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, 2008
|
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
Exchange 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 30, 2008 (the last business day of the
registrants most recently completed second fiscal quarter)
was approximately $1.94 billion based on the closing sale
price of the registrants common shares on the New York
Stock Exchange on that date.
As of February 23, 2009, 49,169,113 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 7, 2009 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 to our insurance
subsidiaries may include our reinsurance subsidiaries.
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,
Switzerland and the United Kingdom. For the year ended
December 31, 2008, direct property insurance, direct
casualty insurance and reinsurance accounted for approximately
22.7%, 47.6% and 29.7%, respectively, of our total gross
premiums written of $1,445.6 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.
On October 20, 2008, we acquired Darwin Professional
Underwriters, Inc. (Darwin) at a price of $32.00 per
share, or $550.1 million in the aggregate. Darwin is a
holding company headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut, with
subsidiaries that write executive and professional liability
coverages throughout the United States, with an emphasis on
coverages for the healthcare industry.
As of December 31, 2008, we had $9,072.1 million of
total assets and $2,416.9 million of shareholders
equity. Our principal insurance subsidiary, Allied World
Assurance Company, Ltd, and our other insurance and reinsurance
subsidiaries currently have A (Excellent; 3rd of 16
categories) financial strength ratings from A.M. Best.
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd and our other insurance and
reinsurance subsidiaries (other than those U.S. insurance
subsidiaries we acquired from Darwin, which are not rated by
Standard & Poors) currently have A−
financial strength ratings from Standard & Poors
(Strong; 7th of 21 rating categories). Allied World Assurance
Company, Ltd and our other U.S. insurance and reinsurance
subsidiaries (other than those U.S. insurance subsidiaries
we acquired from Darwin, which are not rated by Moodys
Investors Service, Inc.) currently have A2 financial strength
ratings from Moodys Investors Service, Inc. (Good; 6th of
21 rating categories). Please see Our
Financial Strength Ratings for further information.
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 risk, targeting larger
cedents for property and workers compensation catastrophe risks
in the United States and both large and smaller cedents for
classes of property and casualty risks internationally. Our
Bermuda insurance and reinsurance operations accounted for
$793.7 million, or 54.9%, of our total gross premiums
written in 2008.
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.
During 2008, we opened an office in Zug, Switzerland from which
we offer treaty
1
and facultative reinsurance. Our European insurance operations
accounted for $224.2 million, or 15.5%, of our total gross
premiums in 2008.
Our U.S. operations focus on the middle-market and
non-Fortune 1000 companies. We operate in the excess and
surplus lines and admitted segments 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. 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. As our U.S. operations
expanded during 2008, we have continued to add admitted
insurance capabilities to our U.S. platform, primarily by
obtaining additional licensing from individual states and
through the acquisition of Darwin. Writing admitted business in
the United States entails certain constraints on our rates and
policy terms, but these limitations are often outweighed by the
competitive advantages enjoyed by admitted products. In 2008, we
also significantly expanded our reinsurance platform in the
United States.
Our U.S. distribution platform concentrates primarily on
direct casualty and property insurance, with a particular
emphasis on professional liability, healthcare, excess casualty
risks and commercial property insurance. We align our
distribution along retail and wholesale broking channels and
through program administrators and similar relationships. Retail
brokers work directly with insurance companies to place various
risks on behalf of insureds. For specialized or non-standard
risks, retail brokers may utilize the services of wholesale
brokers who work directly with insurance companies and who have
the expertise and market contacts to place such risks. Program
administrators are independent product line specialist firms
that are authorized to solicit and accept applications for
insurance and to issue policies on our behalf within specific
underwriting guidelines that we prescribe. We have entered into
relationships with program administrators. We intend to continue
to pursue partnerships with qualified program administrators to
offer additional products for both casualty and property lines
of business.
We currently have offices in Atlanta, Boston, Costa Mesa (CA),
Chicago, Dallas, Farmington (CT), Los Angeles, New York City,
San Francisco and St. Petersburg (FL). Our
U.S. operations accounted for $427.7 million, or
29.6%, of our total gross premiums written in 2008.
The table below shows our total gross premiums written by
geographic location.
Total
Gross Premiums Written by Geographic Location
for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Bermuda
|
|
$
|
793.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,065.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,208.1
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
224.2
|
|
|
|
246.9
|
|
|
|
278.5
|
|
United States
|
|
|
427.7
|
|
|
|
192.7
|
|
|
|
172.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,445.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,505.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,659.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
2
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, 2008, 2007 and 2006 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
Gross Premiums Written
|
|
|
Gross Premiums Written
|
|
|
Gross Premiums Written
|
|
|
|
$ (in millions)
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
$ (in millions)
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
$ (in millions)
|
|
|
% of Total
|
|
|
Operating Segments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property
|
|
$
|
327.5
|
|
|
|
22.7
|
%
|
|
$
|
391.0
|
|
|
|
26.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
463.9
|
|
|
|
28.0
|
%
|
Casualty
|
|
|
688.0
|
|
|
|
47.6
|
%
|
|
|
578.4
|
|
|
|
38.4
|
%
|
|
|
622.4
|
|
|
|
37.5
|
%
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
430.1
|
|
|
|
29.7
|
%
|
|
|
536.1
|
|
|
|
35.6
|
%
|
|
|
572.7
|
|
|
|
34.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,445.6
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,505.5
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
1,659.0
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. 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.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, our general
property business accounted for 82.8%, or $271.2 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,
2008, our energy business accounted for 17.1%, or
$56.0 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
3
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 an industry-recognized modeling firm to
analyze our property catastrophe exposure on a quarterly basis.
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. Hurricane Katrina
in 2005 demonstrated that reliance solely on the probable
maximum loss results of the modeling companies was inappropriate
given their failure to accurately predict the ultimate losses
sustained from this catastrophe. As a result, we instituted
gross exposed policy limits as an additional approach 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 monitors these
limits and reports monthly to our 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. For more
information on reinsurance we purchase for our property segment,
see Item 7 Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Ceded Reinsurance.
|
|
|
|
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. Prior to our
acquisition of Darwin, we focused 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. With the acquisition of Darwin, our casualty
segment has expanded and now includes primary executive and
professional liability products targeted to small and
middle-market insureds in the United States. Darwin also writes
primary coverage via its proprietary i-bind platform,
which permits authorized brokers to submit policy applications
for small and mid-sized commercial entities and to receive
bindable quotes electronically.
4
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 services 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 seek 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, we have developed a general casualty strategy
that allows us to provide products to fill gaps between the
primary and excess layers of an insurance program. During the
year ended December 31, 2008, our general casualty business
accounted for 31.6%, or $217.3 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. Following the
acquisition of Darwin, our directors and officers and related
executive liability products are generally being sold under the
Allied World U.S. name and our healthcare liability and
professional errors and omissions products are being sold under
the Darwin name. Globally, we offer a diverse mix of errors and
omissions coverages for law firms, technology companies,
financial institutions, insurance companies and brokers,
municipalities, media organizations and engineering and
construction firms. During the year ended December 31,
2008, our professional liability business accounted for 48.0%,
or $330.3 million, of our total gross premiums written in
the casualty segment, which figures include post-acquisition
premiums written by Darwin only from October 20, 2008.
We also provide both primary and excess liability and other
casualty coverages to the healthcare industry, including
hospitals and hospital systems, managed care organizations and
medical facilities including home care providers, specialized
surgery and rehabilitation centers, and outpatient clinics.
Prior to the acquisition of Darwin, our healthcare operation was
primarily based in Bermuda and wrote large
U.S.-domiciled
risks. In order to diversify our healthcare portfolio, we
established a
U.S.-based
platform that targets middle-market accounts. The acquisition of
Darwin significantly increased and further diversified our
healthcare business. Underwriting operations for our healthcare
business are now primarily based in our Farmington, Connecticut
offices. During the year ended December 31, 2008, our
healthcare business accounted for 14.8%, or $101.7 million,
of our total gross premiums written in the casualty segment,
which figures include post-acquisition premiums written by
Darwin only from October 20, 2008.
As of December 31, 2008, we had a total of 13 programs in
the United States. Of these, six programs were initiated by our
Allied World U.S. subsidiaries (four in 2008) and
seven programs were ongoing with Darwin at the time of its
acquisition in October 2008. The programs offer separate
products including professional liability, excess casualty and
primary general liability. We retain responsibility for
administration of claims, although we may opt to outsource
claims in selected situations. Before we enter into a program
administration relationship, we analyze historical loss data
associated with the program business and perform a diligence
review of the administrators underwriting, financial
condition and information technology. In selecting program
administrators, we consider the integrity, experience and
reputation of the program administrator, the availability of
reinsurance, and the potential profitability of the business. In
order to assure the continuing integrity of the underwriting and
related business operations in our program business, we conduct
additional reviews and audits on an ongoing basis. To help align
our interests with those of our program administrators, we seek
to include profit incentives based on long-term underwriting
results as a component of their fees. During the year ended
December 31, 2008, our program business accounted for 5.3%,
or $36.2 million, of our total gross premiums written in
the casualty segment, which figures include post-acquisition
premiums written by Darwin only from October 20, 2008.
5
In addition, we underwrite casualty lines of business through
Darwins proprietary i-bind platform. During the
year ended December 31, 2008, casualty business written
through i-bind accounted for 0.3%, or $2.5 million,
of our total gross premiums written in the casualty segment.
Our casualty accounts have diverse attachment points by line of
business, with a median attachment point of approximately
$25 million for our middle-market, non-Fortune 1000
accounts and a median attachment of approximately
$75 million for large and Fortune 1000 accounts. Darwin
generally focuses on writing primary liability coverages.
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 adverse market changes in pricing and
terms in any one product or industry.
Our casualty operations utilize significant gross limit
capacity. Gross maximum limits generally are $25 million
for all lines of business, other than certain general casualty
lines that have maximum limits of up to $75 million per
account. Because of the large limits we often deploy in the
casualty segment, we utilize both facultative and treaty
reinsurance to reduce our net exposure. For more information on
reinsurance we purchase for our casualty segment, see
Item 7 Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations Ceded
Reinsurance.
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.
Our underwriters determine 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, 2008, our
reinsurance segment generated gross premiums written of
$430.1 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 from our
offices in Bermuda, New York and Switzerland.
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. In October 2008, we expanded our
international reach by opening an office in Switzerland
6
that offers property, general casualty and professional
liability products throughout Europe. 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. Monoline reinsurance applies to one kind of
coverage, and per risk reinsurance coverage applies to a
particular risk (for example a building and its contents),
rather than on a per accident, event or aggregate basis. 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, 2008,
our property treaty business accounted for 18.0%, or
$77.3 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, 2008, our North American general casualty
treaty business accounted for 25.3% or $108.8 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, 2008,
our professional liability treaty business accounted for 30.5%,
or $131.1 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, 2008, the
international treaty unit accounted for 18.1%, or
$77.8 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 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, 2008, our facultative reinsurance business
accounted for 5.5%, or $23.7 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, 2008, our accident and health
business accounted for 2.6%, or $11.4 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 targeted returns. Before we review the specifics of
any reinsurance proposal, we consider the attributes 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
7
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, 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, our underwriters, pricing
actuaries and claims personnel collaborate in the underwriting
decision-making process. Underwriting and pricing actuarial
reviews are completed on each potential account and each account
must satisfy our targeted return potential prior to binding. We
determine our limits on a
case-by-case
basis based on targeted returns, and we monitor our casualty
accumulations by both line and class of business.
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
Item 7 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:
|
|
|
|
|
Diversifying Our 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.
|
|
|
|
Continue to 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
significantly in 2008 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. In 2008, we
opened offices in Atlanta, Georgia and Costa Mesa and Los
Angeles, California to expand our distribution capabilities into
the Southeast and Western Regions of the United States. We also
launched a new U.S. product strategy that realigns
distribution along retail and wholesale broking channels in
order to support deeper market penetration and encourage
innovation and product development. 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. With our acquisition of Darwin in
October 2008, we have significantly expanded and diversified our
U.S. casualty platform, increasing our ability to serve
small and middle-market accounts. With our acquisition of Finial
Insurance Company in February 2008 (now Allied World Reinsurance
Company), we have also expanded our reinsurance presence in the
United States, allowing us to further diversify our reinsurance
portfolios.
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
Grow Our International Business. We have
focused and will continue to focus on business in the
United Kingdom and Western Europe, where we believe the
insurance and reinsurance markets are developed and stable. We
also believe our recently opened Swiss office will allow us to
penetrate other European and international markets. 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. In addition, during 2008 we made significant progress
toward obtaining licensing for a branch office in Hong Kong. We
believe this office will be operational in early 2009 and will
enable us to offer property, general casualty and general
liability products to the Asian marketplace.
|
|
|
|
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. 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 2008, there were a number of events that impacted the
property and casualty industry generally. These included
catastrophes such as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, the flooding in
the U.S. Midwest and a gas pipeline explosion in Australia.
The second half of 2008 witnessed unprecedented financial
turmoil within the United States and internationally,
accompanied by the well-publicized deterioration of the
financial conditions of several major participants in our
industry and the financial services industry in general. We
believe that such events are likely to have a significant effect
on competition and pricing, although the ultimate impact remains
unclear. We continue to analyze how to best position our company
to benefit from ongoing competitive developments.
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 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,
9
HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., Ironshore Inc., Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company, Lloyds of London, Markel Insurance
Company, Munich Re Group, The Navigators Group, Inc., OneBeacon
Insurance Group, Ltd, Swiss Re, W.R. Berkeley Corporation,
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 policies or 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 and their respective ratings from A.M. Best,
Moodys and Standard & Poors are provided
in the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rated A
|
|
|
Rated A2
|
|
|
Rated A-
|
|
|
|
(Excellent) from
|
|
|
(Good) from
|
|
|
(Strong) from
|
|
Subsidiary
|
|
A.M. Best
|
|
|
Moodys
|
|
|
Standard & Poors
|
|
|
Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc.
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Allied World National Assurance Company
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Allied World Reinsurance Company
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Darwin National Assurance Company
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darwin Select Insurance Company
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allied World Assurance Company (Europe) Limited
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Allied World Assurance Company (Reinsurance) Limited
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
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 upward, 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 selected third-party intermediaries, a distribution
methodology which we believe affords us flexibility and
efficiency without the expense or effort of maintaining our own
distribution network.
10
In the United States, we write direct insurance policies through
various intermediaries, including excess and surplus lines
wholesalers and regional and national retail brokerage firms, as
well as through a growing roster of program administrators. In
the United States, we write reinsurance through a small group of
nationally-known reinsurance brokers. The distribution network
for our healthcare and professional liability products grew with
the acquisition of Darwin in October 2008 and now encompasses
more than 150 retail and wholesale firms that have arrangements
with Darwin. A number of those brokers also produce policies
through Darwins proprietary i-bind platform for
quoting and binding via the internet.
