logging in or signing up mueller aSGuest9845 Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINT lite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 8 Category: Education License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: January 09, 2009 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript The Value Proposition of DFA : The Value Proposition of DFA Basic Applications for Real World Decision Making Bob Mueller ACAS Executive Vice President Middlesex Mutual / Country Companies Group Perspectives ... : Perspectives ... CFO, Chief Actuary, Corporate Strategist Small to Mid - sized Company Illustrations ... : Illustrations ... 1) Asset Allocation Decision 2) Strategic Partnering Decision Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision : Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision Year: 1988 Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision : Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision Historic Financial Profile: Low leverage, high equity investment Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision : Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision Emerging Issues Premium growth 15 - 25% per year Significant new investment in Real Estate Pressure from A.M.Best Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision : Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision Board Finance Committee: University president with investment background Regional bank president Two president/owners of boutique investment management firms CFO of a national investment management firm Key Decision Makers Approach : Approach Direct, intuitive Focus on concept and principal Quick “Back of the Napkin” Model : “Back of the Napkin” Model Total Return = Investment + Underwriting Return T / S = I/S + U/S = I/A x A/S + U/P x P/S = I/A x (1 + L/PxP/S) + U/P x P/S S= Surplus, A= Assets, L=Liabilities, P=premium “Back of the Napkin” Model : “Back of the Napkin” Model Total Return = Investment + Underwriting Return T / S = I/S + U/S = I/A x A/S + U/P x P/S = I/A x (1 + L/PxP/S) + U/P x P/S “constant” leverage factors “Back of the Napkin” Model : “Back of the Napkin” Model Total Return = Investment + Underwriting Return T / S = I/S + U/S = I/A x A/S + U/P x P/S = I/A x (1 + L/PxP/S) + U/P x P/S random variables Model Results : Model Results No stocks 50% stocks 100% stocks Model Results : Model Results Business Conclusions : Business Conclusions Risks too high , returns too low at any level of equities Need to focus on core business issues rather than asset allocation In Summary ... : In Summary ... Advantages not a “black box” approach clear linkage of investment and underwriting gets management acquainted with DFA Disadvantages one year projection not good for “fine tuning” asset allocation or underwriting strategy Strategic Partnering Decision : Strategic Partnering Decision Year: 1996 Strategic Partnering Decision : Strategic Partnering Decision Business Situation: $80MM PL in Connecticut and Maine Good auto results, volatile and unprofitable property results 100 year return time wind loss = 1.5 x Surplus Catastrophe insurance ROL approaching 4% Depressed returns from large real estate investment Ratings pressure Alternatives : Alternatives Open Market Reinsurance Product Contingent Surplus notes etc. Demutualization and Sale Merger Reinsurance Pooling Arrangement Pooling Arrangement : Pooling Arrangement All premiums, losses and expenses pooled with member companies Retrospective reinsurance treatment of prior loss reserves Pool results redistributed based on “economic value” surplus Companies maintain separate surplus and investments DFA Modeling Approach : DFA Modeling Approach Focus on the underwriting side of the model underwriting volatility changes investment projections left deterministic State conclusions in terms of relative rather than absolute returns eliminate need for economic scenarios etc. Custom built model to accommodate pooling transaction accounting Underwriting model : Underwriting model Accident year loss ratios by line decomposed historical to cycle + randomness No reserve uncertainties Separate catastrophe loss modeling Distributions from IRAS model before and after pooling Catastrophe reinsurance modeling Model Results : Model Results Parameter Assumption sets Forecast (expected )underwriting results Better than past average results $100MM catastrophe loss Model outputs Probability that surplus in 5 years would be X% better under pooling than stand-alone DFA Benefits : DFA Benefits Demonstrated significant risk reduction benefit to transaction Helped achieve regulatory approval Kept all “stakeholders” focused on the real issues Summary : Summary Avoid the “model in search of a problem” Avoid “black box” modeling Understand the people you’re influencing Focus on relative performance You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.
