ROUNDTABLE: ILS

HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERISE INVESTOR SENTIMENT TOWARDS ILS?

“There’s been a continuous shift towards fronted and rated business.”
Adam Champion

Adam Champion: We’re having lots of conversations with investors who are new to the space or in the space already. Some are interested only in investing in balance sheet risk, versus those seeking fee income. We’re going through a unique period right now with managing general agents (MGAs)—underwriters trying to set up their own businesses and leverage their expertise.

At the moment, MGAs are selling for 15 to 20 times book value. However, many MGAs can’t get fronting paper, reinsurance capacity, or working capital. As a result, given the broader market conditions, you’re going to see more interest in this fee-driven business. Whether it’s preferring claims administration or underwriting on a fee basis, many investors prefer this to balance sheet risk—even though they’re multibillion dollar institutional investors.

We are seeing an absolute hunger for non-correlated risks to the equity markets, and while that has always been the driver of capital to the ILS space, it’s even more so now. Over the last six months, there’s been no safe harbour, whether it’s equities, bonds, or fixed income, and investors are just desperate for non-correlated returns.

And while many investors have moved beyond the concerns of trapped capital, we are still seeing the balance between collateralised risk versus fronted risk flip over the last five years. There are very few ILS funds which are fully collateralising all their risks now. There’s been a continuous shift towards fronted and rated business.

That also ties in with investors who want alternatives to property cat; they’re recognising very quickly that very few non-property cat lines of business work on a collateralised basis.

“People need to go into the non-cat space with eyes wide open.”
Nick Jagoda

Nick Jagoda: From a rate adequacy perspective, the collateralised space has the benefit of repricing risk on a 12-month basis as opposed to looking at something on a static basis. There’s optimism that inflation is being built into pricing with adequate buffer to compensate for what could be additional inflation.

Trapped collateral remains a challenge for the market. It is certainly easier to address it in a hardening market through terms and conditions. Whether it is through improved buffer loss factor tables or sunset clauses, there’s a lot that the market has done to alleviate that pain. But this remains a headline topic for investors.

Counter to what has been said today, I don’t think that the fronted model offers an obvious solution to trapped collateral. I spent many years operating within a largely fronted model and there certainly are trapped collateral issues associated with that. Ultimately there is still collateral supporting a basket of risk and fronting carriers don’t want to be left holding the bag by relieving a fund of its liabilities. This issue was exacerbated in recent years.

Regarding the topic of non-cat risks, we’ve had interest from investors with respect to things beyond the pure cat space. However, there is a steep learning curve. We have spent a significant amount of time educating folks on the cat space and expect there will be a process associated with educating investors on other non-cat risks and the utility they may have for their portfolios.

People need to go into the non-cat space with eyes wide open, understand the various mechanisms available to access the market, and understand the supply and demand dynamic. In the end, for some investors, the diversification to cat alone is attractive because of the diversification it provides across a broader global investment portfolio.

“As people have exited the cat market, pricing and values have risen.”
Edouard von Herberstein

Edouard von Herberstein: The collateralised market has shrunk and continues to shrink for all the reasons that we know. Even the ILS market has slowed down quite significantly in the last three months, which nobody expected, but people are concerned about the same issues. That is convergence.

I agree on the appetite for diversification and opportunities outside of cat. There’s not a single line of business now that hasn’t in some way been accessed by the ILS market. We’re even seeing investors looking at legacy business.

The brokers are educating themselves with how to structure a casualty or a cyber deal that fits the ILS investor. It’s not happening as fast as I’d like to see, given the amount of people working in that space and all the money flowing into MGAs and service companies.

For example, the tools available in cyber today remind me what we saw in the late 1990s around cat. A lot of people who worked on cat models are focused on the cyber sector now, and that sector will see massive growth.

The ILS market has an important role to play in cyber. Just like the mortgage market, there is a role to play and there is definitely demand for capacity beyond the traditional market.

Bermuda thrives when the world struggles. I believe that 100 percent. In the last 20 years, I’ve seen expertise coming to Bermuda with speed of execution, but also capacity. It amazes me when I see the exciting opportunities.

Financial lines, specialty lines, casualty liability, they come here. Why? Because the people with the big cheque books are here and we can move quickly.

If you ask brokers, they bring new ideas and problems to solve. They come to Bermuda. And that’s super exciting for Bermuda. They’re asking all the right questions and

I am excited about today’s ILS market. As people have exited the cat market, pricing and values have risen. We are watching that closely.

