ART, or ARF, bites into the marketplace; aggressive customization and the shortcomings of ordinary coverage create new opportunities for alternatives. It is not hard to imagine a world in the not-too-distant future, where what we now consider traditional coverage is all but extinct - Special report: alternative risk
By some estimates, alternative risk transfer (ART) or financing (ARF) now account for half of all insurance business written in the United States. Eight years ago, no more than a third of all risks were ART-financed. Before long, traditional techniques will become the alternative. Standing the eternal verities on their head is no mean achievement. Insurance, in one form or another, has been around for several thousand years; ART is no more than 50 years old.
Insurance is among the most conservative of business practices, yet in relatively no time flat, it is graduating to a different way of doing things. Why? And what does this augur for the future of insurance?
The answer to those questions has to do with the shortcomings of traditional cover and the aggressive nature and customization that ART offers. In some ways, a parallel is to be found in the clothing industry, where “off-the-rack” has always outsold custom tailoring, mostly for financial reasons. Few of us are a perfect 40 short or size 12, but off-the-rack clothing fits us well enough, and besides, costs a fraction of hand-made garments. The key advantage of ART is that a well-crafted program need be no more expensive than traditional risk or, in some cases, more profitable.
Before considering the prospects for ART, a quick definition might be in order. ART allows companies to put together integrated products that are not readily available through the traditional markets. The simplest definition is thus a negative one: alternative risk solutions are those that are non-traditional. Another says that any company that commissions the creation of its own solutions to its risk financing needs is using ART. A third definition sees ART as the transfer of financial risk from the insurance industry to the capital markets and vice versa. None of those definitions is entirely satisfactory, but they provide a starting point.
Advertisement
Traditional techniques offer policies to which companies must fit their requirements. ART solutions work the other way around: companies define their needs and solutions are then crafted for that company. No classes of business are excluded, and no risk that can be priced is left naked.
In his European Commission ART Market Study, John P. Ryan of Tillinghast Towers-Perrin, cited the main factors leading to the growth of the alternative risk market. Those factors include the volatility of the conventional market, resulting in the withdrawal of capacity in that market following soft markets or catastrophe events; the high cost of conventional reinsurance at such times; lack of capacity for large natural catastrophes and certain specialized lines such as medical malpractice; reduction in the demand for “pound-swapping” (whereby premiums payable are essentially just used to pay claims) insurance from corporate insurance purchasers and reinsurance buyers; increased retentions demanded by many large insurers and reinsurers and the greater volatility this creates in the reinsurance markets; convergence between banking, insurance and securities markets; greater emphasis on the efficient use of capital and subsequent risk diversification; greater sophistication in risk management techniques, including demands for an integrated approach to risk; intense competition causing both buyers and sellers to look for new solutions; and exceptional profits made in recent years by successful writers of ART products, attracting new entrants and increasing the capacity of the market.
Little wonder, then, that ART has grown so swiftly.
Captive insurance, the original ART technique, allowed companies to manage their own risk through purpose-built vehicles, retaining in the long term what would otherwise have been the broker’s margin and the insurer’s profit. Companies outside the insurance industry, not skilled at managing their risks or portfolios, hired captive managers and investment managers to perform those functions. Most captives succeeded. It was only when captives accrued serious capital that they began insuring unrelated risks, and that path sometimes led to disaster.
Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, the British Virgins and Barbados, and now Vermont, Hawaii and other states have built their insurance sectors on ART practices, especially captives. The simplest form of captive, the single-parent, was followed, in due course, by more complicated models: association or group captives, rent-a-captives and now segregated cell companies that aggregate diverse interests but segregate them internally for the protection of all. Risk retention groups, securitizations, derivatives, loss portfolio transfers, finite reinsurance, catastrophe bonds, reciprocal insurance exchange (in Canada), weather insurance–ART now has as many heads as Hydra.
There can be little doubt that ART will continue to grow in areas where both insurers and insureds can manage non-traditional risks in concert.
There is an assumption that ART works only, or best, for large companies. Yet that fails to hold true from either perspective. Barely half the thousand largest companies in the United States reportedly have captives, for example. And with modern management techniques, the longer the current hard market in property/casualty lasts, the greater the opportunities for smaller companies to move into ART.
posted in Broker Insurance Motorcycle | 0 Comments