mueller aSGuest9845 Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINT lite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 8 Category: Education License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: January 09, 2009 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript The Value Proposition of DFA : The Value Proposition of DFA Basic Applications for Real World Decision Making Bob Mueller ACAS Executive Vice President Middlesex Mutual / Country Companies Group Perspectives ... : Perspectives ... CFO, Chief Actuary, Corporate Strategist Small to Mid - sized Company Illustrations ... : Illustrations ... 1) Asset Allocation Decision 2) Strategic Partnering Decision Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision : Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision Year: 1988 Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision : Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision Historic Financial Profile: Low leverage, high equity investment Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision : Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision Emerging Issues Premium growth 15 - 25% per year Significant new investment in Real Estate Pressure from A.M.Best Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision : Anatomy of an Asset Allocation Decision Board Finance Committee: University president with investment background Regional bank president Two president/owners of boutique investment management firms CFO of a national investment management firm Key Decision Makers Approach : Approach Direct, intuitive Focus on concept and principal Quick “Back of the Napkin” Model : “Back of the Napkin” Model Total Return = Investment + Underwriting Return T / S = I/S + U/S = I/A x A/S + U/P x P/S = I/A x (1 + L/PxP/S) + U/P x P/S S= Surplus, A= Assets, L=Liabilities, P=premium “Back of the Napkin” Model : “Back of the Napkin” Model Total Return = Investment + Underwriting Return T / S = I/S + U/S = I/A x A/S + U/P x P/S = I/A x (1 + L/PxP/S) + U/P x P/S “constant” leverage factors “Back of the Napkin” Model : “Back of the Napkin” Model Total Return = Investment + Underwriting Return T / S = I/S + U/S = I/A x A/S + U/P x P/S = I/A x (1 + L/PxP/S) + U/P x P/S random variables Model Results : Model Results No stocks 50% stocks 100% stocks Model Results : Model Results Business Conclusions : Business Conclusions Risks too high , returns too low at any level of equities Need to focus on core business issues rather than asset allocation In Summary ... : In Summary ... Advantages not a “black box” approach clear linkage of investment and underwriting gets management acquainted with DFA Disadvantages one year projection not good for “fine tuning” asset allocation or underwriting strategy Strategic Partnering Decision : Strategic Partnering Decision Year: 1996 Strategic Partnering Decision : Strategic Partnering Decision Business Situation: $80MM PL in Connecticut and Maine Good auto results, volatile and unprofitable property results 100 year return time wind loss = 1.5 x Surplus Catastrophe insurance ROL approaching 4% Depressed returns from large real estate investment Ratings pressure Alternatives : Alternatives Open Market Reinsurance Product Contingent Surplus notes etc. Demutualization and Sale Merger Reinsurance Pooling Arrangement Pooling Arrangement : Pooling Arrangement All premiums, losses and expenses pooled with member companies Retrospective reinsurance treatment of prior loss reserves Pool results redistributed based on “economic value” surplus Companies maintain separate surplus and investments DFA Modeling Approach : DFA Modeling Approach Focus on the underwriting side of the model underwriting volatility changes investment projections left deterministic State conclusions in terms of relative rather than absolute returns eliminate need for economic scenarios etc. Custom built model to accommodate pooling transaction accounting Underwriting model : Underwriting model Accident year loss ratios by line decomposed historical to cycle + randomness No reserve uncertainties Separate catastrophe loss modeling Distributions from IRAS model before and after pooling Catastrophe reinsurance modeling Model Results : Model Results Parameter Assumption sets Forecast (expected )underwriting results Better than past average results $100MM catastrophe loss Model outputs Probability that surplus in 5 years would be X% better under pooling than stand-alone DFA Benefits : DFA Benefits Demonstrated significant risk reduction benefit to transaction Helped achieve regulatory approval Kept all “stakeholders” focused on the real issues Summary : Summary Avoid the “model in search of a problem” Avoid “black box” modeling Understand the people you’re influencing Focus on relative performance