for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
General property
|
|
$
|
293.5
|
|
|
$
|
321.6
|
|
|
$
|
(28.1
|
)
|
|
|
(8.7
|
)%
|
Energy
|
|
|
96.1
|
|
|
|
140.8
|
|
|
|
(44.7
|
)
|
|
|
(31.7
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
(6.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
391.0
|
|
|
$
|
463.9
|
|
|
$
|
(72.9
|
)
|
|
|
(15.7
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written decreased by $17.3 million, or 8.9%,
for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2006. This was primarily the result of
lower gross premiums written and increasing the percentage of
premiums ceded on our general property treaty, partially offset
by lower premiums ceded on our property catastrophe treaty and
the non-renewal of our energy treaty, which expired on
June 1, 2007. We renewed our property catastrophe
reinsurance treaty effective May 1, 2007 and have increased
our retention on the treaty because of the
69
strengthening of our capital base and the increased reinsurance
cessions on our general property reinsurance treaty. The
increased retention as well as lower rates on the property
catastrophe treaty resulted in approximately $23.0 million
less annual premium being paid to our reinsurers than in the
prior treaty year. We also purchased property catastrophe
reinsurance protection for our international general property
business and amended the general property treaty to include
certain energy classes. Overall, we ceded 54.9% of gross
premiums written for the year ended December 31, 2007
compared to 58.2% for the year ended December 31, 2006. Net
premiums earned decreased by $10.3 million, or 5.4%, for
the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006 primarily due to lower net premiums
written in 2007.
Net losses and loss expenses. Net losses and
loss expenses decreased by $9.3 million, or 8.1%, for the
year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006. The decrease in net losses and loss
expenses was primarily the result of higher net favorable
reserve development on prior year reserves during the year ended
December 31, 2007 than during the year ended
December 31, 2006.
Overall, our property segment recognized net favorable reserve
development of $45.4 million during the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to net favorable reserve
development of $31.0 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006. The $45.4 million of net favorable
reserve development included the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development of $30.4 million was
recognized related to the 2005 windstorms and net favorable
reserve development of $4.9 million was recognized related
to the 2004 windstorms. We recognized the net favorable reserve
development for the 2004 and 2005 windstorms due to less than
anticipated reported loss activity over the past 12 months.
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development of $10.1 million,
excluding the 2004 and 2005 windstorms, consisted of
$28.3 million in favorable reserve development that was
primarily the result of general property business actual loss
emergence being lower than the initial expected loss emergence
for the 2003 and 2006 loss years, partially offset by
unfavorable reserve development of $18.2 million that was
primarily the result of increased loss activity for our general
property business for the 2004 and 2005 loss years and our
energy business for the 2006 loss year.
|
The $31.0 million in net favorable reserve development
recognized during the year ended December 31, 2006 was
attributable to several factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
Favorable loss emergence on 2004 loss year general property and
energy business;
|
|
|
|
Excluding the losses related to the 2005 windstorms, lighter
than expected loss emergence on 2005 loss year general property
business, offset partially by unfavorable reserve development on
our energy business for that loss year;
|
|
|
|
Anticipated recoveries of approximately $3.4 million
recognized under our property catastrophe reinsurance protection
related to Hurricane Frances; and
|
|
|
|
Unfavorable loss reserve development of approximately
$2.7 million relating to the 2005 windstorms due to updated
claims information that increased our reserves for this segment.
|
The loss and loss expense ratio for the year ended
December 31, 2007 was 58.6% compared to 60.3% for the year
ended December 31, 2006. Net favorable reserve development
recognized in the year ended December 31, 2007 reduced the
loss and loss expense ratio by 25.1 percentage points.
Thus, the loss and loss expense ratio related to the current
years business was 83.7%. In comparison, net favorable
reserve development recognized in the year ended
December 31, 2006 decreased the loss and loss expense ratio
by 16.2 percentage points. Thus, the loss and expense ratio
related to that years business was 76.5%. The increase in
the current year loss and loss expense ratio during the year
ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006 was primarily the result of higher loss
activity for our European general property and energy business
as well as lower premium rates on new and renewal business.
Net paid losses for the year ended December 31, 2007 and
2006 were $173.7 million and $237.2 million,
respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2007,
$68.5 million of net losses were paid in relation to the
2004 and 2005 windstorms compared to $102.8 million during
the year ended December 31, 2006. During the year ended
December 31, 2007, we recovered $20.1 million on our
property catastrophe reinsurance protection in relation to
losses paid as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Frances
compared to $37.7 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006.