In the year ended December 31, 2008, our top three brokers
represented approximately 64% 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, 2008
|
|
|
Broker
|
|
|
|
|
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
|
|
|
28%
|
|
Aon Corporation (including Benfield Group, Ltd)
|
|
|
26%
|
|
Willis Group Holdings Ltd.
|
|
|
10%
|
|
All Others
|
|
|
36%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 the 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 a variety of standard statistical and
actuarial methods to reasonably estimate ultimate expected
losses and loss expenses. 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 2008 and 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. Also during 2008, we began adjusting our reliance
on actuarial methods utilized for certain other lines of
business and loss years within our casualty and reinsurance
segments by placing greater reliance on the Bornheutter-Ferguson
reported loss method than on the expected loss ratio method. We
believe
11
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 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 Item 7 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.
12
Development
of Reserve for Losses and Loss Expenses
Cumulative Deficiency (Redundancy)
Gross Losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008(1)
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
As Originally Estimated:
|
|
$
|
213
|
|
|
$
|
310,508
|
|
|
$
|
1,058,653
|
|
|
$
|
2,037,124
|
|
|
$
|
3,405,407
|
|
|
$
|
3,636,997
|
|
|
$
|
3,919,772
|
|
|
$
|
4,576,828
|
|
Liability Re-estimated as of:
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
253,691
|
|
|
|
979,218
|
|
|
|
1,929,571
|
|
|
|
3,318,359
|
|
|
|
3,469,216
|
|
|
|
3,537,721
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
226,943
|
|
|
|
896,649
|
|
|
|
1,844,258
|
|
|
|
3,172,105
|
|
|
|
3,137,712
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
217,712
|
|
|
|
842,976
|
|
|
|
1,711,212
|
|
|
|
2,837,384
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
199,860
|
|
|
|
809,117
|
|
|
|
1,503,070
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
205,432
|
|
|
|
704,436
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
196,495
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seven Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative (Redundancy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(114,013
|
)
|
|
|
(354,217
|
)
|
|
|
(534,054
|
)
|
|
|
(568,023
|
)
|
|
|
(499,285
|
)
|
|
|
(382,051
|
)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative Claims Paid as of:
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,288
|
|
|
|
138,793
|
|
|
|
372,823
|
|
|
|
712,032
|
|
|
|
544,180
|
|
|
|
561,386
|
(3)
|
|
|
|
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83,465
|
|
|
|
237,394
|
|
|
|
571,149
|
|
|
|
1,142,878
|
|
|
|
962,971
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,978
|
|
|
|
300,707
|
|
|
|
721,821
|
|
|
|
1,434,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
124,109
|
|
|
|
371,638
|
|
|
|
838,807
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
163,516
|
|
|
|
437,950
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
180,580
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seven Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss
expenses includes the reserves for losses and loss expenses of
Finial Insurance Company (renamed Allied World Reinsurance
Company), which we acquired in February 2008, and Darwin, which
we acquired in October 2008.
|
(2)
|
|
The cumulative (redundancy) on the
original balance as of December 31, 2007 includes reserve
development of Darwin subsequent to our acquisition of the
company.
|
(3)
|
|
The cumulative claims paid includes
paid development of Finial Insurance Company and Darwin
subsequent to our acquisition of each company.
|
Development
of Reserve for Losses and Loss Expenses
Cumulative Deficiency (Redundancy)
Gross Losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Liability Re-estimated as of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
82
|
%
|
|
|
92
|
%
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
|
|
97
|
%
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
|
|
90
|
%
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
73
|
%
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
91
|
%
|
|
|
93
|
%
|
|
|
86
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
70
|
%
|
|
|
80
|
%
|
|
|
84
|
%
|
|
|
83
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
64
|
%
|
|
|
76
|
%
|
|
|
74
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
66
|
%
|
|
|
67
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
63
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seven Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative (Redundancy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37
|
)%
|
|
|
(33
|
)%
|
|
|
(26
|
)%
|
|
|
(17
|
)%
|
|
|
(14
|
)%
|
|
|
(10
|
)%
|
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
|
%
|
|
|
14
|
%
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
27
|
%
|
|
|
22
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
34
|
%
|
|
|
26
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
33
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
42
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
41
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
53
|
%
|
|
|
41
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
58
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seven Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
Losses
Net of Reinsurance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008(1)
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
As Originally Estimated:
|
|
$
|
213
|
|
|
$
|
299,946
|
|
|
$
|
964,810
|
|
|
$
|
1,777,953
|
|
|
$
|
2,688,526
|
|
|
$
|
2,947,892
|
|
|
$
|
3,237,007
|
|
|
$
|
3,688,514
|
|
Liability Re-estimated as of:
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
243,129
|
|
|
|
885,375
|
|
|
|
1,728,868
|
|
|
|
2,577,808
|
|
|
|
2,824,815
|
|
|
|
2,956,912
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
216,381
|
|
|
|
830,969
|
|
|
|
1,626,334
|
|
|
|
2,474,788
|
|
|
|
2,570,194
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
207,945
|
|
|
|
771,781
|
|
|
|
1,528,620
|
|
|
|
2,215,504
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
191,471
|
|
|
|
745,289
|
|
|
|
1,338,931
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
197,656
|
|
|
|
649,305
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
188,733
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seven Years Later
|
|
|
213
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative (Redundancy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(111,213
|
)
|
|
|
(315,505
|
)
|
|
|
(439,022
|
)
|
|
|
(473,022
|
)
|
|
|
(377,698
|
)
|
|
|
(280,095
|
)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative Claims Paid as of:
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,077
|
|
|
|
133,286
|
|
|
|
305,083
|
|
|
|
455,079
|
|
|
|
365,251
|
|
|
|
395,163
|
(3)
|
|
|
|
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76,843
|
|
|
|
214,384
|
|
|
|
478,788
|
|
|
|
747,253
|
|
|
|
674,263
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93,037
|
|
|
|
271,471
|
|
|
|
620,760
|
|
|
|
973,091
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
116,494
|
|
|
|
342,349
|
|
|
|
728,246
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
155,904
|
|
|
|
407,163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
172,974
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seven Years Later
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss
expenses net includes the reserves for losses and loss expenses
of Finial Insurance Company (renamed Allied World Reinsurance
Company), which we acquired in February 2008, and Darwin, which
we acquired in October 2008.
|
|
(2)
|
|
The cumulative (redundancy) on the
original balance as of December 31, 2007 includes reserve
development of Darwin subsequent to our acquisition of the
company.
|
|
(3)
|
|
The cumulative claims paid includes
paid development of Finial Insurance Company and Darwin
subsequent to our acquisition of each company.
|
Losses
Net of Reinsurance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Liability Re-estimated as of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Year Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
81
|
%
|
|
|
92
|
%
|
|
|
97
|
%
|
|
|
96
|
%
|
|
|
96
|
%
|
|
|
91
|
%
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
72
|
%
|
|
|
86
|
%
|
|
|
91
|
%
|
|
|
92
|
%
|
|
|
87
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
69
|
%
|
|
|
80
|
%
|
|
|
86
|
%
|
|
|
82
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
64
|
%
|
|
|
77
|
%
|
|
|
75
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
66
|
%
|
|
|
67
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
63
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seven Years Later
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative (Redundancy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37
|
)%
|
|
|
(33
|
)%
|
|
|
(25
|
)%
|
|
|
(18
|
)%
|
|
|
(13
|
)%
|
|
|
(9
|
)%
|
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
|
%
|
|
|
12
|
%
|
Two Years Later
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
26
|
%
|
|
|
22
|
%
|
|
|
27
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
23
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Three Years Later
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
|
|
31
|
%
|
|
|
28
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
36
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
39
|
%
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
|
|
41
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Five Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
52
|
%
|
|
|
42
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
58
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seven Years Later
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
liability for unpaid losses and loss expenses for the years
ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006. Losses incurred and
paid are reflected net of reinsurance recoveries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
Gross liability at beginning of year
|
|
$
|
3,919,772
|
|
|
$
|
3,636,997
|
|
|
$
|
3,405,353
|
|
Reinsurance recoverable at beginning of year
|
|
|
(682,765
|
)
|
|
|
(689,105
|
)
|
|
|
(716,333
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net liability at beginning of year
|
|
|
3,237,007
|
|
|
|
2,947,892
|
|
|
|
2,689,020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of net reserve for losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
298,927
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current year
|
|
|
921,217
|
|
|
|
805,417
|
|
|
|
849,850
|
|
Prior years
|
|
|
(280,095
|
)
|
|
|
(123,077
|
)
|
|
|
(110,717
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
|
641,122
|
|
|
|
682,340
|
|
|
|
739,133
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net paid losses related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current year
|
|
|
79,037
|
|
|
|
32,599
|
|
|
|
27,748
|
|
Prior years
|
|
|
395,163
|
|
|
|
365,251
|
|
|
|
455,079
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
|
474,200
|
|
|
|
397,850
|
|
|
|
482,827
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
(14,342
|
)
|
|
|
4,625
|
|
|
|
2,566
|
|
Net liability at end of year
|
|
|
3,688,514
|
|
|
|
3,237,007
|
|
|
|
2,947,892
|
|
Reinsurance recoverable at end of year
|
|
|
888,314
|
|
|
|
682,765
|
|
|
|
689,105
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross liability at end of year
|
|
$
|
4,576,828
|
|
|
$
|
3,919,772
|
|
|
$
|
3,636,997
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
Investments
Investment
Strategy and Guidelines
We believe that we follow a conservative investment strategy
designed to emphasize the preservation of our invested assets
and provide adequate liquidity for the prompt payment of claims.
To help ensure adequate liquidity for payment of claims, we take
into account the maturity and duration of our investment
portfolio and 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 investment-grade, fixed-maturity
securities of
short-to-medium
term duration. As of December 31, 2008, these securities
represented 98% of our total investments and cash and cash
equivalents, with the remainder invested in a global high-yield
bond fund investment, equity securities and hedge funds. We may
invest up to 20% of our investment portfolio 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 provide restrictions on our
portfolios composition, including limits on the type of
issuer, sector limits, credit quality limits, portfolio
duration, limits on the amount of investments in approved
countries and permissible security types. We may direct our
investment managers 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 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 Managers
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.
In 2008, we hired a chief investment officer who reports
directly to our chief financial officer. Our chief investment
officer is responsible for the
day-to-day
monitoring of our investment portfolio. He works closely with
our investment managers and other investment consultants and
advisors. We have engaged affiliates of the Goldman Sachs Funds
and two other investment managers to provide us with certain
discretionary investment management services. We have agreed to
pay investment management fees based on the market values of the
investments in the portfolio. The fees, which vary depending on
the amount of assets under management, are included as a
deduction to net investment income. These investment management
agreements may generally be terminated by either party upon
30 days prior written notice. Also, a subsidiary of AIG is
the investment manager of a hedge fund in which we had an
investment until October 2008.
Our
Portfolio
Composition
as of December 31, 2008
As of December 31, 2008, our aggregate invested assets
totaled approximately $6.9 billion. Total investments and
cash and cash equivalents include cash and cash equivalents,
restricted cash, fixed-maturity securities, a fund consisting of
global high-yield fixed-income securities, several hedge fund
investments and equity securities. The average credit quality of
our investments is rated AA+ by Standard & Poors
and Aa1 by Moodys. Short-term
15
instruments must be rated a minimum of
A-1/P-1. 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, 2008, the average duration of our investment
portfolio was 3.3 years and there were approximately
$105.6 million of net unrealized gains in the portfolio,
net of applicable tax.
The following table shows the types of securities in our
portfolio, their fair market values, average rating and
portfolio percentage as of December 31, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Portfolio
|
|
|
|
Market Value
|
|
|
Rating
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type of Investment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
706,267
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
10.3%
|
|
U.S. government securities
|
|
|
817,769
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
11.9%
|
|
U.S. government agencies
|
|
|
952,466
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
13.9%
|
|
Non-U.S.
government securities
|
|
|
280,156
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
4.1%
|
|
Corporate securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Institutions
|
|
|
994,720
|
|
|
|
AA−
|
|
|
|
14.5%
|
|
Industrials
|
|
|
295,428
|
|
|
|
A−
|
|
|
|
4.3%
|
|
Utilities
|
|
|
71,822
|
|
|
|
BBB+
|
|
|
|
1.0%
|
|
Total corporate securities
|
|
|
1,361,970
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19.8%
|
|
State, municipalities and political subdivisions
|
|
|
369,619
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
5.4%
|
|
Mortgage-backed securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agency mortgage-backed securities
|
|
|
1,384,205
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
20.2%
|
|
Non-agency Residential mortgage-backed securities
|
|
|
230,523
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
3.4%
|
|
Commercial mortgage-backed securities
|
|
|
475,209
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
6.9%
|
|
Total mortgage-backed securities
|
|
|
2,089,937
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
30.5%
|
|
Asset-backed securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit card receivables
|
|
|
66,006
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
1.0%
|
|
Automobile loan receivables
|
|
|
88,503
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
1.2%
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5,603
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
|
|
0.1%
|
|
Total asset-backed securities
|
|
|
160,112
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3%
|
|
Global high-yield bond fund
|
|
|
55,199
|
|
|
|
B
|
|
|
|
0.8%
|
|
Hedge funds
|
|
|
48,573
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
0.7%
|
|
Equity securities
|
|
|
21,329
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
0.3%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment portfolio
|
|
$
|
6,863,397
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100.0%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
Non-U.S.
Government Securities
Non-U.S. government
securities represent the fixed income obligations of
non-U.S. governmental
entities (both sovereign and supranational issuers).
16
Corporate
Securities
Corporate securities are comprised of bonds issued by
corporations that on acquisition are rated Baa3/BBB- or higher
by Moodys and Standard & Poors,
respectively, 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
sector exposure was in financial institutions, with holdings of
$994.7 million. Included within this category was
$287.8 million of corporate bonds issued by financial
institutions guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation. The largest corporate credit in our portfolio was
JP Morgan Chase, which represented 1.8% of aggregate invested
assets and had an average rating of A by Standard &
Poors as of December 31, 2008.
State,
municipalities and political subdivisions
Bonds issued by U.S. states, municipalities and political
subdivisions are purchased to provide diversification within the
fixed income portfolio and for their tax-advantaged income. The
principal risks of these securities are interest rate risk and
the potential loss of income and potential realized and
unrealized principal losses due to insolvencies or deteriorating
credit. In addition to the credit risk associated with the
underlying U.S. state, municipality or political
subdivision, a large portion of this market may be insured by a
monoline financial guarantor, therefore requiring credit
analysis of both the guarantor and the underlying
U.S. state, municipality or political subdivision. Lastly,
an additional risk to these bonds is the potential for a change
in tax policy or tax rates.
