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