70
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the years ended
December 31, 2007 and 2006. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss expenses, January 1
|
|
$
|
423.9
|
|
|
$
|
543.7
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
151.1
|
|
|
|
146.0
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(10.1
|
)
|
|
|
(30.3
|
)
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
(35.3
|
)
|
|
|
(0.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
105.7
|
|
|
$
|
115.0
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
20.6
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
84.6
|
|
|
|
121.5
|
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
68.5
|
|
|
|
102.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
173.7
|
|
|
$
|
237.2
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
|
360.6
|
|
|
|
423.9
|
|
Losses and loss expenses recoverable
|
|
|
400.1
|
|
|
|
468.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
$
|
760.7
|
|
|
$
|
892.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition costs. Acquisition costs increased
by $2.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2007
compared to the year ended December 31, 2006. The negative
acquisition cost for the years ended December 31, 2007 and
2006 represented ceding commissions received on ceded premiums
in excess of the brokerage fees and commissions paid on gross
premiums written. The acquisition cost ratio increased to
negative 0.1% for the year ended December 31, 2007 from
negative 1.2% for the same period in 2006 primarily as a result
of lower ceding commissions earned on reinsurance we purchased
due to changes in our reinsurance programs, as discussed above.
General and administrative expenses. General
and administrative expenses increased by $7.9 million, or
30.0%, for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the
year ended December 31, 2006. The increase in general and
administrative expenses was attributable to increased salary and
related costs, including stock-based compensation, increased
building-related costs and higher costs associated with
information technology. The increase in the general and
administrative expense ratio from 13.8% for the year ended
December 31, 2006 to 18.9% for the same period in 2007 was
primarily a result of the factors discussed above, while net
premiums earned declined.
Comparison
of Years Ended December 31, 2006 and 2005
Premiums. Gross premiums written were
$463.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2006
compared to $412.9 million for the year ended
December 31, 2005, an increase of $51.0 million, or
12.4%. The increase in gross premiums written was primarily due
to significant market rate increases on certain catastrophe
exposed North American general property business, resulting from
record industry losses following the hurricanes that occurred in
the second half of 2005. We also had an increase in the amount
of business written due to increased opportunities in the
property insurance market. Gross premiums written also rose in
the current period due to continued expansion of our U.S
distribution platform. During the second half of 2005, we added
staff members to our New York and Boston offices and opened
offices in Chicago and San Francisco. Gross premiums
written by our underwriters in these offices were
$49.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2006
compared to $10.9 million for the year ended
December 31, 2005. Offsetting these increases was a
reduction in gross premiums written resulting from the
cancellation of surplus lines program administrator agreements
and a reinsurance agreement with subsidiaries of AIG. Gross
premiums written under these agreements for
71
the year ended December 31, 2006 were approximately
$0.2 million compared to $14.5 million written for the
year ended December 31, 2005. In addition, the volume of
energy business declined approximately $11.3 million from
the prior year primarily because we did not renew certain
onshore energy-related business that no longer met our
underwriting requirements. Gross premiums written also declined
by approximately $11.0 million due to the non-renewal of a
fronted program whereby we ceded 100% of the gross premiums
written.
Net premiums written increased by $22.9 million, or 13.4%,
a higher percentage increase than that of gross premiums
written. We ceded 58.2% of gross premiums written for the year
ended December 31, 2006 compared to 58.6% for the year
ended December 31, 2005. The decline was primarily the
result of a 7.5 percentage point reduction in the
percentage of premiums ceded on our energy treaty, from 66% to
58.5%, when it renewed on June 1, 2006, as well as the
non-renewal of a fronted program that was 100% ceded in 2005.