Mortgage-Backed
Securities
Mortgage-backed securities are purchased to diversify our
portfolio risk characteristics from primarily corporate credit
risk to a mix of mortgage 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 agency-backed residential mortgage-backed
securities mitigates exposure to losses from cash flow risk
associated with interest rate fluctuations. Additional risks in
holding commercial mortgage-backed securities or non-agency
residential mortgage-backed securities include the credit risk
of the underlying borrowers as well as risks associated with
interest rate movements, credit spreads and liquidity. Our
mortgage-backed securities are principally comprised of pools of
residential and commercial mortgages originated by both agency
(such as the Federal National Mortgage Association) and
non-agency originators that were rated AAA by
Standard & Poors.
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 bonds backed by pools of credit card receivables and
automobile loan receivables originated by a variety of financial
institutions that were rated AAA by Standard &
Poors.
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.
Global
High-Yield Bond Fund
As of December 31, 2008, we held approximately
$55.2 million in a global high-yield bond fund with an
affiliate of the Goldman Sachs Funds. Similar to corporate
bonds, the principal risks of high-yield 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.
17
Hedge
Funds
As of December 31, 2008, we invested in various hedge funds
with a market value of $48.6 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.
Equity
Securities
As of December 31, 2008, our investments in equity
securities had a market value of $21.3 million. The
principal risks of equities involve the current and future
outlook for earnings and the markets perception of the
appropriate risk premium by which to discount those earnings.
Ratings
as of December 31, 2008
The investment ratings (provided by Standard &
Poors and Moodys) for fixed maturity securities held
as of December 31, 2008 and the percentage of our total
fixed maturity securities they represented on that date were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Total
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Fair Market
|
|
|
Fair Market
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Ratings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government and government agencies
|
|
$
|
1,608.2
|
|
|
$
|
1,770.2
|
|
|
|
29.3
|
%
|
AAA/Aaa
|
|
$
|
3,255.2
|
|
|
$
|
3,244.6
|
|
|
|
53.8
|
%
|
AA/Aa
|
|
$
|
167.1
|
|
|
$
|
166.2
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
%
|
A/A
|
|
$
|
677.3
|
|
|
$
|
685.5
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
%
|
BBB/Baa
|
|
$
|
154.8
|
|
|
$
|
156.1
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
BB
|
|
$
|
8.4
|
|
|
$
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
B/B
|
|
$
|
1.0
|
|
|
$
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,872.0
|
|
|
$
|
6,032.0
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maturity
Distribution as of December 31, 2008
The maturity distribution for fixed maturity securities held as
of December 31, 2008 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Total
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Fair Market
|
|
|
Fair Market
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due within one year
|
|
$
|
272.9
|
|
|
$
|
274.2
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
%
|
Due after one year through five years
|
|
$
|
1,826.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,887.1
|
|
|
|
31.3
|
%
|
Due after five years through ten years
|
|
$
|
1,146.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,254.9
|
|
|
|
20.8
|
%
|
Due after ten years
|
|
$
|
321.8
|
|
|
$
|
365.8
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
%
|
Mortgage-backed securities
|
|
$
|
2,139.8
|
|
|
$
|
2,089.9
|
|
|
|
34.6
|
%
|
Asset-backed securities
|
|
$
|
164.5
|
|
|
$
|
160.1
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,872.0
|
|
|
$
|
6,032.0
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18
Investment
Returns for the Year Ended December 31, 2008
Our investment returns for year ended December 31, 2008
were as follows ($ in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
$
|
308.8
|
|
Net realized investment losses
|
|
$
|
(272.9
|
)
|
Net change in unrealized gains and losses
|
|
$
|
(4.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net investment return
|
|
$
|
31.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
return(1)
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
Effective annualized
yield(2)
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
(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. |
|
(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 in Switzerland and
throughout the European Union from its office in Ireland since
July 2003, from a branch office in London, England since August
2004 and from a branch office in Zug, Switzerland since August
2008. The company writes primarily property business directly
sourced from London market producers; however, the risk location
can be worldwide.
We acquired Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc. and
Allied World National Assurance 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 the
District of Columbia and licensed to write insurance on an
admitted basis in over 40 jurisdictions. In February 2008,
Allied World Assurance Holdings (U.S.) Inc. acquired Finial
Insurance Company, an affiliate of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.,
which is currently licensed to write insurance and reinsurance
in 49 states and the District of Columbia and which is an
accredited reinsurer in one state. Finial Insurance Company was
subsequently renamed Allied World Reinsurance Company. In
October 2008, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Allied World
Reinsurance Company acquired Darwin and its subsidiaries,
including Darwin National Assurance Company, which is licensed
to write insurance and reinsurance on an admitted basis in
49 states and the District of Columbia, and Darwin Select
Insurance Company, which is licensed to write insurance on an
admitted basis in Arkansas and which is eligible to write
insurance on a surplus lines basis in 48 states and the
District of Columbia.
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 23, 2009, we had a total of
578 full-time employees of which 157 worked in Bermuda, 358
in the United States, 58 in Europe and five in Hong Kong. We
believe that our employee relations are good. No employees are
subject to collective bargaining agreements.
19
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. 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.
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.
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 six 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
20
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.
Independent
Approved Auditor
A Class 4 insurer must appoint an independent auditor who
will audit and report annually on the insurers financial
statements (GAAP financial statements), which, in
the case of Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd, will be
prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America
(U.S. GAAP), statutory financial statements and
the statutory financial return, all 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.
Financial
Statements
As a general business insurer, Allied World Assurance Company,
Ltd is required to file with the BMA its annual GAAP financial
statements and statutory financial statements within four months
of the end of the relevant financial year (unless specifically
extended upon application to the BMA). The statutory financial
statements and the statutory financial return do not form part
of the public records maintained by the BMA, however the GAAP
financial statements do. The Insurance Act prescribes rules for
the preparation and substance of the statutory financial
statements, which include, in statutory form, a balance sheet,
an income statement, a statement of capital and surplus and
related notes. The statutory financial statements include
detailed information and analyses regarding premiums, claims,
reinsurance and investments of the insurer.
21
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, Enhanced Capital Requirement 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 and enhanced capital requirement.
As a Class 4 insurer, 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;
|
|
|
|
in addition, there is a requirement effective December 31,
2008 to hold available statutory capital and surplus equal to or
exceeding the enhanced capital requirement (an amount that must
equal or exceed the minimum solvency margin). Allied World
Assurance Company, Ltds enhanced capital requirement is
determined by reference to the Bermuda Solvency Capital
Requirement model (BSCR model) or an internal
capital model approved by the BMA. The BSCR model is a
risk-based capital model that provides a method for determining
an insurers capital requirements (statutory capital and
surplus) taking into account the risk characteristics of
different aspects of the companys business. The BSCR
formulas establish capital requirements for eight categories of
risk: fixed income investment risk, equity investment risk,
interest rate/liquidity risk, premium risk, reserve risk, credit
risk, catastrophe risk and operational risk. For each category,
the capital requirement is determined by applying factors to
asset, premium, reserve, creditor, probable maximum loss and
operation items, with higher factors applied to items with
greater underlying risk and lower factors for less risky items.
The capital and solvency return, which must be filed annually
with the BMA, includes Allied World Assurance Company,
Ltds BSCR model, a schedule of fixed income investments by
rating categories, a schedule of net loss and loss expense
provisions by line of business, a schedule of premiums written
by line of business, a schedule of risk management and a
schedule of fixed income securities;
|
|
|
|
is prohibited from declaring or paying any dividends during any
financial year if it is in breach of its minimum solvency
margin, minimum liquidity ratio or enhanced capital requirement,
or if the declaration or payment of those dividends would cause
such a breach;
|
|
|
|
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
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
is required, at any time it fails to meet its enhanced capital
requirement or minimum solvency margin, 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, reinsurance
balances receivable and funds held by ceding reinsurers. 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) and letters of credit and guarantees.
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 limit its premium income.
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
23
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 voting 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 voting shares in Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd and direct, among other things,
that voting rights attaching to the voting 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 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, Ltd 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.
24
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 transfer, gain or
appreciation or any tax in the nature of estate duty or
inheritance tax.
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 2007 (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 branches
in London, England and Zug, Switzerland. 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 50 states and 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 35
jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia. Allied World
National Assurance Company, is licensed in over 40
jurisdictions, including New Hampshire, its state of domicile,
surplus lines eligible in three states and an accredited
reinsurer in one state. Additionally, with the completion of the
acquisition of Finial Insurance Company (renamed Allied World
Reinsurance Company) in February 2008, we acquired a New Jersey
domiciled insurer that is licensed to write insurance and
reinsurance in 49 states and the District of Columbia and
is an accredited reinsurer in one state. The Darwin insurers
include Darwin National Assurance Company, domiciled in Delaware
and admitted to write in all other U.S. jurisdictions
except Arkansas, and Darwin Select Insurance Company, which is
an Arkansas company, is licensed in that state and an eligible
surplus lines writer in 48 states and the District of
Columbia, and Vantapro Specialty Insurance Company, which is an
Arkansas company currently licensed only in Arkansas and
Illinois.
As U.S. licensed and authorized insurers and reinsurers,
these companies 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,
25
authorized 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. 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 as 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.
or Darwin National Assurance Company 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 Reinsurance Company generally may pay an ordinary
dividend only upon 30 days prior notice to and
non-disapproval of the New Jersey Insurance Commissioner, and if
its surplus with regard to policyholders is reasonable in
relation to its outstanding liabilities and adequate to its
financial needs and if the company is not otherwise found to be
in a hazardous financial condition. Extraordinary dividends also
generally require 30 days notice to, and non-disapproval
by, the Insurance Commissioner before being paid. 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 with regards to
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.
Darwin Select Insurance Company and Vantapro Specialty Insurance
Company are each domiciled in Arkansas. Each company is required
to provide the Arkansas Insurance Commissioner with ten business
days prior notice before payment of an ordinary dividend.
Extraordinary dividends generally require 30 days prior
notice to and non-disapproval of the Insurance Commissioner
before being paid. 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 with regard to 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 pay an ordinary
dividend only upon 15 days prior notice to the New
Hampshire Insurance Commissioner and if its surplus with regard
to policyholders following the payment to shareholders will be
adequate and could not lead the insurer to a hazardous financial
condition. 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 month-period exceeds 10% of the insurers surplus
with regards to policyholders as of December 31 of the prior
year.
26
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. Under the insurance laws of
Delaware, New Jersey, Arkansas and New Hampshire, the domestic
states of our U.S. insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries,
any beneficial owner 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
beneficial ownership of 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, New
Jersey, Arkansas and New Hampshire Insurance Departments and
receive approvals from these Insurance Departments or rebut the
presumptions of control 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 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 that
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 and reinsurance
subsidiaries have satisfied the RBC formula and have exceeded
all recognized industry solvency standards. As of
December 31, 2008, all of our U.S. insurance and
reinsurance subsidiaries had adjusted capital in excess of
amounts requiring company or regulatory action.
NAIC Ratios. The National Association of
Insurance Commissioners (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, 2008, none of our U.S. insurance
and reinsurance subsidiaries had an IRIS ratio range warranting
any regulatory action.
27
Surplus Lines Regulation. The regulation of
our U.S. subsidiaries excess and surplus lines insurers
differs significantly from their regulation as licensed or
authorized insurers. These companies are subject to the surplus
lines regulation and reporting requirements of the jurisdictions
in which there are eligible to write surplus lines primary
insurance. 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., Allied World National Assurance Company and Darwin Select
Insurance 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. Although surplus lines business is generally
less regulated than the admitted market, strict regulations
apply to surplus lines placements under the laws of every state,
and the regulation of surplus lines insurance may undergo
changes in the future. Federal
and/or state
measures may be introduced and promulgated that would result in
increased oversight and regulation of surplus lines insurance.
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. Congress has
considered over the past year various proposals relating to
potential surplus lines regulation, reinsurance regulation, the
creation of an optional federal charter and changes to taxation
of reinsurance premiums paid to
non-U.S. affiliates.
None of these proposals were adopted by the 110th Congress
before it adjourned; however, they may be reintroduced in the
111th Congress now in session. Additionally some members of the
U.S. House of Representatives have called for the
recently-appointed Treasury Secretary unilaterally to create an
insurance oversight office within the Treasury Department or
assign a high level Treasury Department appointee with
insurance duties to provide oversight and expertise at the
federal level and provide policymakers with insight into issues
regarding the insurance market as reform is contemplated. The
new Presidential administration and Congress are also discussing
federal financial regulatory reforms, and such reforms may
include additional federal regulation of insurance. We believe
the 111th Congress could adopt laws
and/or
regulations with respect to insurance, and we anticipate that
these developments could impact our operations and financial
condition. We are unable to predict what laws and regulations
will be proposed or 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, former 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 President
Bush 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 President Bush 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.
28
Available
Information
We maintain our principal website at www.awac.com, with certain
product-related information also being available at
www.darwinpro.com. The information on our websites is not
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
We make available, free of charge through our principal 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 principal 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 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 significantly.
Ratings have become an increasingly important factor in
establishing the competitive position of insurance and
reinsurance companies. 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. For the financial strength
rating of each of our principal operating subsidiaries, please
see Item 1 Business Our Financial
Strength Ratings. 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 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 either A.M. Best
or Standard & Poors. Whether a ceding company
would exercise the cancellation right (and, in the case of
Allied World Reinsurance Company, as described in the paragraph
below, the right to require the posting of security) 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 these rights would be exercised, if at all, or what effect
any such cancellations or security postings would have on our
financial condition or future operations, but such effect could
be material.
For example, if all ceding companies for which we have in force
business as of December 31, 2008 were to exercise their
cancellation rights or require the posting of security, the
estimated impact could result in the return of premium, the
commutation of loss reserves, the posting of additional
collateral or a combination thereof, the notional value of which
could be approximately $275 million.
29
Our U.S. reinsurance subsidiary, Allied World Reinsurance
Company, does not typically post security for the reinsurance
contracts it writes. In addition to the cancellation right
discussed above, should the companys A.M. Best rating
or Standard & Poors rating be downgraded below
A-, some ceding companies would have the right to require Allied
World Reinsurance Company post security for its portion of the
obligations under such contracts. If this were to occur, Allied
World Reinsurance Company may not have the liquidity to post
security as stipulated in such reinsurance contracts.
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, 2008
included $330.5 million and $50.4 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, 2007, our results included
$264.4 million and $123.3 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, 2006 included $135.9 million and
$25.2 million of favorable and adverse development,
respectively, of reserves relating to losses incurred for prior
loss years.
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.
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 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
30
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.
The
risk models we use to quantify catastrophe exposures and risk
accumulations may prove inadequate in predicting all outcomes
from potential catastrophe events.
We use widely accepted and industry-recognized catastrophe risk
modeling programs to help us quantify our aggregate exposure to
any one event. As with any model of physical systems,
particularly those with low frequencies of occurrence and
potentially high severity of outcomes, the accuracy of the
models predictions is largely dependant on the accuracy
and quality of the data provided in the underwriting process.