“Investors are rightly asking challenging questions about climate change.”
Laura Taylor

Laura Taylor: The market is more dislocated than 2006 and June renewals are still ongoing with many not being able to secure capacity. We forecast there will be further impact in Florida as these trends continue and we’ll see not only increased pricing but also a shortage of capacity in January.

Similar to a post-credit crisis, when the broader financial markets struggle, the value of truly non-correlated assets increases. However, investors are rightly asking challenging questions about climate change, deficiencies in the industry cat models, inflation and fraudulent claims and they expect to be compensated for these uncertainties.

The industry needs to do a better job of articulating how it is pricing for these things to assure investors that they are receiving an adequate return on the risk.

“If conditions do not improve we could see more arbitrations.”
Peter Dunlop

Peter Dunlop: Based on the inquiries we receive, it feels as though the potential for disputes has increased between third party capital investors and whoever is, say, managing their sidecar. So far, managers and investors have taken a commercial approach to avoid full-scale disputes but if conditions do not improve we could see more arbitrations taking place, which no-one but the lawyers wants. There is an enormous range of what it could cost the industry.

Brad Adderley: In 2006 we saw startups and sidecars. Could we see new capital, new startups come to market?

“Investors need to know what pricing needs to be.”
Kathleen Faries

Taylor: The industry is facing barriers to raising new capital right now given the performance over the past five years, the industry’s response to it, and volatility in broader markets. The industry needs to do a better job of demonstrating sufficient pricing and to do this you need data.

This is a barrier to new startups but even incumbents need to show that there is sufficient pricing for climate change, inflation, social inflation, and other unmodelled risks.

Pricing has increased partly because the view of risk has changed but the required return on capital has also changed. The cat market is competing with volatility and returns of other markets and needs to demonstrate attractive returns and diversification to attract new capital.

Kathleen Faries: That’s what we need. The markets that are taking certain cat risks need to lead in terms of what is adequate pricing. If you want capital to come in, investors need to know what pricing needs to be. It needs leadership.

“Will people wait and see what happens in hurricane season?”
Brad Adderley

Adderley: It’s interesting that there has been business which wasn’t placed in the renewal. Do we think people will now try to renew books of business early in the context of the 1/1 renewal? Could the year-end renewal be done early—or will people wait and see what happens in hurricane season? But if cedants wait, could they end up paying even more?

Taylor: Yes, we’re seeing cedants who are discussing 1/1 renewals now but expect the market will wait as there is little upside to binding part-way through the year. Overall TIVs are growing, and it is too early to determine required pricing. The required return on capital will be dependent on the wind season but also broader market dynamics.

Faries: Given these additional risks, does the industry have adequate data? Compared with 10 years ago, which was a very different time, do we have adequate data to have that conversation with investors and convince them we can get rate adequacy?

Adderley: People always think they have adequate data before a surprise comes along.

Faries: How are the vendor modelling companies doing in terms of developing better models?

Champion: That is the big question when it comes to property cat. The industry for a long time has had a consensus that the models represent a baseline view of risk that everybody can build from. That sort of dynamic does not exist in other lines. Where we have previously seen money raised to take property cat risk, that money has now gone to established multi-line companies with a solid track record.

As a result, these multi-line writers are trying to build similar style pricing models, but it is much harder to model these other types of short tail risks such as cyber.

“It is important that we continue to invest in innovation.”
Nick Jagoda

Jagoda: The concept of rate adequacy and adequate data is a constant evolution. While you might be comfortable today, tomorrow the price might no longer be adequate. All we can do as an industry is keep investing in relevant data and research efforts, while at the same time providing transparency with investors about how we price for evolving risks.

With respect to how investors determine whether they are achieving adequate returns for the risks assumed, we need to consider that no two investors have the same required rate of return and they will often employ different benchmarks when considering the relative attractiveness of the risk/return opportunity within the ILS market versus other markets.

With respect to innovation in the reinsurance space, the market is doing a good job as can be seen through new products and structures to address new and evolving risks. It is important that we continue to invest in innovation. There is a constant push and pull of being reactive versus proactive in the space. Innovation requires taking a proactive approach and I’d argue the market right now is being as proactive as it possibly can.

Tying together various themes discussed, we are seeing much more disciplined underwriting, and much more disciplined deployment of capital. That’s not just in ILS but across the whole reinsurance market, even more so than in 2006. Perhaps the difference is we have better data now. If you were to compare risk/return profiles from 2006 to today, it’s apples and oranges.