These reductions in premiums ceded were partially offset by two
factors:
|
|
|
|
|
Premiums ceded in relation to our property catastrophe
reinsurance protection for the property segment were
$42.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2006,
which was a $14.7 million increase over the prior year. The
increase in cost was due to market rate increases resulting from
the 2004 and 2005 windstorms and changes in the level of
coverage obtained, as well as internal changes in the structure
of the program. These increases were partially offset by
additional premiums ceded in 2005 to reinstate our coverage
following losses incurred from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita; no
such reinstatement premiums were incurred in 2006.
|
|
|
|
We now cede a portion of the gross premiums written in our
U.S. offices on a quota share basis under our property
treaties.
|
Net premiums earned decreased by $36.0 million, or 15.9%,
primarily due to the cancellation of the surplus lines program
administrator agreements and a reinsurance agreement with
subsidiaries of AIG. Net premiums earned for the year ended
December 31, 2005 included approximately $80.1 million
related to the AIG agreements, exclusive of the cost of property
catastrophe reinsurance protection. The corresponding net
premiums earned for the year ended December 31, 2006 were
approximately $1.1 million. This decline was partially
offset by the earning of the higher net premiums written in 2006.
Net losses and loss expenses. Net losses and
loss expenses decreased by 72.0% to $115.0 million for the
year ended December 31, 2006 from $410.3 million for
the year ended December 31, 2005. Net losses and loss
expenses for the year ended December 31, 2005 were impacted
by three significant factors, namely:
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expenses of approximately $237.8 million
accrued in relation to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma which
occurred in August, September and October 2005, respectively;
|
|
|
|
Net unfavorable reserve development of approximately
$49.0 million related to the windstorms of 2004; and
|
|
|
|
Net favorable reserve development related to prior years of
approximately $71.8 million. This net favorable reserve
development was primarily due to low loss emergence on our 2003
and 2004 loss year general property and energy business,
exclusive of the 2004 windstorms.
|
In comparison, we were not exposed to any significant
catastrophes during the year ended December 31, 2006. In
addition, net favorable reserve development relating to prior
years of approximately $31.0 million was recognized during
this period. Major factors contributing to the net favorable
reserve development included:
|
|
|
|
|
Favorable loss emergence on 2004 loss year general property and
energy business;
|
|
|
|
Excluding the losses related to the 2005 windstorms, lighter
than expected loss emergence on 2005 loss year general property
business, offset partially by unfavorable reserve development on
our energy business for that loss year;
|
|
|
|
Anticipated recoveries of approximately $3.4 million
recognized under our property catastrophe reinsurance protection
related to Hurricane Frances; and
|
|
|
|
Unfavorable reserve development of approximately
$2.7 million relating to the 2005 windstorms due to updated
claims information that increased our reserves for this segment.
|
The loss and loss expense ratio for the year ended
December 31, 2006 was 60.3%, compared to 180.9% for the
year ended December 31, 2005. Net favorable development
recognized in the year ended December 31, 2006 reduced the
loss
72
and loss expense ratio by 16.2 percentage points. Thus, the
loss and loss expense ratio related to the current periods
business was 76.5%. In comparison, the net favorable reserve
development recognized in the year ended December 31, 2005
reduced the loss and loss expense ratio by 10.0 percentage
points. Thus, the loss and loss expense ratio for that
periods business was 190.9%. Loss and loss expenses
recognized in relation to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma
increased this loss and loss expense ratio by
104.9 percentage points. The loss ratio after the effect of
catastrophes and prior year development was lower for 2006
versus 2005 due to rate decreases in 2005 combined with higher
reported loss activity, while 2006 was impacted by significant
market rate increases on catastrophe exposed North American
general property business following the 2005 windstorms.
However, the results for our energy line of business during 2006
were adversely affected by dramatic increases in commodity
prices, which have led to higher loss costs.
Net paid losses for the year ended December 31, 2006 and
2005 were $237.2 million and $267.5 million,
respectively. Net paid losses for the year ended
December 31, 2006 included $37.7 million recovered
from our property catastrophe reinsurance coverage as a result
of losses paid due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the years ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss expenses, January 1
|
|
$
|
543.7
|
|
|
$
|
404.2
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
146.0
|
|
|
|
195.3
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
237.8
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(30.3
|
)
|
|
|
(71.8
|
)
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
(0.7
|
)
|
|
|
49.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
115.0
|
|
|
$
|
410.3
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
38.6
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36.6
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
121.5
|
|
|
|
123.0
|
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
102.8
|
|
|
|
69.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
237.2
|
|
|
$
|
267.5
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
(3.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
|
423.9
|
|
|
|
543.7
|
|
Losses and loss expenses recoverable
|
|
|
468.4
|
|
|
|
515.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
$
|
892.3
|
|
|
$
|
1,058.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition costs. Acquisition costs decreased
to negative $2.2 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006 from positive $5.7 million for the
year ended December 31, 2005. The negative cost represents
ceding commissions received on ceded premiums in excess of the
brokerage fees and commissions paid on gross premiums written.