These models do not anticipate all potential perils or events
that could result in a catastrophic loss to us. Furthermore, it
is often difficult for models to anticipate and incorporate
events that have not been experienced during or as a result of
prior catastrophes. Accordingly, it is possible for us to be
subject to events or contingencies that have not been
anticipated by our catastrophe risk models and which could have
a material adverse effect on our reserves 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 significantly 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.
31
A
prolonged recession and other adverse consequences as a result
of the significant turmoil in the U.S. and international
financial markets could harm our business, our liquidity and
financial condition, and our share price.
The U.S. and international financial markets have been
severely disrupted. These conditions, including the possibility
of a prolonged recession, may potentially affect various aspects
of our business, including the demand for and claims made under
our products, our counterparty credit risk and the ability of
our customers, counterparties and others to establish or
maintain their relationships with us, our ability to access and
efficiently use internal and external capital resources and our
investment performance. Continued volatility in the
U.S. and other securities markets may also adversely affect
our share price.
We may
be impacted by claims relating to the current financial market
turmoil, including subprime and other credit and insurance
exposures.
We write corporate directors and officers, errors and omissions
and other insurance coverages for financial institutions and
financial services companies. We also write liability coverages
for fiduciaries of pension funds. In addition, we also reinsure
other insurance companies that write these types of coverages.
The financial institutions and financial services segment has
been particularly impacted by the current financial market
turmoil. 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, swap and derivative transactions
and executive compensation. During this time, a number of
U.S. and international financial institutions, insurance
companies and other companies have failed, been acquired under
distressed circumstances, become reliant upon the central
governments of their jurisdictions for financial assistance to
remain solvent
and/or
suffered significant declines in their stock price.
Additionally, there have been allegations of fraud, most notably
being the claims alleged against the founder and chief executive
officer of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC that may
reportedly result in losses to the investors of such fund as
high as $50 billion. These events may give rise to
increased 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.
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 $1.7 billion in letters of credit under two letter
of credit facilities. The letter of credit facilities impose
restrictive covenants, including
32
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. Our access to our existing
letter of credit facilities is dependent on the ability of the
banks that are parties to these facilities to meet their
commitments. Our $900 million letter of credit facility
with Citibank Europe plc is on an uncommitted basis, which means
Citibank Europe has agreed to offer us up to $900 million
in letters of credit, but they are not contractually obligated
for that full amount. The lenders under our letter of credit
facilities may not be able to meet their commitments if they
experience shortages of capital and liquidity. 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, and in the case of Allied
World Reinsurance Company, U.S. 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, 2008, our top three brokers represented
approximately 64% of our gross premiums written.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Aon Corporation
(including Benfield Group Ltd.) and Willis Group Holdings Ltd
were responsible for the distribution of approximately 28%, 26%
and 10%, respectively, of our gross premiums written for the
year ended December 31, 2008. 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 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.
33
In addition, the current financial market turmoil may
significantly adversely affect the ability of our reinsurers and
retrocessionaires to meet their obligations to us. 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. Ongoing conditions in
the U.S. and international financial markets have and could
continue to adversely affect our investment portfolio. For the
year ended December 31, 2008, we have taken significant
realized investment losses of $272.9 million from the sale
of fixed income securities,
mark-to-market
adjustments on our hedge-fund investments and
other-than-temporary
impairment charges. Depending on market conditions, we could
incur additional losses in future periods, which could have a
material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of
operations and business.
Our investment portfolio is managed by professional investment
management firms in accordance with the investment guidelines
approved by the investment committee of the board of directors.
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 investment portfolio 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 managing our investment
portfolio within the context of our expected liabilities, we may
be forced to liquidate our investments at times and prices that
are not optimal, and we may have difficulty in liquidating some
of our alternative investments due to restrictions on
redemptions noted above. 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. In addition,
investment losses could significantly decrease our book value,
thereby affecting our ability to conduct business.
While we maintain an investment portfolio with instruments rated
highly by the recognized rating agencies, there are no
assurances that these high ratings will be maintained. The past
year has seen bankruptcy filings by companies with highly-rated
debt just prior to the time of such bankruptcy filing. The
assignment of a high credit rating does not preclude the
potential for the risk of default on any investment instrument.
Any
increase in interest rates and/or credit spread levels 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. 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 a material adverse
effect on our results of operations. Additionally, changes in
the credit spread (the difference in the percentage yield)
between U.S. Treasury securities and
non-U.S. Treasury
securities may negatively impact our investment portfolio as we
may not be able to effectively mitigate credit spread
sensitivity. In particular, a significant increase in credit
spreads
34
could result in significant losses, realized or unrealized, in
the fair value of our investment portfolio and, consequently,
could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations.
In addition, our investment portfolio includes
U.S. government agency and non-agency commercial and
residential mortgage-backed securities. As of December 31,
2008, mortgage-backed securities constituted approximately 30.5%
of the fair market value of our total investments and cash and
cash equivalents, of which 20.2% of the fair market value was
invested in U.S. government agency mortgage-backed
securities. 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 generally prepaid more quickly,
requiring us to reinvest the proceeds at the then current market
rates. In periods of rising interest rates, mortgage-backed
securities may have declining levels of prepayments, extending
their maturity and duration, thereby negatively impacting the
securitys price.
Delinquencies, defaults and losses with respect to non-agency
commercial and residential mortgage loans have increased and may
continue to increase at least through 2009. In addition,
residential property values in many states have declined, 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. The potential negative impact of
these events may be most acute in bonds backed by subprime or
Alt-A borrowers. As of December 31, 2008, our
mortgage-backed securities that have exposure to subprime
mortgages and our Alt-A investments were limited to
$1.5 million and $14.2 million, respectively, or less
than 1% of our total investments and cash and cash equivalents.
Additionally as of December 31, 2008, commercial
mortgage-backed securities constituted 6.9% of the fair market
value of our total investments and cash and cash equivalents.
While delinquencies, defaults and losses have been slower to
materialize in the commercial sector than in the residential
sector, we believe that the next 12 to 24 months may see
increasing problems for the commercial real estate market, and
therefore the commercial mortgage-backed securities sector. We
expect this to be most acute in recent transactions,
particularly those occurring in 2007 and 2008. As of
December 31, 2008, our exposure to these recent commercial
mortgage-backed securities transactions accounted for less than
1% of our total investments and cash and cash equivalents.
Our
valuation of fixed maturity securities may include
methodologies, estimations and assumptions that are subject to
differing interpretations and could result in changes to
investment valuations that may materially adversely affect our
results of operations or financial condition.
Fixed maturity investments, which are reported at fair value on
our consolidated balance sheets, represented the majority of our
total investments and cash and cash equivalents. During periods
of market disruptions, it may be difficult to value certain of
our securities if trading becomes less frequent or market data
becomes less observable. In addition, there may be certain asset
classes that were in active markets with significant observable
data that become illiquid due to the current financial
environment. In such cases, the valuation of a greater number of
securities in our investment portfolio may require more
subjectivity and management judgment. As such, valuations may
include inputs and assumptions that are less observable or
require greater estimation as well as valuation methods that are
more sophisticated or require greater estimation thereby
resulting in values which may be less than the value at which
the investments may be ultimately sold. Further, rapidly
changing and unprecedented credit and equity market conditions
could materially affect the valuation of securities as reported
within our consolidated financial statements and the
period-to-period
changes in value could vary significantly. Decreases in value
could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition
and results of operations.
The
determination of the impairments taken on our investments is
highly subjective and could materially impact our financial
position or results of operations.
The determination of the impairments taken on our investments
varies by investment type and is based upon our periodic
evaluations and assessments of known and inherent risks
associated with the respective asset class. Such evaluations and
assessments are revised as conditions change and new information
becomes available.
35
Management updates its evaluations quarterly and reflects
impairments in operations as such evaluations are revised. There
can be no assurance that our management has accurately assessed
the level of impairments taken in our financial statements.
Furthermore, additional impairments may need to be taken in the
future, which could have a material effect on our financial
condition or results of operations. Historical trends may not be
indicative of future impairments.
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. The current financial market crisis has
created unprecedented uncertainty in the equity and credit
markets and has affected our ability, and the ability of others
within our industry, to raise additional capital in the public
or private markets. 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 certain of our
principal shareholders have continuing agreements and business
relationships with us, and our principal shareholders may
compete with us in several of our business lines.
Affiliates of certain of our principal shareholders engage in
transactions with our company. Affiliates of the Goldman Sachs
Funds serve as investment managers for a majority of our
investment portfolio. The interests of these affiliates conflict
with the interests of our company. Affiliates of our principal
shareholders, AIG (which holds a warrant to purchase two million
of our common shares) 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 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.
36
The
anticipated benefits of the Darwin acquisition may not be
realized fully or at all or may take longer to realize than
expected.
The acquisition of Darwin involves the integration of two
companies that have previously operated independently. The two
companies have and will continue to devote significant
management attention and resources to integrating the two
companies. Delays in this process could adversely affect our
business, results of operations, financial condition and share
price. Achieving the anticipated benefits of the acquisition is
subject to a number of uncertainties, including whether
Darwins and our businesses are integrated in an efficient
and effective manner, and general competitive factors in the
marketplace. We may experience unanticipated difficulties or
expenses in connection with integrating these businesses,
including:
|
|
|
|
|
retaining existing employees, clients, brokers, agents and
program administrators of Darwin,
|
|
|
|
retaining and integrating management and other key employees of
Darwin and
|
|
|
|
potential charges to earnings resulting from the application of
purchase accounting to the transaction.
|
Even if the business operations are integrated successfully,
there can be no assurance that we will realize the full benefits
of synergies, cost savings and operating efficiencies that we
currently expect from this integration or that these benefits
will be achieved within the anticipated time frame. Failure to
achieve these anticipated benefits could result in increased
costs, decreases in the amount of expected revenues and
diversion of managements time and energy and could
materially adversely affect our business, financial condition
and results of operations.
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.
If a
program administrator were to exceed its underwriting authority
or otherwise breach obligations owed to us, we could be
adversely affected.
We write a portion of our U.S. insurance business through
relationships with program administrators, under contracts
pursuant to which we authorize such program administrators to
underwrite and bind business on our behalf, within guidelines we
prescribe. In this structure, we rely on controls incorporated
in the provisions of the program administration agreement, as
well as on the administrators internal controls, to limit
the risks insured to those which are within the prescribed
parameters. Although we monitor program administrators on an
ongoing basis, our monitoring efforts may not be adequate or our
program administrators could exceed their underwriting
authorities or otherwise breach obligations owed to us. We are
liable to policyholders under the terms of policies underwritten
by program administrators, and to the extent such administrators
exceed their authorities or otherwise breach their obligations
to us, our financial condition and results of operations could
be material adversely affected.
If we
experience difficulties with our information technology and
telecommunications systems and/or data security, our ability to
conduct our business might be adversely affected.
We rely heavily on the successful, uninterrupted functioning of
our information technology (IT) and
telecommunications systems. Our business is highly dependent
upon our ability to perform, in an efficient and uninterrupted
fashion, necessary business functions, such as processing
policies, paying claims, performing actuarial and other modeling
functions. In addition, we are now operating our proprietary
i-bind online submission platform that we obtained as
part of the acquisition of Darwin. A failure of our IT and
telecommunication systems or
37
the termination of third-party software licenses we rely on in
order to maintain such systems could materially impact our
ability to write and process business, provide customer service,
pay claims in a timely manner or perform other necessary
actuarial, legal, financial and other business functions.
Computer viruses, hackers and other external hazards could
expose our IT and data systems to security breaches. If we do
not maintain adequate IT and telecommunications systems, we
could experience adverse consequences, including inadequate
information on which to base critical decisions, the loss of
existing customers, difficulty in attracting new customers,
litigation exposures and increased administrative expenses. As a
result, our ability to conduct our business might be adversely
affected.
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. At this point, 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.
38
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. The occurrence, or non-occurrence, of catastrophic
events, the frequency and severity of which are unpredictable,
affects both industry results and consequently prevailing market
prices for certain of our products. As a result of these
factors, 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. Increases in the supply of insurance and reinsurance
may have adverse consequences for us, including fewer policies
and 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.
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.
|
39
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. 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 Bermuda 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
|
|
|
|
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.
Our U.S. insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries, Allied
World Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc. and Darwin National
Assurance Company, each a Delaware domiciled subsidiary, Allied
World National Assurance Company, a New Hampshire domiciled
subsidiary, Allied World Reinsurance Company, a New Jersey
domiciled subsidiary, and Darwin Select Insurance Company and
Vantapro Specialty Insurance Company, each an Arkansas domiciled
subsidiary, are 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 2007; and the requirements of
the Irish Financial Regulator.
40
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 branches in
London, England and Zug, Switzerland. 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, 2008, 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 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, our U.S. and Irish insurance subsidiaries 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:
41
(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.
Other
legislative, regulatory and industry initiatives could adversely
affect our business.
The insurance and reinsurance regulatory framework is subject to
heavy scrutiny by U.S. federal and individual state
governments as well as an increasing number of international
authorities. Government regulators are generally concerned with
the protection of policyholders to the exclusion of other
constituencies, including shareholders. Governmental authorities
in the United States and worldwide seem increasingly interested
in the potential risks posed by the insurance industry as a
whole, and to commercial and financial systems in general. While
we do not believe these inquiries have identified meaningful,
new risks posed by the insurance and reinsurance industry, and
while we cannot predict the exact nature, timing or scope of
possible governmental initiatives, there may be increased
regulatory intervention in our industry in the future. For
example, the U.S. federal government has increased its
scrutiny of the insurance regulatory framework in recent years,
and some state legislators have considered or enacted laws that
will alter and likely increase state regulation of insurance and
reinsurance companies and holding companies. Moreover, the NAIC,
which is an association of the insurance commissioners of all
50 states and the District of Columbia and state insurance
regulators, regularly reexamine existing laws and regulations.
For example, we could be adversely affected by proposals to:
|
|
|
|
|
provide insurance and reinsurance capacity in markets and to
consumers that we target;
|
|
|
|
require our participation in industry pools and guaranty
associations;
|
|
|
|
expand the scope of coverage under existing policies;
|
|
|
|
increasingly mandate the terms of insurance and reinsurance
policies;
|
|
|
|
establish a new federal insurance regulator or financial
industry systemic risk regulator;
|
|
|
|
revise laws and regulations under which we operate, including a
potential change to U.S. tax laws to disallow the current
tax deduction for reinsurance premiums paid by our
U.S. subsidiaries to our Bermuda insurance subsidiary with
respect to
U.S.-based
risks; or
|
|
|
|
disproportionately benefit the companies of one country over
those of another.
|
We are incorporated in Bermuda and are therefore subject to
changes in Bermuda law and regulation that may have an adverse
impact on our operations, including imposition of tax liability
or increased regulatory supervision or change in regulation. The
Bermuda insurance and reinsurance regulatory framework recently
has become subject
42
to increased scrutiny in many jurisdictions, including in the
United States and in various states within the United States. We
are unable to predict the future impact on our operations of
changes in the laws and regulations to which we are or may
become subject. Moreover, our exposure to potential regulatory
initiatives could be heightened by the fact that our principal
insurance subsidiary is domiciled in, and operates exclusively
from, Bermuda. For example, Bermuda, a small jurisdiction, may
be disadvantaged in participating in global or cross-border
regulatory matters as compared with larger jurisdictions such as
the United States or the leading European Union countries. In
addition, Bermuda, which is currently an overseas territory of
the United Kingdom, may consider changes to its relationship
with the United Kingdom in the future. These changes could
adversely affect Bermudas position with respect to its
regulatory initiatives, which could adversely impact us
commercially.
