Aggregate Stop-Loss Purchase After Reserve Deterioration
Northline Commercial Auto is a monoline insurer with $180M surplus and $320M net loss reserves. In the latest actuarial review, prior-year reserves developed adversely by $22M, driven by bodily injury severity in Florida and Texas. The CFO projects a 1-in-100 net loss of $95M next year and a 1-in-10 loss of $48M. The board has a risk tolerance that limits the probability of a surplus decline greater than 15% to 5%. Management is evaluating two reinsurance structures: (A) a per-occurrence excess of $2M xs $1M with a 25% coinsurance on the excess layer, or (B) a 75% quota share on the first $10M of each loss with a $30M aggregate stop-loss. The current reinsurance program costs $12M and is up for renewal. The chief risk officer notes that ceded recoverables are already $45M, and two reinsurers are rated A-. The company has no sidecar or cat bond capacity. The board asks for a recommendation before the renewal.
1. Quantify whether either proposed structure meets the board's risk tolerance, stating any assumptions.
Read the worked answer
The risk tolerance is a 5% probability of a surplus decline greater than 15% of $180M, or $27M. Since the 1-in-10 loss has 10% probability, that $48M loss must be reduced below $27M; the 1-in-100 $95M loss must also be reduced below $27M. Structure A is a per-occurrence cover of $2M xs $1M with 25% coinsurance, so the maximum cession per loss is only 25% x $2M = $0.5M. It does not aggregate annual losses and therefore cannot materially reduce either the $48M or $95M annual net loss unless those losses are single occurrences, and even then the cession is small. Structure A fails. Structure B is more promising but depends on loss composition. If the $95M annual loss is many losses each below $10M, the 75% quota share cedes up to $71.25M, leaving $23.75M, which is below $27M; the $48M loss leaves $12M. If instead the $95M is one large loss, the quota share cedes only 75% x $10M = $7.5M, leaving $87.5M, and a $30M aggregate stop-loss cannot bring the net loss below $27M unless it attaches very low. Thus B meets the tolerance only under a diversified loss assumption, and the treaty wording must clarify attachment and limit. Neither structure cleanly meets the board's tolerance without additional per-risk protection or a lower attachment.
2. Discuss the reinsurance credit risk and capital implications of selecting structure B, including the A- reinsurer ratings and $45M ceded recoverables.
Read the worked answer
Structure B materially increases ceded recoverables because it cedes 75% of the first $10M of each loss. The existing $45M recoverable balance will grow, concentrating credit exposure with two A- reinsurers. A- is investment grade but not secure, so the company should require collateral, trust accounts, rating triggers, or diversification across more reinsurers. For statutory capital, ceded reserves may reduce net loss reserves and premium, improving premium-to-surplus and reducing required capital, but reinsurance recoverables carry a credit risk charge, especially if unsecured. The quota share also cedes profit and may create a dependency on reinsurer capacity. The aggregate stop-loss provides tail protection but must be modeled for attachment uncertainty and reinstatement cost. The board should treat the ceded recoverable as a credit exposure and set a limit by reinsurer, require collateral above a threshold, and stress-test recoverable collectability in the capital plan. Selecting B improves risk transfer but does not eliminate the need to manage counterparty concentration.
3. Recommend a decision to the board with conditions.
Read the worked answer
I would recommend negotiating structure B but not approving it as presented. Conditions should include: (1) a clearly defined aggregate stop-loss with a low attachment and a limit sufficient to bring the 1-in-100 net loss below $27M; (2) a per-risk cover or lower per-loss retention to address single-large-loss concentration; (3) collateral or trust arrangements from the A- reinsurers, with rating downgrade triggers; (4) diversification of ceded recoverables across at least three reinsurers; and (5) a board-approved ceded recoverable limit. The board should also require a stress test showing surplus decline under a 1-in-100 single-event scenario and a diversified-loss scenario. If the reinsurer will not provide acceptable collateral or a workable aggregate attachment, the company should retain less risk by reducing growth or buying a lower-layer aggregate cover. The decision should be revisited at renewal if the $22M adverse development trend continues.