The acquisition cost ratio decreased to negative 1.2% for the
year ended December 31, 2006 from 2.5% for 2005 primarily
as a result of changes in our U.S. distribution platform.
Historically, our U.S. business was generated via surplus
lines program administrator agreements and a reinsurance
agreement with subsidiaries of AIG. Under these agreements, we
paid additional commissions to the program administrators and
cedent equal to 7.5% of the gross premiums written. These
agreements were cancelled and the related gross premiums written
were substantially earned by December 31, 2005. Gross
premiums written from our U.S. offices are now underwritten
by our own staff and, as a result, we do not incur the 7.5%
override commission historically paid to subsidiaries of AIG. In
addition, we now cede a portion of our U.S. business on a
quota share basis under our property treaties. These cessions
generate additional ceding commissions and have helped to
further reduce acquisition costs on our U.S. business.
The reduction in acquisition costs was offset slightly by
reduced ceding commissions due to us on our general property and
energy treaties. The factors that will determine the amount of
acquisition costs going forward are the amount
73
of brokerage fees and commissions incurred on policies we write,
less ceding commissions earned on reinsurance we purchase.
General and administrative expenses. General
and administrative expenses increased to $26.3 million for
the year ended December 31, 2006 from $20.2 million
for the year ended December 31, 2005. General and
administrative expenses included fees paid to subsidiaries of
AIG in return for the provision of certain administrative
services. Prior to January 1, 2006, these fees were based
on a percentage of our gross premiums written. Effective
January 1, 2006, our administrative agreements with AIG
subsidiaries were amended and contained both cost-plus and
flat-fee arrangements for a more limited range of services. The
services no longer included within the agreements are now
provided through additional staff and infrastructure of the
company. The increase in general and administrative expenses was
primarily attributable to additional staff and administrative
expenses incurred in conjunction with the expansion of our
U.S. property distribution platform, as well as increased
stock compensation expenses due to modification of the plans in
conjunction with our IPO from book value plans to fair value
plans and the adoption of a long-term incentive plan. The cost
of salaries and employee welfare also increased for existing
staff. The increase in the general and administrative expense
ratio from 8.9% for the year ended December 31, 2005 to
13.8% for 2006 was the result of the reduction in net premiums
earned, combined with
start-up
costs in the United States rising at a faster rate than net
premiums earned.
Casualty
Segment
The following table summarizes the underwriting results and
associated ratios for the casualty segment for the years ended
December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
578.4
|
|
|
$
|
622.4
|
|
|
$
|
633.0
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
|
440.8
|
|
|
|
541.0
|
|
|
|
557.6
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
|
475.5
|
|
|
|
534.3
|
|
|
|
581.3
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
275.8
|
|
|
$
|
331.8
|
|
|
$
|
431.0
|
|
Acquisition cost
|
|
|
17.3
|
|
|
|
30.4
|
|
|
|
33.5
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
68.3
|
|
|
|
52.8
|
|
|
|
44.3
|
|
Underwriting income
|
|
|
114.1
|
|
|
|
119.3
|
|
|
|
72.5
|
|
Ratios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio
|
|
|
58.0
|
%
|
|
|
62.1
|
%
|
|
|
74.1
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
|
General and administrative expense ratio
|
|
|
14.4
|
|
|
|
9.9
|
|
|
|
7.6
|
|
Expense ratio
|
|
|
18.0
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
Combined ratio
|
|
|
76.0
|
|
|
|
77.7
|
|
|
|
87.5
|
|
Comparison
of Years Ended December 31, 2007 and 2006
Premiums. Gross premiums written decreased by
$44.0 million, or 7.1%, for the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to the same period in 2006. This
decrease was primarily due to the non-renewal of business that
did not meet our underwriting requirements (which included
pricing
and/or
policy terms and conditions), increased competition, decreasing
rates averaging 8% to 10% for renewal business, as well as
decreasing rates for new business. Partially offsetting the
decrease in gross premiums written in our Bermuda office was an
increase in gross premiums written by our U.S. offices of
$10.8 million, or 8.8%, for the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006 due to an increase in our underwriting
staff and greater marketing efforts in 2007. Our European
offices had a slight decrease of less than 1% in gross premiums
written for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to
the year ended December 31, 2006.