Our
business could be adversely affected by Bermuda employment
restrictions.
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.
Risks
Related to Ownership of Our Common Shares
Future
sales of our common shares may adversely affect the market
price.
As of February 23, 2009, we had 49,169,113 common shares
outstanding. Up to an additional 4,770,637 common shares may be
issuable upon the vesting and exercise of outstanding stock
options, restricted stock units (RSUs), performance
based equity awards and shares eligible for purchase under our
employee share purchase plan. 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. Our principal shareholders may also request that we
remove the restrictive legend on their common shares to enable
them to sell such shares under Rule 144 of the Securities
Act. Following any registration of this type or restrictive
legend removal, the common shares to which the registration or
removal 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 Second Amended and Restated 2001 Employee Stock
Option Plan, the Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd
Second Amended and Restated 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, the
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd Amended and
Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Allied World Assurance
Company Holdings, Ltd 2008 Employee Share Purchase 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.
43
Our
Bye-laws contain restrictions on ownership, voting and transfers
of our common shares.
Under our Second Amended and Restated Bye-laws (the
Bye-laws), our directors (or their designees) in
their sole and absolute discretion, may 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 sole and 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 insured or reinsured by us, 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 SEC 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.
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,
|
44
|
|
|
|
|
our directors may decline to register a transfer of 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 percent
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 us or our officers and
directors.
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 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.
45
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 any of our
U.S. insurance subsidiaries, 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, 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, our 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-premium
income. We believe that our Bermuda insurance subsidiary has
operated and will continue to 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 our Bermuda insurance
subsidiary maintains a U.S. permanent establishment. In
such case, our 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 qualifies for benefits under
the treaty and does not maintain a U.S. permanent
establishment but is engaged in a U.S. trade or business,
and 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 continue to operate its business
in a manner that will not cause it to maintain a
46
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.
Our U.S. subsidiaries 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. subsidiaries with respect to such arrangements
exceed arms length amounts. In such case, our
U.S. 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
indirect parent of the U.S. 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 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 the 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
47
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.,
non-Bermuda insurance 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.
Our
non-U.S. insurance
subsidiaries 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 a 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.
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.
48
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.
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 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 to operate in such a manner so that
none of our companies, other
49
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 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.
50
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.
We currently lease office space in Bermuda (which houses our
corporate headquarters), Europe, Hong Kong and the United States
for the operation of our property, casualty and reinsurance
segments. Except for our office space in Bermuda, which has
13 years remaining on the lease term, our leases have
remaining terms ranging from two months to approximately ten
years in length. We renew and enter into new leases in the
ordinary course of business as needed. 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 future
growth. For more information on our leasing arrangements, please
see Note 15 of the notes to the consolidated financial
statements in the
Form 10-K.
51
|
|
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. At this point, 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.
52
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
|
|
|
2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
$
|
50.24
|
|
|
$
|
38.29
|
|
Second quarter
|
|
$
|
46.82
|
|
|
$
|
39.08
|
|
Third quarter
|
|
$
|
42.93
|
|
|
$
|
34.67
|
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
$
|
40.60
|
|
|
$
|
21.00
|
|
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
|
|
On February 23, 2009, the last reported sale price for our
common shares was $37.52 per share. At February 23, 2009,
there were 75 holders of record of our common shares. At
February 23, 2009, there were approximately 57,000
beneficial holders of our common shares.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, we declared a
regular quarterly dividend of $0.18 per common share during each
quarter. 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 16 of the notes to consolidated
financial statements included in this
Form 10-K.
We did not purchase any of our common shares during the quarter
ended December 31, 2008.
53
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, 2008, assuming $100 was invested on
July 11, 2006. The measurement point on the graph
represents the cumulative shareholder return as measured by the
last reported sale price on such date during the relevant period.
TOTAL
RETURN TO SHAREHOLDERS
(INCLUDES REINVESTMENT OF DIVIDENDS)
COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN
54
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data.
|
The following table sets forth our summary historical statement
of operations data and summary balance sheet data as of and for
the years ended December 31, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and
2004. Statement of operations data and balance sheet data are
derived from our audited consolidated financial statements,
which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP.
These historical results are not necessarily indicative of
results to be expected from any future period. For further
discussion of this risk see Item 1.A. Risk
Factors in this
Form 10-K.
You should read the following selected financial data in
conjunction with the other information contained in this
Form 10-K,
including Item 7 Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
and Item 8 Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
($ in millions, except per share amounts and ratios)
|
|
|
Summary Statement of Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
1,445.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,505.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,659.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,560.3
|
|
|
$
|
1,708.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
$
|
1,107.2
|
|
|
$
|
1,153.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,306.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,222.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,372.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
$
|
1,117.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,159.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,252.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,271.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,325.5
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
308.8
|
|
|
|
297.9
|
|
|
|
244.4
|
|
|
|
178.6
|
|
|
|
129.0
|
|
Net realized investment (losses) gains
|
|
|
(272.9
|
)
|
|
|
(7.6
|
)
|
|
|
(28.7
|
)
|
|
|
(10.2
|
)
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
Other income
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
641.1
|
|
|
|
682.3
|
|
|
|
739.1
|
|
|
|
1,344.6
|
|
|
|
1,013.4
|
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
112.6
|
|
|
|
119.0
|
|
|
|
141.5
|
|
|
|
143.4
|
|
|
|
170.9
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
186.6
|
|
|
|
141.6
|
|
|
|
106.1
|
|
|
|
94.3
|
|
|
|
86.3
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
38.7
|
|
|
|
37.8
|
|
|
|
32.6
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
|
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
Income tax (recovery) expense
|
|
|
(7.6
|
)
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
183.6
|
|
|
$
|
469.2
|
|
|
$
|
442.8
|
|
|
$
|
(159.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
197.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Share Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
3.75
|
|
|
$
|
7.84
|
|
|
$
|
8.09
|
|
|
$
|
(3.19
|
)
|
|
$
|
3.93
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
3.59
|
|
|
|
7.53
|
|
|
|
7.75
|
|
|
|
(3.19
|
)
|
|
|
3.83
|
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
48,936,912
|
|
|
|
59,846,987
|
|
|
|
54,746,613
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
51,147,215
|
|
|
|
62,331,165
|
|
|
|
57,115,172
|
|
|
|
50,162,842
|
|
|
|
51,425,389
|
|
Dividends paid per share
|
|
$
|
0.72
|
|
|
$
|
0.63
|
|
|
$
|
0.15
|
|
|
$
|
9.93
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Selected Ratios:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio(2)
|
|
|
57.4
|
%
|
|
|
58.8
|
%
|
|
|
59.0
|
%
|
|
|
105.7
|
%
|
|
|
76.5
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio(3)
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
General and administrative expense ratio(4)
|
|
|
16.7
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
Expense ratio(5)
|
|
|
26.8
|
|
|
|
22.5
|
|
|
|
19.8
|
|
|
|
18.7
|
|
|
|
19.4
|
|
Combined ratio(6)
|
|
|
84.2
|
|
|
|
81.3
|
|
|
|
78.8
|
|
|
|
124.4
|
|
|
|
95.9
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
($ in millions, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Summary Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
655.8
|
|
|
$
|
202.6
|
|
|
$
|
366.8
|
|
|
$
|
172.4
|
|
|
$
|
190.7
|
|
Investments at fair market value
|
|
|
6,157.1
|
|
|
|
6,029.3
|
|
|
|
5,440.3
|
|
|
|
4,687.4
|
|
|
|
4,087.9
|
|
Reinsurance recoverable
|
|
|
888.3
|
|
|
|
682.8
|
|
|
|
689.1
|
|
|
|
716.3
|
|
|
|
259.2
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
9,072.1
|
|
|
|
7,899.1
|
|
|
|
7,620.6
|
|
|
|
6,610.5
|
|
|
|
5,072.2
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
4,576.8
|
|
|
|
3,919.8
|
|
|
|
3,637.0
|
|
|
|
3,405.4
|
|
|
|
2,037.1
|
|
Unearned premiums
|
|
|
930.4
|
|
|
|
811.1
|
|
|
|
813.8
|
|
|
|
740.1
|
|
|
|
795.3
|
|
Total debt
|
|
|
742.5
|
|
|
|
498.7
|
|
|
|
498.6
|
|
|
|
500.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
2,416.9
|
|
|
|
2,239.8
|
|
|
|
2,220.1
|
|
|
|
1,420.3
|
|
|
|
2,138.5
|
|
Book value per share(7):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
49.29
|
|
|
$
|
45.95
|
|
|
$
|
36.82
|
|
|
$
|
28.31
|
|
|
$
|
42.63
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
46.05
|
|
|
|
42.53
|
|
|
|
35.26
|
|
|
|
28.20
|
|
|
|
41.58
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Please refer to Note 13 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 issued and 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 issued and 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 and options that were anti-dilutive were
excluded from the calculation of the diluted book value per
share as of December 31, 2008 and 2005. As of
December 31, 2008, the number of options that were
anti-dilutive were 487,000. As of December 31, 2005, the
number of warrants that were anti-dilutive were 5,873,500. |
|
|
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.
56
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, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
We manage our business through three operating segments:
property, casualty and reinsurance. As of December 31,
2008, we had approximately $9.1 billion of total assets,
$2.4 billion of shareholders equity and
$3.2 billion of total capital, which includes
shareholders equity and outstanding debt.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, 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 decreasing
rates may continue into 2009 for certain lines of business as a
result of increased competition to retain existing business and
to generate new business. For other lines of business,
particularly professional liability products for the financial
institutions sector, we believe rates have increased and will
continue to increase as a result of the ongoing turmoil in the
financial and credit markets. Given these trends, we continue to
be selective in the insurance policies and reinsurance contracts
we underwrite. Our consolidated gross premiums written decreased
by $59.9 million, or 4.0%, for the year ended
December 31, 2008 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2007. Our net income for the year ended
December 31, 2008 decreased by $285.6 million, or
60.9%, to $183.6 million compared to $469.2 million
for the year ended December 31, 2007. During the year ended
December 31, 2008, we were negatively impacted by net
losses and loss expenses of $113.3 million related to
Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, as well as realized investment losses
of $272.9 million, including other-than-temporary
impairment charges of $212.9 million.
Recent
Developments
Darwin
Acquisition
On June 27, 2008, we entered into a definitive merger
agreement to acquire Darwin Professional Underwriters, Inc.
(Darwin). Darwin is a holding company whose
subsidiaries are engaged in the executive and professional
liability insurance business with an emphasis on coverage for
the healthcare industry. The transaction was completed on
October 20, 2008 and has been accounted for as a purchase.
Under the purchase method of accounting for a business
combination, the assets and liabilities of Darwin were recorded
at their fair values on the acquisition date. Under the terms of
the merger agreement, stockholders of Darwin received $32.00 per
share in cash for each share of Darwin common stock in exchange
for 100% of their interests in Darwin. Also, each outstanding
Darwin stock option became fully vested and was converted into
an amount in cash equal to (i) the excess of $32.00 over
the exercise price per share of the stock option, multiplied by
(ii) the total number of shares of Darwin common stock
subject to the stock option. In addition, each outstanding
Darwin restricted share became fully vested and was converted
into the right to receive $32.00 in cash per restricted share,
and each outstanding director share unit was converted to
receive $32.00 in cash per share unit. The total cash
consideration paid was $558.8 million, including direct
costs of the acquisition of $8.5 million, and was paid with
available capital. For the period from October 20, 2008 to
December 31, 2008, Darwin had gross premiums written of
$68.9 million and an underwriting profit (net premiums
earned and other income less losses and loss expenses,
acquisition costs and general and administrative expenses) of
$13.8 million.
Financial
Markets
During 2008, there has been significant turmoil in the
U.S. and international financial markets, which is likely
to persist into 2009. The ability to borrow funds or raise
additional capital has become limited as there has been reduced
liquidity in the capital markets. These events have impacted us
in several ways. First, the market for certain securities has
become less active, which has made pricing certain securities
difficult and which has had the effect of lowering their fair
value. While we have taken significant net realized investment
losses of $272.9 million from the sale of fixed income
securities, mark-to-market adjustments on our hedge fund
investments and other-than-temporary-impairment charges during
the year ended December 31, 2008, we believe that our
investment portfolio remains well diversified, conservative and
of high quality. As of December 31, 2008 we had a net
unrealized gain of
57
$105.6 million included in accumulated other
comprehensive income in the consolidated balance sheet. As
of December 31, 2008, approximately 99% of our fixed income
investments (which included individually held securities and
securities held in a global high-yield bond fund) consisted of
investment grade securities, whose average credit rating is AA+
as rated by Standard & Poors. Our investment
portfolio does not include any real estate, collateralized debt
obligations, collateralized loan obligations, or other complex
financial structures and a minimal amount of direct investments
in common and preferred stock. Our investment portfolio contains
no transaction that requires the posting of collateral.
Secondly, the recent events have also impacted us, as well as
others in the industry, in the ability to raise additional
capital if necessary given the current market conditions. We
believe it would be difficult to raise new capital in the
current financial markets at reasonable prices. However, we have
a credit facility with a syndication of 13 lenders that is
comprised of a $400 million secured facility and a
$400 million unsecured facility, which expires in 2012.
During 2008, we borrowed a principal amount of
$243.8 million from the unsecured facility to increase the
cash position of the company to preserve its financial
flexibility in light of the current uncertainty in the credit
markets. We repaid this syndicated loan in February 2009. For
more information on our credit facility, please see
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Restrictions, and Specific Requirements.
Thirdly, another impact of the turmoil in the financial markets
is the ability of insurance companies we compete with to retain
business. Several major insurance companies have been severely
impacted by the recent events in the financial markets. We
believe that such events are likely to have a significant effect
on competition and pricing in our industry, although the
ultimate impact remains unclear. We continue to analyze how to
best position our company to benefit from ongoing competitive
developments.
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 investment
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. Net realized investment gains or losses include
(1) net realized investment gains or losses from the sale
of investments, (2) write-downs related to declines in the
market value of securities on our available for sale portfolio
that were considered to be other than temporary and (3) the
change in the fair value of investments that we mark-to-market
in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive
income.
