Stop-Loss Reinsurance Risk Transfer and Collateral
Summit Casualty Insurance Company purchases a 12-month aggregate stop-loss reinsurance treaty from an unauthorized offshore reinsurer. The treaty covers Summit's workers' compensation losses above a $50.0 million retention, up to $20.0 million, for a $4.0 million premium. The reinsurer's expected loss ratio is 35%, and the probability of any loss under the treaty is estimated at 8%. The treaty includes a 10% profit commission and an experience refund. Summit's CFO wants to record the $4.0 million as ceded written premium, reduce gross loss reserves by $20.0 million, and take full credit for reinsurance. The reinsurer has posted no collateral. Summit's statutory surplus is $60.0 million, and its RBC ratio is 210%. The state has adopted the NAIC Credit for Reinsurance Model and SSAP No. 62R. The CFO argues that the treaty is catastrophe protection and that the reinsurer is financially strong, so collateral is unnecessary. The company has no other reinsurance and no surplus notes.
1. Determine whether the stop-loss treaty transfers insurance risk for statutory accounting purposes. Apply the reasonable-possibility-of-significant-loss test and explain the effect if risk transfer is not established.
Read the worked answer
Statutory reinsurance accounting under SSAP No. 62R requires the treaty to transfer insurance risk. The test is whether the reinsurer has a reasonable possibility of a significant loss. The commonly used benchmark is the 10/10 test: the reinsurer must have at least a 10% chance of a 10% loss of premium. Here the probability of any loss under the treaty is only 8%, which is below 10%. The expected loss ratio is 35% of the $4.0M premium, or $1.4M, but expected loss is not the same as the probability of a significant loss. The profit commission and experience refund further reduce the reinsurer's downside. On these facts, Summit likely cannot demonstrate a reasonable possibility of significant loss, so the treaty probably does not transfer insurance risk for statutory accounting.
If risk transfer is not established, the treaty is accounted for as a deposit. Summit would not record ceded written premium or reduce loss reserves. The $4.0M premium is recorded as a deposit asset, or a receivable or payable depending on timing, and any fees or profit commissions are expensed or amortized. Reinsurance recoveries are not recognized as loss reductions; they are recorded as deposits returned. The CFO's proposed accounting would overstate surplus and understate liabilities.
2. Assume Summit records the treaty as reinsurance. What credit, if any, may it take for the unauthorized reinsurer, and what is the surplus impact? Show the calculation.
Read the worked answer
Even if the treaty transferred risk, the reinsurer is unauthorized and has posted no collateral. Under the NAIC Credit for Reinsurance Model, Summit may take credit for reinsurance ceded to an unauthorized reinsurer only to the extent of acceptable collateral: funds withheld, a qualifying trust, or a clean, irrevocable, unconditional letter of credit. No collateral exists here, so no credit is allowed.
If Summit records $20.0M of ceded loss reserves, the entire $20.0M recoverable is nonadmitted. The surplus impact is a $20.0M reduction: $60.0M - $20.0M = $40.0M pro forma surplus. Assuming TAC approximates surplus and the current 210% ratio implies ACL of about $28.6M ($60.0M / 2.10), the pro forma ratio would be about $40.0M / $28.6M = 140%, which is below the 150% Regulatory Action Level. In addition, the $4.0M ceded premium would not be recognized if risk transfer fails; if it were recorded, the deposit would also be nonadmitted or treated as an asset subject to recoverability. The CFO cannot rely on the reinsurer's financial strength as a substitute for collateral under the model.
3. What should the CFO do before recording the treaty? Discuss alternatives that would permit reinsurance accounting and credit.
Read the worked answer
Before recording the treaty, the CFO should have the company's actuarial and accounting teams document the risk-transfer analysis. If the treaty does not meet the 10/10 test, the CFO should not record it as reinsurance. Alternatives include:
- Restructure the treaty to transfer more risk: lower the attachment point, increase the reinsurer's share, remove or reduce the profit commission, or add a co-participation that makes a significant loss more likely.
- Use an authorized reinsurer, which avoids the collateral requirement and permits credit under the model.
- Obtain acceptable collateral from the unauthorized reinsurer: an evergreen trust fund, a clean irrevocable letter of credit, or funds withheld equal to at least the ceded reserves plus a margin. The collateral must be maintained for the duration of the obligations.
- If the treaty is intended only as a financing or aggregate stop-loss arrangement, account for it as a deposit and disclose the arrangement.
The CFO should also consider the RBC impact, the company's risk appetite, and whether the reinsurer's offshore status creates collection risk. The board should approve the structure only after the accounting and regulatory consequences are clear.