74
The table below illustrates our gross premiums written by line
of business for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional liability
|
|
$
|
269.3
|
|
|
$
|
280.6
|
|
|
$
|
(11.3
|
)
|
|
|
(4.0
|
)%
|
General casualty
|
|
|
240.5
|
|
|
|
275.4
|
|
|
|
(34.9
|
)
|
|
|
(12.7
|
)
|
Healthcare
|
|
|
52.8
|
|
|
|
62.1
|
|
|
|
(9.3
|
)
|
|
|
(15.0
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|
|
267.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
578.4
|
|
|
$
|
622.4
|
|
|
$
|
(44.0
|
)
|
|
|
(7.1
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written decreased by $100.2 million, or 18.5%,
for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2006. The decrease in net premiums
written was greater than the decrease in gross premiums written.
This was due to an increase in reinsurance purchased on our
casualty business for the year ended December 31, 2007
compared to the same period in 2006. During 2007, we increased
the percentage ceded on our general casualty business and also
began to cede a portion of our healthcare business and
professional liability business on a variable quota share basis.
We ceded 23.8% of gross premiums written for the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to 13.1% for the year ended
December 31, 2006. Net premiums earned decreased by
$58.8 million, or 11.0%. The percentage decrease in net
premiums earned was lower than that of net premiums written due
to the continued earning of higher net premiums that were
written prior to the year ended December 31, 2007.
Net losses and loss expenses. Net losses and
loss expenses decreased by $56.0 million, or 16.9%, for the
year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006 primarily due to the reduction in net
premiums earned and higher net favorable reserve development
recognized during the year ended December 31, 2007 compared
to the year ended December 31, 2006. Overall, our casualty
segment recognized net favorable reserve development of
$70.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2007
compared to net favorable reserve development of
$63.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2006.
The net favorable reserve development of $70.6 million for
the year ended December 31, 2007 included the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Favorable reserve development of $153.7 million related to
low loss emergence primarily in our professional liability and
healthcare lines of business for the 2003, 2004 and 2006 loss
years and general casualty line of business for the 2004 loss
year.
|
|
|
|
Unfavorable reserve development of $83.1 million due to
higher than anticipated loss emergence in our general casualty
line of business for the 2003 and 2005 loss years and in our
professional liability line of business for the 2002 loss year.
|
The net favorable reserve development of $63.4 million for
the year ended December 31, 2006 included favorable reserve
development recognized primarily in light of low loss emergence
on the business for the 2002 through 2004 loss years written in
both Bermuda and Europe, which was offset partially by
$5.2 million of unfavorable reserve development on certain
claims relating to our U.S. casualty business.
The loss and loss expense ratio for the year ended
December 31, 2007 was 58.0% compared to 62.1% for the year
ended December 31, 2006. The net favorable reserve
development recognized in the year ended December 31, 2007
decreased the loss and loss expense ratio by
14.8 percentage points. Thus, the loss and loss expense
ratio related to the current years business was 72.8%.
Comparatively, the net favorable reserve development recognized
in the year ended December 31, 2006 decreased the loss and
loss expense ratio by 11.9 percentage points. Thus, the
loss and loss expense ratio related to that years business
was 74.0% for the year ended December 31, 2006. The
decrease in the loss and loss expense ratio for this years
business of 72.8% compared to 74.0% for the prior years
business was primarily due to lower loss activity, despite
decreasing rates on new and renewal business.
Net paid losses for the year ended December 31, 2007 and
2006 were $88.8 million and $59.7 million,
respectively. The increase in net paid losses was due to several
large claims being paid during the year ended December 31,
2007
75
compared to the year ended December 31, 2006. The increase
also reflects the maturation of this longer-tailed casualty
business.