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
|
|
|
|
IBNR, which are reserves established by us for changes in the
values of claims that have been reported to us but are not yet
settled, as well as claims that have occurred but have not yet
been reported. 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
58
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 U.S. offices, increased professional
fees and additional amortization expense for building-related
and infrastructure expenditures. We believe this trend will
continue into 2009 as we continue to hire additional staff and
build our infrastructure, including the addition of Darwin
expenses for the full year 2009.
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. The loss and
loss expense ratio is derived by dividing net losses and
loss expenses by net premiums earned. The acquisition cost
ratio is derived by dividing acquisition costs by net
premiums earned. The general and administrative expense
ratio is derived by dividing general and administrative
expenses by net premiums earned. The expense ratio
is the sum of the acquisition cost ratio and the general and
administrative expense ratio. The combined ratio is
the sum of the loss and loss expense ratio, the acquisition cost
ratio and the general and administrative expense ratio.
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
judgment because they relate primarily 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.
IBNR reserves also relate to reported events that our claims
department currently does not believe will reach our attachment
point and based on industry information, managements
experience and actuarial evaluation can reasonably be expected
to reach our attachment point and are reasonably likely to
result in a loss to our company.
IBNR is the estimated liability for (1) changes in the
values of claims that have been reported to us but are not yet
settled, as well as (2) claims that have occurred but have
not yet been reported. Each claim is settled individually based
upon its merits, and it is not unusual for a claim to take years
after being reported to settle, especially if legal action is
involved. As a result, reserves for losses and loss expenses
include significant estimates for IBNR reserves.
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
59
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.
Reserves for losses and loss expenses as of December 31,
2008, 2007 and 2006 were comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Case reserves
|
|
$
|
1,132.9
|
|
|
$
|
963.4
|
|
|
$
|
935.2
|
|
IBNR
|
|
|
3,443.9
|
|
|
|
2,956.4
|
|
|
|
2,701.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
4,576.8
|
|
|
|
3,919.8
|
|
|
|
3,637.0
|
|
Reinsurance recoverables
|
|
|
(888.3
|
)
|
|
|
(682.8
|
)
|
|
|
(689.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
3,688.5
|
|
|
$
|
3,237.0
|
|
|
$
|
2,947.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Claims may be
reported or settled several years after the coverage period has
terminated for these lines of business (longer tail
lines), which increases uncertainties of our reserve
estimates in such lines. In addition, our attachment points for
these longer tail lines are relatively high, making reserving
for these lines of business more difficult than shorter 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 supplemented by
our own experience. For expected loss ratio selections, we are
placing greater consideration on our experience supplemented
with analysis of trends, rate changes and experience of peer
companies.
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,
60
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.
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
61
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.
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 2008 and 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. Also during 2008, we began adjusting our reliance
on actuarial methods utilized for certain other lines of
business and loss years within our casualty and reinsurance
segments by placing greater reliance on the Bornheutter-Ferguson
reported loss method than on the expected loss ratio method.
Placing greater reliance on more responsive actuarial methods
for certain lines of business and loss years within our casualty
and reinsurance segments 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 factors and expected loss
ratios are based on a blend of our own experience and industry
benchmarks for longer-tailed business and primarily our own
experience 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
62
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 2008 as compared to 2007 and 2007 as
compared to 2006 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 prior year reserve development in both 2008 and 2007.
We believe recognition of the reserve changes in the period they
were recorded was appropriate since a pattern of reported losses
had not emerged and the loss years were too immature to deviate
from the expected loss ratio method in prior periods.
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, we
supplement our own experience with 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 both 2008 as compared to 2007 and
2007 as compared to 2006 was using 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 expected loss ratio, we recognized net
favorable prior year reserve development in the current year. We
believe that recognition of the reserve changes in the period
they were recorded was appropriate since a pattern of reported
losses had not emerged and the loss years were too immature to
deviate from the expected loss ratio method in prior periods.
Our overall change in the loss reserve estimates related to
prior years increased as a percentage of total carried reserves
during 2008 and 2007. On an opening carried reserve base of
$3,237.0 million, after reinsurance recoverable, we had a
net decrease of $280.1 million, or 8.7%, during 2008, and
for 2007 we had a net decrease of $123.1 million, or 4.2%,
on an opening carried reserve base of $2,947.9 million,
after reinsurance recoverables. The higher percentage change in
2008 was due to overall actual loss emergence being lower than
the initial expected loss emergence for all of our operating
segments.
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 insurance and reinsurance
loss reserves have 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, 2008 and 2007, we believe a
reasonably likely variance in our expected loss ratio in
percentage points for our loss years are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Loss Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
2003
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
2004
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
2005
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
2006
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
2007
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
2008
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
The change in the reasonably likely variance for the 2002
through 2004 loss years in 2008 compared to 2007 is due to
giving greater weight to the Bornhuetter-Ferguson loss
development method for additional lines of business during 2008
and additional development of losses. As a result, the
reasonably likely variance of our aggregate expected loss ratio
for our casualty insurance and casualty reinsurance lines of
business was nine percentage points as of December 31, 2008
and 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
$523.3 million. 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 income before income taxes and total
shareholders equity of approximately $523.3 million.
As of December 31, 2008, this represented approximately
63
22% of total shareholders equity. In terms of liquidity,
our contractual obligations for reserves for losses and loss
expenses would also decrease or increase by approximately
$523.3 million after reinsurance recoverable. If our
obligations were to increase by $523.3 million, we believe
we currently have sufficient cash and investments to meet those
obligations. We believe showing the impact of an increase or
decrease in the expected loss ratios is useful information
despite the fact that we have realized only net favorable prior
year loss development each calendar year. We continue to use
industry benchmarks to supplement our expected loss ratios, and
these industry benchmarks have implicit in them both favorable
and unfavorable loss development, which we incorporate into our
selection of the expected loss ratios.
Reinsurance
Recoverable
We determine what portion of the losses will be recoverable
under our reinsurance policies by reference to the terms of the
reinsurance protection purchased. This determination is
necessarily based on the underlying loss estimates and,
accordingly, is subject to the same uncertainties as the
estimate of case reserves and IBNR reserves.
The following table shows our reinsurance recoverables by
segment as of December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Property
|
|
$
|
309.5
|
|
|
$
|
400.1
|
|
|
$
|
468.4
|
|
Casualty
|
|
|
575.6
|
|
|
|
264.5
|
|
|
|
182.6
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
18.2
|
|
|
|
38.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total reinsurance recoverable
|
|
$
|
888.3
|
|
|
$
|
682.8
|
|
|
$
|
689.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. However, during 2008 and 2007 we have increased
significantly the amount of reinsurance we utilize in our
casualty segment, and as such the reinsurance recoverables from
our casualty segment have increased over the past several years.
As the reinsurance recoverables are subject to the same
uncertainties as the estimate of case reserves and IBNR
reserves, if our final casualty insurance ceded loss ratios vary
by nine percentage points from the expected loss ratios in
aggregate, our required reinsurance recoverable would increase
or decrease by approximately $78.6 million. This would
result in either an increase or decrease to income before income
taxes and shareholders equity of approximately
$78.6 million. As of December 31, 2008, this amount
represented approximately 3.3% of shareholders equity.
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, 2008 and 2007 as we believe that all
reinsurance balances will be recovered.
Premiums
and Acquisition Costs
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, 2008, our changes in premium
estimates have been adjustments ranging from approximately
negative 4% for the 2007 treaty year, to approximately positive
22% for the 2005 treaty year. Applying this range to our 2008
proportional treaties, our gross premiums written in the
reinsurance segment could decrease by approximately
$8.1 million or increase by approximately
$43.2 million over the next three years. Given the recent
trend of downward adjustments on premium estimates, we believe a
reasonably likely change in our premium estimate would be the
midpoint of the negative 4% and 22%, or 9%, for a
64
change of $17.6 million. There would also be a related
increase in loss and loss expenses and acquisition costs due to
the increase in gross premiums written. It is reasonably likely
as our historical experience develops that 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,
2008, 2007 and 2006 represented approximately 13%, 16% 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.
Fair
Value of Financial Instruments
Under existing accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States (U.S. GAAP), we are required to
recognize certain assets at their fair value in our consolidated
balance sheets. This includes our fixed maturity investments,
global high-yield bond fund, hedge funds and other invested
assets. Fair value, as defined in Financial Accounting Standard
No. 157 Fair Value Measurements
(FAS 157), is the price that would be received
to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly
transaction between market participants at the measurement date.
FAS 157 also established a three-level valuation hierarchy
for disclosure of fair value measurements. The valuation
hierarchy is based upon whether the inputs to the valuation of
an asset or liability are observable or unobservable in the
market at the measurement date, with quoted market prices being
the highest level (Level 1) and unobservable inputs
being the lowest level (Level 3). A fair value measurement
will fall within the level of the hierarchy based on the input
that is significant to determining such measurement. The three
levels are defined as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1: Observable inputs to the valuation
methodology that are quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical
assets or liabilities in active markets.
|
|
|
|
Level 2: Observable inputs to the valuation
methodology other than quoted market prices (unadjusted) for
identical assets or liabilities in active markets. Level 2
inputs include quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities
in active markets, quoted prices for identical assets in markets
that are not active and inputs other than quoted prices that are
observable for the asset or liability, either directly or
indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or
liability.
|
|
|
|
Level 3: Inputs to the valuation methodology that
are unobservable for the asset or liability.
|
At each measurement date, we estimate the fair value of the
financial instruments using various valuation techniques. We
utilize, to the extent available, quoted market prices in active
markets or observable market inputs in estimating the fair value
of our financial instruments. When quoted market prices or
observable market inputs are not available, we utilize valuation
techniques that rely on unobservable inputs to estimate the fair
value of financial instruments. The following describes the
valuation techniques we used to determine the fair value of
financial instruments held as of December 31, 2008 and what
level within the FAS 157 fair value hierarchy the valuation
technique resides.
U.S. government and U.S. government agencies:
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. The
fair values of U.S. government securities are based on
quoted market prices in active markets, and are included in the
Level 1 fair value hierarchy. We believe the market for
U.S. Treasury securities is an actively traded market given
the high level of daily trading volume. The fair values of
U.S. government agency securities are priced using the
spread above the risk-free yield curve. As the yields for the
risk-free yield curve and the spreads for these securities are
observable market inputs, the fair values of
U.S. government agency securities are included in the
Level 2 fair value hierarchy.
Non-U.S. government
and government agencies: Comprised of fixed income
obligations of
non-U.S. governmental
entities. The fair values of these securities are based on
prices obtained from broker/dealers and international indices
and are included in the Level 2 fair value hierarchy.
65
Corporate: Comprised of bonds issued by corporations that
on acquisition are rated BBB-/Baa3 or higher provided that, in
aggregate, corporate bonds with ratings of BBB-/Baa3 do not
constitute more than 5% of the market value of our fixed income
securities and are diversified across a wide range of issuers
and industries. The fair values of corporate bonds that are
short-term are priced using the spread above the London
Interbank Offering Rate yield curve, and the fair value of
corporate bonds that are long-term are priced using the spread
above the risk-free yield curve. The spreads are sourced from
broker/dealers, trade prices and the new issue market. As the
significant inputs used to price corporate bonds are observable
market inputs, the fair values of corporate bonds are included
in the Level 2 fair value hierarchy.
States, municipalities and political subdivisions:
Comprised of fixed income obligations of U.S. domiciled
state and municipality entities. The fair values of these
securities are based on prices obtained from broker/dealers and
the new issue market, and are included in the Level 2 fair
value hierarchy.
Mortgage-backed: 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. The fair values of mortgage-backed
securities originated by U.S. government agencies and
non-U.S. government
agencies are based on a pricing model that incorporates
prepayment speeds and spreads to determine appropriate average
life of mortgage-backed securities. The spreads are sourced from
broker/dealers trade prices and the new issue market. As the
significant inputs used to price the mortgage-backed securities
are observable market inputs, the fair values of these
securities are included in the Level 2 fair value hierarchy.
Asset-backed: Principally comprised of 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 fair values of asset-backed
securities are priced using prepayment speed and spread inputs
that are sourced from the new issue market. As the significant
inputs used to price the asset-backed securities are observable
market inputs, the fair values of these securities are included
in the Level 2 fair value hierarchy.
Other invested assets available for sale: Comprised of an
open-end global high-yield bond fund that invests in
non-investment grade bonds issued by various issuers and
industries. The fair value of the global high-yield bond fund is
based on the net asset value as reported by the fund manager.
The net asset value is an observable input as it is traded on a
market exchange on a daily basis. The fair value of the global
high-yield bond fund is included in the Level 2 fair value
hierarchy.
Other invested assets, at fair value: Comprised of hedge
funds invested in a range of diversified strategies, as well as
equity securities and preferred stock. The fair values of the
hedge funds are based on the net asset value of the funds as
reported by the fund manager less a liquidity discount where
hedge fund investments contain
lock-up
provisions that prevent immediate dissolution. We consider these
lock-up
provisions to be obligations that market participants would
assign a value to in determining the price of these hedge funds,
and as such have considered these obligations in determining the
fair value measurement of the related hedge funds. The liquidity
discount was estimated by calculating the value of a protective
put over the
lock-up
period. The protective put measures the risk of holding a
restricted asset over a certain time period. We used the
Black-Scholes option-pricing model to estimate the value of the
protective put for each hedge fund. The aggregate liquidity
discount recognized during the year ended December 31, 2008
was $0.3 million. The net asset value and the liquidity
discount are significant unobservable inputs, and as such the
fair values of the hedge funds are included in the Level 3
fair value hierarchy. Our hedge funds are the only assets that
have significant Level 3 inputs in determining fair value
and represent less than 1.0% of our total investments. The fair
values of the equity securities are quoted prices from market
exchanges, and therefore included in the Level 1 fair value
hierarchy.
66
The following table shows the pricing sources of our fixed
maturity investments held as of December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed Maturity
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
SFAS 157 Fair
|
|
|
|
Investments as of
|
|
|
Total Fixed
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
Hierarchy
|
|
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
Level
|
|
|
Pricing Sources
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barclay indices
|
|
$
|
3,902.7
|
|
|
|
64.7
|
%
|
|
|
1 and 2
|
|
Interactive Data Pricing
|
|
|
837.6
|
|
|
|
13.9
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Reuters pricing service
|
|
|
645.2
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Standard & Poors
|
|
|
324.1
|
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Merrill Lynch indices
|
|
|
102.9
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
International indices
|
|
|
74.0
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Other (including broker/dealer quotes)
|
|
|
145.5
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
6,032.0
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Barclay indices: We use Barclay indices (formerly Lehman
Brothers indices) to price our U.S. government,
U.S. government agencies, corporate, agency and non-agency
mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. There are several
observable inputs that the Barclay indices use in determining
its prices, which include among others, treasury yields, new
issuance and secondary trades, information provided by
broker/dealers, security cash flows and structures, sector and
issuer level spreads, credit rating, underlying collateral and
prepayment speeds. For U.S. government securities, traders
that act as market makers are the primary source of pricing. As
such, for U.S. government securities we believe the Barclay
indices reflect quoted prices (unadjusted) for identical
securities in active markets.