Von Herberstein: It’s good news for Bermuda. There have been times when we have been over reliant on the models. Maybe some investors thought they could write business themselves using the models alone. That hasn’t worked. What has come out of the last five years is the complexity of the insurance market. You need more than just data. The idea that you can write cat business using models alone is a dangerous one to say the least.

There are so many markets where the data is inadequate anyway, in Latin America and Asia, for example.

Cyber is much harder to model. The reality is that it doesn’t matter how much you invest internally, you need the experts. There are some amazing tools, but you need to understand and interpret them. Investors are learning that and it’s good news for Bermuda.

Dunlop: What interests me as a legal adviser is the innovative stuff, whether that is around climate or greater distribution or better analysing and pricing risks with improved use of analytics and data. It is not just about selling more policies, it is about addressing unmet problems through a more innovative approach to insurance risk.

That is what is really special about Bermuda—the intellectual capital and grasp of analytics puts Bermuda way ahead. Hats off to Hudson Structured for its work in insurtech and insurtech investing.

“Everyone sees Bermuda as the place to come to test ideas and platforms.”
Taijaun Talbot

Von Herberstein: You’re seeing it happening in insurtechs. You need the data people and the insurance people working together.

Helen Souza: Those are the seeds we’ve been planting in the technology space and green shoots are now emerging. We are seeing a lot more insurtech companies set up in Bermuda. We are also becoming a beta testing domicile for climate data. From an intellectual capital and expertise perspective, it’s good to have the humans and the data. There’s a tonne of data, the question is how we store it and use it.

Taijaun Talbot: We have seen many entrants talk a lot about data, but the key innovation is around how we interpret that data. The real innovation is how we can leverage artificial intelligence (AI) to interpret the data. There is a lot of exciting innovation taking place. I spend a lot of time discussing new innovative vehicles and structures, and everyone sees Bermuda as the place to come to test ideas and platforms.

Within that innovation, there is a greater appetite among ILS investors to look at new risks. I do think those new risks will emerge, certainly they are being looked at from a regulatory standpoint. We are seeing a lot of interest in new risks.

“We’re now positioning ourselves as the emerging climate risk financing capital.”
Helen Souza

Dunlop: There is now a real convergence between crypto and insurance. We see many new insurtechs exploring the use of tokens to raise risk capital and one day we will be seeing insurtechs receiving premium and paying claims in cryptocurrency. On Bermuda, the advantage is we have one regulator to regulate everything, whether it’s crypto or insurance, so there is a combined regulatory mindset more easily applied to both regulated streams. There are so many great ideas from clients coming through.

Adderley: The first ILS vehicles targeting the crypto space are being formed, which is very interesting. We are also seeing ILS players looking at using artificial intelligence. That would be interesting.

Ten years ago we were discussing convergence, now we are seeing the convergence of data analytics, crypto and insurance in one place. Because of the BMA’s Sandbox, these ideas are being tried. Clients want you to be regulated. They need that to raise capital. This year you will see a lot more of that: insurance, crypto, and ILS all coming together.

Souza: There is no doubt that Bermuda is the risk capital of the world and we’re now positioning ourselves as the emerging climate risk financing capital. We’re known as a reinsurance powerhouse, but we’re probably more a powerhouse of innovation. Over the last few years that’s been very evident in some of the things that have emerged.

“We used to be asked about liquidity but that is very rare now.”
Adam Champion

Adderley: It’s interesting. We always talk about creating a new pillar for Bermuda’s economy. We have reinsurance on many fronts. We have ILS. We had lost funds but, because of ILS, some of those are coming back now. The same is true because of crypto.

Faries: Ten years ago, we were asking if some of the capital in ILS would stick around after a loss or run for the hills. Nobody talks about that any more. We know that most of the ILS capital is committed for the long term. Obviously, there are ebbs and flows but as an asset class, this capital is committed and sophisticated.

Champion: The difference is that these institutional investors have now been educated. They’ve experienced good and bad periods but they’re still committed to the space and are looking for more opportunities. Getting fresh capital is hard, but the committed capital wants to hear about opportunities—and they want to try to do more outside property.

It’s an evolution. We used to be asked about liquidity but that is very rare now. And that means, as we move into specialty lines, that investors are more willing to leave their capital there for longer—for many years. However, they still have concerns about the uncertainty associated with longer tail losses, but their investment horizon is absolutely expanding.

Faries: Some of the asset managers should take credit for developing this space and educating investors. They did the hard work in the industry. The lawyers, service providers, and others deserve credit too, but the ILS asset managers are the ones that drove the interest in the asset class and education of investors forward.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock / Bruno Passigatti