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the years ended
December 31, 2007 and 2006. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss expenses, January 1
|
|
$
|
1,691.2
|
|
|
$
|
1,419.1
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
346.4
|
|
|
|
395.2
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(70.6
|
)
|
|
|
(63.4
|
)
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
275.8
|
|
|
$
|
331.8
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
88.7
|
|
|
|
34.7
|
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
88.8
|
|
|
$
|
59.7
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
|
1,878.2
|
|
|
|
1,691.2
|
|
Losses and loss expenses recoverable
|
|
|
264.5
|
|
|
|
182.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
$
|
2,142.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,873.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition costs. Acquisition costs decreased
by $13.1 million, or 43.1%, for the year ended
December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006. This decrease was primarily related to
lower gross premiums written and an increase in ceding
commission income with the increase in casualty reinsurance
purchased. The decrease in the acquisition cost ratio from 5.7%
for the year ended December 31, 2006 to 3.6% for the year
ended December 31, 2007 was due to the increase in ceding
commission income received.
General and administrative expenses. General
and administrative expenses increased by $15.5 million, or
29.4%, for the year ended December 31, 2007 compared to the
year ended December 31, 2006. The increase in general and
administrative expenses was attributable to increased salary and
related costs, including stock-based compensation, increased
building-related costs and higher costs associated with
information technology. The 4.5 percentage point increase
in the general and administrative expense ratio from 9.9% for
the year ended December 31, 2006 to 14.4% for the same
period in 2007 was primarily a result of the factors discussed
above, while net premiums earned declined.
Comparison
of Years Ended December 31, 2006 and 2005
Premiums. Gross premiums written for the year
ended December 31, 2006 declined 1.7%, or
$10.6 million, from the prior year. Although gross premiums
written declined by approximately $7.3 million as a result
of the cancellation of surplus lines program administrator
agreements and a reinsurance agreement with subsidiaries of AIG,
this reduction was more than offset by an increase in the level
of business written in our U.S. offices. During the year
ended December 31, 2006, gross premiums written by our
underwriters in the U.S. totaled approximately
$108.8 million compared to $83.2 million in the prior
period. Offsetting this increase was a reduction in gross
premiums written in our Bermuda office, primarily due to certain
non-recurring business written in 2005, as well as reductions in
market rates. There was also a decline of approximately
$6.5 million in gross premiums written through surplus
lines agreements with an affiliate of Chubb for the year ended
December 31, 2006 compared to the prior year. This decline
was due to a number of factors,
76
including the elimination of certain classes of business, such
as directors and officers as well as errors and omissions and
changes in the underwriting guidelines under the agreement.
Net premiums written decreased in line with the decrease in
gross premiums written. The $47.0 million, or 8.1%, decline
in net premiums earned was the result of the decline in net
premiums written during 2005 as a result of the cancellation of
the surplus lines program administrator agreements and a
reinsurance agreement with subsidiaries of AIG.
Net losses and loss expenses. Net losses and
loss expenses decreased $99.2 million, or 23.0%, to
$331.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2006
from $431.0 million for the year ended December 31,
2005. During the year ended December 31, 2006,
approximately $63.4 million in net favorable reserve
development relating to prior periods was recognized, primarily
due to favorable loss emergence on the 2002, 2003 and 2004 loss
years. This favorable reserve development, however, was
partially offset by approximately $5.2 million of
unfavorable reserve development on certain claims relating to
our U.S. casualty business. Comparatively, during the year
ended December 31, 2005, net favorable reserve development
relating to prior years of approximately $22.7 million was
recognized. The net favorable reserve development reduced the
loss and loss expense ratio by 11.9 and 3.9 percentage points
for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005,
respectively. Thus, the loss and loss expense ratio related to
the current years business was 74.0% for the year ended
December 31, 2006 and 78.0% for the year ended
December 31, 2005. A general liability loss related to
Hurricane Katrina of $25.0 million increased the 2005 loss
year loss and loss expense ratio by approximately
4.3 percentage points. Net paid losses for the years ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005 were $59.7 million and
$31.5 million, respectively. Net paid losses for the year
ended December 31, 2006 included the payment of the
$25.0 million Hurricane Katrina claim.
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the years ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss expenses, January 1
|
|
$
|
1,419.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,019.6
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
395.2
|
|
|
|
428.7
|
|
Current period catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(63.4
|
)
|
|
|
(22.7
|
)
|
Prior period catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
331.8
|
|
|
$
|
431.0
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period catastrophe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
34.7
|
|
|
|
31.5
|
|
Prior period catastrophe
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
59.7
|
|
|
$
|
31.5
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
|
1,691.2
|
|
|
|
1,419.1
|
|
Losses and loss expenses recoverable
|
|
|
182.6
|
|
|
|
128.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses, December |