Interactive Data Pricing: We use Interactive Data Pricing
to price our U.S. government agencies, municipalities,
non-agency mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. There
are several observable inputs that Interactive Data Pricing uses
in determining its prices, which include among others, benchmark
yields, reported trades and issuer spreads.
Reuters pricing service: We use the Reuters pricing
service to price our U.S. government agencies, corporate,
agency and non-agency mortgage-backed and asset-backed
securities. There are several observable inputs that the Reuters
pricing service uses in determining its prices, which include
among others, option-adjusted spreads, treasury yields, new
issuance and secondary trades, sector and issuer level spreads,
underlying collateral and prepayment speeds.
Standard & Poors: We use
Standard & Poors to price our
U.S. government agencies, corporate, municipalities,
mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. There are several
observable inputs that Standard & Poors uses in
determining its prices, which include among others, benchmark
yields, reported trades and issuer spreads.
Merrill Lynch Index: We use the Merrill Lynch indices to
price our
non-U.S. government
and government agencies securities, corporate, municipalities,
and asset-backed securities. There are several observable inputs
that the Merrill Lynch indices use in determining its prices,
which include reported trades and other sources.
International indices: We use international indices,
which include the FTSE, Deutche Teleborse and the Scotia Index,
to price our
non-U.S. government
and government agencies securities. The observable inputs used
by international indices to determine its prices are based on
new issuance and secondary trades and information provided by
broker/dealers.
Other (including broker/dealer quotes): We also utilize,
to a lesser extent, other pricing services including
broker/dealers or vendors to price our U.S. government
agencies, corporate, municipalities, agency and non-agency
mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. The pricing sources
include JP Morgan Securities Inc., Bank of America Securities
LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., other broker/dealers and
vendors.
To validate the prices obtained from the above pricing sources,
which are our primary sources of prices, we also obtain prices
from our investment portfolio managers and other sources (e.g.
another pricing vendor), and
67
compare the prices obtained from the above pricing sources to
those obtained from our investment portfolio managers and other
sources. We investigate any differences between the multiple
sources and determine which price best reflects the fair value
of the individual security. There were no material differences
between the prices from the above sources and the prices
obtained from our investment portfolio managers and other
sources as of December 31, 2008.
There have been no material changes to any of our valuation
techniques from those used as of December 31, 2007. We have
still been able to obtain observable market inputs for our
investments, despite the market conditions that existed as of
December 31, 2008. Based on all reasonably available
information received, we believe the prices that were obtained
from inactive markets were orderly transactions, and therefore,
reflected the current price a market participant would pay for
the asset. Since fair valuing a financial instrument is an
estimate of what a willing buyer would pay for our asset if we
sold it, we will not know the ultimate value of our financial
instruments until they are sold. We believe the valuation
techniques utilized provide us with the best estimate of the
price that would be received to sell our assets in an orderly
transaction between participants at the measurement date.
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. For certain investments, our investment
portfolio managers have the discretion to sell those investments
at any time. As such, we recognized an other-than-temporary
impairment charge for those securities in an unrealized loss
position each quarter as we cannot assert that we have the
intent to hold those investments until anticipated recovery. 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 statements of operations and comprehensive income in
the period that it is determined, and the cost basis of that
investment is reduced.
During the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, we
identified 483 and 419 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
$212.9 million and $44.6 million for the years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
The following shows the other-than-temporary impairment charge
during the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 for our
fixed maturity investments by category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
U.S. government and government agencies
|
|
$
|
21.1
|
|
|
$
|
8.3
|
|
Non-U.S.
government and government agencies
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
83.5
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
States, municipalities and political subdivisions
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage backed
|
|
|
95.8
|
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
Asset backed
|
|
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other-than-temporary impairment charges
|
|
$
|
212.9
|
|
|
$
|
17.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the total other-than-temporary impairment charge of
$212.9 million recognized during the year ended
December 31, 2008, $164.0 million was due to our
investment portfolio managers having the discretion to sell
certain investments, and therefore we could not assert we have
the intent to hold these investments in an unrealized
68
loss until recovery. In addition, we recognized an
other-than-temporary impairment charge of $48.9 million for
certain debt securities with unrealized losses that we planned
to sell subsequent to the reporting period.
Included in the total other-than-temporary impairment charge of
$44.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 was
$23.9 million for our investment in the Goldman Sachs
Global Alpha Hedge Fund, plc (Global Alpha Fund) and
$3.5 million for our investment in the Goldman Sachs Global
Equity Opportunities Fund, PLC (Global Equity
Opportunities Fund). The decline in fair value of Global
Alpha Fund was due to the significant changes in economic
conditions that occurred during 2007, which included subprime
mortgage exposure, tightening of credit spreads and overall
market volatility. We sold the Global Alpha Fund on
December 31, 2007. The other-than-temporary impairment
charge for the Global Equity Opportunities Fund was recognized
when we submitted a redemption notice in November 2007 to sell
our shares in this fund. We sold the shares in February 2008.
The decline in the fair value of the fixed maturity securities
were primarily due to movements in interest rates during the
year and a write-down of $2.1 million related to fixed
maturity investments held by us issued by a mortgage lending
institution. We performed an analysis of the issuer, including
its liquidity, business prospects and overall financial position
and concluded that an other-than-temporary impairment charge
should be recognized.
Results
of Operations
The following table sets forth our selected consolidated
statement of operations data for each of the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Gross premiums written
|
|
$
|
1,445.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,505.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,659.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums written
|
|
$
|
1,107.2
|
|
|
$
|
1,153.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,306.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net premiums earned
|
|
$
|
1,117.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,159.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,252.0
|
|
Net investment income
|
|
|
308.8
|
|
|
|
297.9
|
|
|
|
244.4
|
|
Net realized investment losses
|
|
|
(272.9
|
)
|
|
|
(7.6
|
)
|
|
|
(28.7
|
)
|
Other income
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,153.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,450.2
|
|
|
$
|
1,467.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
641.1
|
|
|
$
|
682.3
|
|
|
$
|
739.1
|
|
Acquisition costs
|
|
|
112.6
|
|
|
|
119.0
|
|
|
|
141.5
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
186.6
|
|
|
|
141.6
|
|
|
|
106.1
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
38.7
|
|
|
|
37.8
|
|
|
|
32.6
|
|
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
|
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
977.6
|
|
|
$
|
979.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,019.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
$
|
176.0
|
|
|
$
|
470.3
|
|
|
$
|
447.8
|
|
Income tax (recovery) expense
|
|
|
(7.6
|
)
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
183.6
|
|
|
$
|
469.2
|
|
|
$
|
442.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss and loss expense ratio
|
|
|
57.4
|
%
|
|
|
58.8
|
%
|
|
|
59.0
|
%
|
Acquisition cost ratio
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
General and administrative expense ratio
|
|
|
16.7
|
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
Expense ratio
|
|
|
26.8
|
|
|
|
22.5
|
|
|
|
19.8
|
|
Combined ratio
|
|
|
84.2
|
|
|
|
81.3
|
|
|
|
78.8
|
|
69
Comparison
of Years Ended December 31, 2008 and 2007
Premiums
Gross premiums written decreased by $59.9 million, or 4.0%,
for the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2007. 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 and contract terms and conditions), increased competition
and decreasing rates for renewal business in each of our
operating segments. This included a reduction in gross premiums
written in our energy line of business, within our property
segment, by $40.1 million, or 41.7%, and a reduction in the
amount of gross premiums written for certain energy classes of
business within our casualty segment by $9.9 million in
response to deteriorating market conditions.
|
|
|
|
In our reinsurance segment, adjustments on estimated premiums
were lower by $33.7 million during the year ended
December 31, 2008 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2007. We recognized net downward adjustments
of $19.5 million during the year ended December 31,
2008 compared to net upward adjustments of $14.2 million
during the year ended December 31, 2007.
|
|
|
|
Offsetting these reductions were higher gross premiums written
in our casualty segment of $109.6 million, or 18.9%,
primarily due to increased gross premiums written by our
U.S. offices as well as the inclusion of Darwins
gross premiums written for the period from October 20, 2008
to December 31, 2008. Gross premiums written by our
U.S. offices, including Darwin, increased by
$124.6 million, or 93.4%, for the year ended
December 31, 2008 compared to the year ended December 31,
2007. The total gross premiums written by Darwin were
$68.9 million for the period from October 20, 2008 to
December 31, 2008.
|
The table below illustrates our gross premiums written by
geographic location for the years ended December 31, 2008
and 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Bermuda
|
|
$
|
793.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,065.9
|
|
|
$
|
(272.2
|
)
|
|
|
(25.5
|
)%
|
Europe
|
|
|
224.2
|
|
|
|
246.9
|
|
|
|
(22.7
|
)
|
|
|
(9.2
|
)
|
United States
|
|
|
427.7
|
|
|
|
192.7
|
|
|
|
235.0
|
|
|
|
122.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,445.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,505.5
|
|
|
$
|
(59.9
|
)
|
|
|
(4.0
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decrease in gross premiums written for our Bermuda
operations was due to the non-renewal of business that did not
meet our underwriting requirements (which included pricing
and/or
policy and contract terms and conditions), increased competition
and decreasing rates for renewal business. This included a
reduction in gross premiums written in our reinsurance segment
of $134.2 million due to the non-renewal of certain
treaties, a reduction of $16.7 million for the energy line
of business within our property segment, and a reduction of
$8.8 million for certain energy classes of business within
our casualty segment in response to deteriorating market
conditions. The decrease in gross premiums written for our
Bermuda operations was also due to adjustments on estimated
premiums being lower by $33.7 million during the year ended
December 31, 2008 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2007, and certain treaties that were
previously written in Bermuda during the year ended
December 31, 2007 being renewed by our
U.S. reinsurance subsidiary during the year ended
December 31, 2008. Our U.S. reinsurance subsidiary
commenced operations in April 2008 and renewed treaties
previously written in Bermuda of $64.4 million during the
year ended December 31, 2008.
Net premiums written decreased by $45.9 million, or 4.0%,
for the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2007. The decrease in net premiums
written is in-line with the decrease in gross premiums written.
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 23.4% of gross
premiums written for both the years ended December 31, 2008
and 2007.
70
Net premiums earned decreased by $42.9 million, or 3.7%,
for the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the ended
December 31, 2007 due to the continued earning of lower net
premiums written partially offset by the inclusion of earned
premium from Darwin from the period October 20, 2008 to
December 31, 2008.
We evaluate our business by segment, distinguishing between
property insurance, casualty insurance and reinsurance. The
following chart illustrates the mix of our business on both a
gross premiums written and net premiums earned basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
|
Premiums Written
|
|
|
Premiums Earned
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Property
|
|
|
22.7
|
%
|
|
|
26.0
|
%
|
|
|
15.6
|
%
|
|
|
15.6
|
%
|
Casualty
|
|
|
47.6
|
|
|
|
38.4
|
|
|
|
42.8
|
|
|
|
41.0
|
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
29.7
|
|
|
|
35.6
|
|
|
|
41.6
|
|
|
|
43.4
|
|
The percentage of casualty gross premiums written and net
premiums earned was higher during the year ended
December 31, 2008 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2007 due to the growth of our
U.S. casualty insurance operations including the inclusion
of gross premiums written by Darwin from October 20, 2008
to December 31, 2008.
Net
Investment Income and Net Realized Losses
Net investment income increased by $10.9 million, or 3.7%,
for the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2007. The increase was primarily the
result of an increase in the dividends received from our global
high-yield bond fund. During the year ended December 31,
2007 we received one annual dividend from our global high-yield
bond fund of $2.1 million. During the year ended
December 31, 2008, we received two dividends from the
global high-yield bond fund of $6.1 million in January 2008
and $7.9 million in December 2008. We typically receive an
annual dividend from the global high-yield bond fund in January
of each year, but it is now expected that we will receive the
dividend in December of each year. Investment management fees of
$6.7 million and $5.8 million were incurred during the
years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
For the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, the period
book yield of the investment portfolio was 4.7% and 4.9%,
respectively. As of December 31, 2008, approximately 99% of
our fixed income investments (which included individually held
securities and securities held in a global 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 Aa1 as rated by
Moodys, with an average duration of approximately
3.3 years as of December 31, 2008.
Net realized investment losses increased by $265.3 million
for the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the year
ended December 31, 2007. Net realized investment losses of
$272.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2008
were comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
A write-down of $212.9 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
the market value of these securities were primarily due to the
write-down of residential and commercial mortgage-backed
securities and corporate bonds due to the widening of credit
spreads caused by the continued decline in the U.S. housing
market and the current turmoil in the financial markets. Of the
total other-than-temporary impairment charge of
$212.9 million recognized during the year ended
December 31, 2008, $164.0 million was due to our
investment portfolio managers having the discretion to sell
certain investments, and therefore we could not assert we have
the intent to hold certain investments in an unrealized loss
until recovery. In addition we recognized an
other-than-temporary impairment charge of $48.9 million for
certain debt securities with
|
71
|
|
|
|
|
unrealized losses that we planned to sell subsequent to the
reporting period. The following shows the other-than-temporary
impairment charge for our fixed maturity investments by category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other-than-temporary
|
|
|
|
impairment charges
|
|
|
|
for the Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
U.S. government and government agencies
|
|
$
|
21.1
|
|
Non-U.S.
government and government agencies
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
83.5
|
|
States, municipalities and political subdivisions
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
Mortgage backed
|
|
|
95.8
|
|
Asset backed
|
|
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other-than-temporary impairment charges
|
|
$
|
212.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized investment losses of $77.7 million related to
the mark-to-market of our hedge fund investments and equity
securities. The net realized investment losses were due to the
overall volatility of the financial markets. In January 2009,
one of the funds received a notice of termination from one of
its lenders and is expected to be liquidated during 2009. We do
not expect to receive any proceeds at final redemption, and have
taken a mark-to-market loss of $19.4 million during the
year ended December 31, 2008. On January 1, 2008, we
adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 159
The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial
Liabilities Including an amendment of FASB Statement
No. 115 (FAS 159) and elected to
fair value our hedge fund investments. Also as part of our
acquisition of Darwin, we elected the fair value option on the
equity securities acquired. As a result, any change in the fair
value of our hedge fund investments and equity securities is
recognized as realized investment gains or losses in the
consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income
at each reporting period. As we adopted FAS 159 in 2008,
there were no realized investment gains or losses recognized
from our hedge fund investments in the consolidated statement of
operations and comprehensive income during the year ended
December 31, 2007 as the change in fair value was included
in accumulated other comprehensive income in the
consolidated balance sheet.
|
|
|
|
Other net realized investment gains of $17.7 million. This
included net realized gains of $12.4 million from our
investment in the Goldman Sachs Multi-Strategy VI, Ltd fund (the
Portfolio VI Fund) and AIG Select Hedge Ltd. fund
(the AIG Select Fund).
|
|
|
|
Also included in net realized investment gains of
$17.7 million are net realized investment losses recognized
from the sale of fixed income securities issued by Lehman
Brothers Holding Ltd of $45.0 million, Morgan Stanley of
$15.0 million and Washington Mutual, Inc. of
$1.7 million, in addition to realized gains from the sale
of other fixed maturity securities, primarily U.S. Treasury
securities.
|
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 the market value of securities in 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 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 fund, we could not reasonably estimate when
recovery would occur, and as such recorded an
other-than-temporary
impairment charge. We sold our shares in the Global Alpha Hedge
on December 31, 2007 for proceeds of $31.5 million,
which resulted in an additional realized loss of
$2.1 million.
|
72
|
|
|
|
|
A write-down of $3.5 million related to our investment in
the Global Equity Opportunities Fund. We submitted a redemption
notice in November 2007 to sell our shares in this fund and as a
result recognized an other-than-temporary impairment charge at
December 31, 2007. The sale of shares occurred in February,
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 impairment charge should be recognized.
|
|
|
|
The remaining write-downs of $15.0 million were solely due
to changes in interest rates.
|
Other
Income
The other income of $0.7 million for the year ended
December 31, 2008 represents fee income from the program
administrator and wholesale brokerage operation we acquired as a
part of our acquisition of Darwin.
Net
Losses and Loss Expenses
Net losses and loss expenses decreased by $41.2 million, or
6.0%, for the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the
year ended December 31, 2007. The decrease in net losses
and loss expenses was due to higher net favorable prior year
reserve development recognized partially offset by higher than
expected loss activity in the current period, which included net
losses and loss expenses incurred from Hurricanes Gustav and Ike
of $14.3 million and $99.0 million, respectively. Of
the total $113.3 million of net losses and loss expenses
incurred for Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, $74.1 million was
recognized in our property segment and $39.2 million was
recognized in our reinsurance segment. Our loss estimate is
derived from claims information obtained from clients and
brokers, a review of the terms of in-force policies and
contracts and catastrophe modeling analysis. Our actual losses
from these events may vary materially from the current estimate
due to inherent uncertainties resulting from several factors,
including the nature of available information, potential
inaccuracies and inadequacies in the data provided by clients
and brokers, potential catastrophe modeling inaccuracies, the
contingent nature of business interruption exposures, the
effects of any resultant demand surge on claims activity and
attendant coverage issues.
We recorded net favorable reserve development related to prior
years of approximately $280.1 million and
$123.1 million during the years ended December 31,
2008 and 2007, respectively. The $280.1 million of net
favorable reserve development consisted of $246.6 million
of non-catastrophe prior year reserve development and
$33.5 million of catastrophe prior year reserve
development. The following table shows the non-catastrophe net
reserve development of $246.6 million by loss year for each
of our segments for the year ended December 31, 2008. In
the table a negative number represents net favorable reserve
development and a positive number represents net unfavorable
reserve development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss Reserve Development by Loss Year
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Property
|
|
$
|
0.5
|
|
|
$
|
(5.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(5.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(14.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(43.8
|
)
|
Casualty
|
|
|
(9.2
|
)
|
|
|
(74.5
|
)
|
|
|
(67.8
|
)
|
|
|
(5.8
|
)
|
|
|
14.9
|
|
|
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
|
(143.8
|
)
|
Reinsurance
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(7.2
|
)
|
|
|
(19.7
|
)
|
|
|
(26.3
|
)
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
(3.4
|
)
|
|
|
(59.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(8.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(87.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(94.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(37.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(17.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(246.6
|
)
|
The following is a breakdown of the major factors contributing
to the non-catastrophe net favorable reserve development for the
year ended December 31, 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
The net favorable non-catastrophe reserve development recognized
in our property segment was primarily the result of the general
property line of business actual loss emergence being lower than
the initial expected loss emergence for the 2003 through 2007
loss years.
|
|
|
|
The net favorable reserve development recognized in our casualty
segment primarily was a result of general casualty and
healthcare lines of business actual loss emergence being lower
than the initial expected loss emergence for the 2002 through
2004 loss years and the professional liability line of business
actual loss
|
73
|
|
|
|
|
emergence being lower than the initial expected loss emergence
for the 2003 and 2004 loss years. This was partially offset by
unfavorable reserve development recognized in the professional
liability line of business for the 2002 and 2006 loss years due
to increased loss activity in those loss years. We also
recognized $11.3 million in net favorable reserve
development related to Darwins business, which primarily
relates to the 2006 and 2007 loss years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The net favorable non-catastrophe reserve development recognized
in our reinsurance segment was primarily the result of net
favorable reserve development of $25.7 million for our
professional liability reinsurance, general casualty
reinsurance, accident and health reinsurance and facultative
reinsurance lines of business and $33.3 million of net
favorable reserve development for our property reinsurance and
international reinsurance lines of business. The net favorable
non-catastrophe reserve development for our professional
liability reinsurance, general casualty reinsurance, accident
and health reinsurance and facultative reinsurance lines of
business was primarily the result of actual loss emergence being
lower than the initial expected loss emergence for the 2003
through 2005 loss years. The net favorable non-catastrophe
reserve development for our property reinsurance and
international reinsurance lines of business was primarily the
result of actual loss emergence being lower than the initial
expected loss emergence for the 2002 through 2007 loss years.
|
We also recognized $33.5 million in net favorable reserve
development for the 2004 and 2005 windstorms. Of the
$33.5 million in net favorable reserve development,
$17.4 million was recognized in our property segment and
$16.1 million was recognized in our reinsurance segment. As
of December 31, 2008, we estimated our net losses related
to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma to be $387.0 million,
which was a reduction from our original estimate of
$456.0 million.
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 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 accident years.
|
The loss and loss expense ratio for the year ended
December 31, 2008 was 57.4%, compared to 58.8% for the year
ended December 31, 2007. Net favorable reserve development
recognized in the year ended December 31, 2008 reduced the
loss and loss expense ratio by 25.1 percentage points.
Thus, the loss and loss expense ratio related to the current
loss year was 82.5%. Net favorable reserve development
recognized in the year ended December 31,
74
2007 reduced the loss and loss expense ratio by
10.6 percentage points. Thus, the loss and loss expense
ratio related to that loss year was 69.4%. The increase in the
loss and loss expense ratio in 2008 for the current loss year
was primarily due to net incurred losses and loss expenses
related to Hurricanes Gustav and Ike of $113.3 million, or
10.1 percentage points, as well as $27.2 million, or
2.4 percentage points, from a gas pipeline explosion in
Australia.
We continue to review the impact of the subprime and credit
market crisis on professional liability insurance policies and
reinsurance contracts we write. We have high attachment points
for our professional liability policies and contracts, which
makes estimating whether losses will exceed our attachment point
more difficult. An attachment point is the loss
point at which an insurance policy or reinsurance contract
becomes operative and below which any losses are retained by
either the insured or other insurers or reinsurers. Based on
claims information received to date and our analysis, the
average attachment point for our professional liability
insurance policies with potential subprime and credit related
exposure is approximately $140 million with an average
limit of $12 million (gross of reinsurance). The
limit is the maximum amount we will insure or
reinsure for a specified risk or portfolio of risks. Our direct
insurance policies with subprime and credit related loss notices
may have the benefit of facultative reinsurance, treaty
reinsurance or a combination of both. For our professional
liability reinsurance contracts with potential subprime and
credit related exposure, the average attachment point is
approximately $95 million with an average limit of
approximately $1.8 million. At this time we believe, based
on the claims information received to date, that our current
IBNR is adequate to meet any potential subprime and credit
related losses. We will continue to monitor our reserve for
losses and loss expenses for any new claims information and
adjust our reserve for losses and loss expenses accordingly.
The following table shows the components of the decrease in net
losses and loss expenses of $41.2 million for the year
ended December 31, 2008 from the year ended
December 31, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net losses paid
|
|
$
|
474.2
|
|
|
$
|
397.9
|
|
|
$
|
76.3
|
|
Net change in reported case reserves
|
|
|
89.6
|
|
|
|
38.0
|
|
|
|
51.6
|
|
Net change in IBNR
|
|
|
77.3
|
|
|
|
246.4
|
|
|
|
(169.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses and loss expenses
|
|
$
|
641.1
|
|
|
$
|
682.3
|
|
|
$
|
(41.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net losses paid increased by $76.3 million for the year
ended December 31, 2008 due to higher paid losses in our
casualty segment partially offset by lower claim payments
relating to the 2004 and 2005 windstorms than the amount paid
during the year ended December 31, 2007. During the year
ended December 31, 2008, $39.6 million of net losses
were paid in relation to the 2004 and 2005 windstorms compared
to $98.5 million during the year ended December 31,
2007. During the year ended December 31, 2008, we recovered
$14.0 million on our property catastrophe reinsurance
protection in relation to losses paid as a result of the 2004
and 2005 windstorms compared to $33.0 million for the year
ended December 31, 2007. The increase in reported case
reserves was due to increased loss activity for the current
period in our property and reinsurance segments, partially
offset by lower case reserves for our casualty segment due to
the settlement of claims. The decrease in IBNR was primarily due
to higher net favorable loss reserve development partially
offset by increased reserves for losses and loss expenses for
our current loss years business.
75
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the years ended
December 31, 2008 and 2007. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
Net reserves for losses and loss expenses, January 1
|
|
$
|
3,237.0
|
|
|
$
|
2,947.9
|
|
Acquisition of net reserve for losses and loss expenses
|
|
|
298.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incurred related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
773.1
|
|
|
|
805.4
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
148.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
(246.6
|
)
|
|
|
(84.0
|
)
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
(33.5
|
)
|
|
|
(39.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total incurred
|
|
$
|
641.1
|
|
|
$
|
682.3
|
|
Paid related to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
40.9
|
|
|
|
32.6
|
|
Current period property catastrophe
|
|
|
38.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior period non-catastrophe
|
|
|
355.6
|
|
|
|
266.8
|
|
Prior period property catastrophe
|
|
|
39.6
|
|
|
|
98.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total paid
|
|
$
|
474.2
|
|
|
$
|
397.9
|
|
Foreign exchange revaluation
|
|
|
(14.3
|
)
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
|
3,688.5
|
|
|
|
3,237.0
|
|
Losses and loss expenses recoverable
|
|
|
888.3
|
|
|
|
682.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve for losses and loss expenses, December 31
|
|
$
|
4,576.8
|
|
|
$
|
3,919.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition
Costs
Acquisition costs decreased by $6.4 million, or 5.4%, for
the year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2007. Acquisition costs as a percentage of net
premiums earned were 10.1% for the year ended December 31,
2008 compared to 10.3% for the same period in 2007.
General
and Administrative Expenses
General and administrative expenses increased by
$45.0 million, or 31.8%, for the year ended
December 31, 2008 compared to the same period in 2007. The
following is a breakdown of the major factors contributing to
this increase:
|
|
|
|
|
Salary and employee welfare costs increased approximately
$32.9 million due to our staff count increasing to 560 as
of December 31, 2008 from 300 as of December 31, 2007.
The increase in staff count includes 188 employees of
Darwin. The increase also included a one-time expense of
$4.5 million for the reimbursement of forfeited stock
compensation and signing bonuses for new executives hired as
part of the continued expansion of our U.S. operations and
increased stock compensation costs of $5.7 million for all
offices. We also recognized $3.1 million of salary and
welfare costs related to the Darwin long-term incentive plan.
The Darwin long-term incentive plan was for certain of its key
employees and was based on underwriting profitability. Please
see Note 12(c) of the notes to consolidated financial statements
for further details on the Darwin long-term incentive plan.
|
|
|
|
Rent and amortization of leaseholds and furniture and fixtures
increased by approximately $4.3 million due to our new
office space in New York, Farmington (CT) and Chicago and
increased amortization of furniture and fixtures.
|
76
|
|
|
|
|
Information technology costs increased by approximately
$2.8 million due to higher network fees and consulting
costs in 2008 than 2007. This increase was due to the
development of our technological infrastructure as well as an
increase in the cost of hardware and software.
|
|
|
|
Professional fees increased by approximately $1.6 million.
|
Our general and administrative expense ratio was 16.7% for the
year ended December 31, 2008 compared to 12.2% for the year
ended December 31, 2007. The increase was primarily due to
the factors discussed above.
Our expense ratio was 26.8% for the year ended December 31,
2008 compared to 22.5% for the year ended December 31,
2007. The increase resulted primarily from increased general and
administrative expenses.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense increased $0.9 million, or 2.4%, for the
year ended December 31, 2008 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2007. Interest expense incurred during the
year ended December 31, 2008 represented the annual
interest expense on the senior notes, which bear interest at an
annual rate of 7.50%, as well as the interest expense on the
syndicated loan on which we borrowed from our $400 million
unsecured revolving credit facility (and which was paid in full
in February 2009).
Net
Income
Net income for the year ended December 31, 2008 was
$183.6 million compared to net income of
$469.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2007.
The decrease was primarily the result of significantly higher
net realized investment losses, net losses and loss expenses
related to Hurricanes Gustav and Ike and increased general and
administrative expenses partially offset by net favorable prior
year loss reserve development. Net income for the year ended
December 31, 2008 included a net foreign exchange gain of
$1.4 million and an income tax recovery of
$7.6 million. 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.
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 $44.7 million, or 31.7%, in response to
deteriorating market conditions.
|
The table below illustrates our gross premiums written by
geographic location for the years ended December 31, 2007
and 2006.
77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December,
|
|
|
Dollar
|
|
|
Percentage
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
($ 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 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
|
|
78
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 period book yield of the investment portfolio for the year
ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 was 4.9% and 4.5%,
respectively. The annualized period 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 global 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 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 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 impairment 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 Global Equity Opportunities Fund. We submitted a redemption
notice in November 2007 to sell our shares in this fund and as a
result recognized an other-than-temporary impairment charge at
December 31, 2007. The sale of shares occurred in February
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 impairment 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
$23.9 million related to declines in the market value of
securities in our available for sale portfolio that were
considered to be other than temporary. The declines in market
value of these securities were solely due to changes in interest
rates.
79
The following table shows the components of net realized
investment losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
($ 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 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. 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.
|
80
|
|
|
|
|
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
loss year 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 loss year 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
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 $63.2 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006. The increase in reported case reserves
was primarily due to payments on the 2004 and 2005 windstorms
during the year ended December 31, 2006, which reduced the
established case reserves. The decrease in IBNR for the year
ended December 31, 2007 compared to the year ended
December 31, 2006 was primarily due to net favorable
reserve development on prior year reserves and the decrease in
net premiums earned.
81
The table below is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending
reserves for losses and loss expenses for the year ended
December 31, 2007 and 2006. Losses incurred and paid are
reflected net of reinsurance recoverable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
($ 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 related to our RSUs. Please see Note 12
of the consolidated financial statements 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 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.
|