Blog Insurance by Izmi Zulaikha

“Insurance provides indemnification against loss or liability from specified events and circumstances that may occur or be discovered during a specified period. ”
-- FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 113, “Accounting for Reinsurance of Short-Duration and Long-Duration Contracts” December 1992
An operational definition of insurance is that it is
the benefit provided by a particular kind of indemnity contract, called an insurance policy;
that is issued by one of several kinds of legal entities (stock company, mutual company, reciprocal, or Lloyds organization, for example), any of which may be called an insurer;
in which the insurer promises to pay on behalf of or to indemnify another party, called a policyholder or insured;
that protects the insured against loss caused by those perils subject to the indemnity in exchange for consideration known as an insurance premium.
In recent years this kind of operational definition proved inadequate as a result of contracts that had the form but not the substance of insurance. The essence of insurance is the transfer of risk from the insured to one or more insurers. How much risk a contract actually transfers proved to be at the heart of the controversy.
This issue arose most clearly in reinsurance, where the use of Financial Reinsurance to reengineer insurer balance sheets under US GAAP became fashionable during the 1980's. The accounting profession raised serious concerns about the use of reinsurance in which little if any actual risk was transferred, and went on to address the issue in FAS 113, cited above. While on its face, FAS 113 is limited to accounting for reinsurance transactions, the guidance it contains is generally conceded to be equally applicable to US GAAP accounting for insurance transactions executed by commericial enterprises.
Does the Contract Contain Adequate Risk Transfer?
FAS 113 contains two tests, called the '9a and 9b tests,' that collectively require that a contract create a reasonable chance of a significant loss to the underwriter for it to be considered insurance.
9. Indemnification of the ceding enterprise against loss or liability relating to insurance risk in reinsurance of short-duration contracts requires both of the following, unless the condition in paragraph 11 is met:
a. The reinsurer assumes significant insurance risk under the reinsured portions of the underlying insurance contracts.
b. It is reasonably possible that the reinsurer may realize a significant loss from the transaction.
Paragraph 10 of FAS 113 makes clear that the 9a and 9b tests are based on comparing the present value of all costs to the PV of all income streams. FAS gives no guidance on the choice of a discount rate on which to base such a calculation, other than to say that all outcomes tested should use the same rate.
Statement of Statutory Accounting Principles ("SSAP") 62, issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, applies to so-called 'statutory accounting' - the accounting for insurance enterprises to conform with regulation. Paragraph 12 of SSAP 62 is nearly identical to the FAS 113 test, while paragraph 14, which is otherwise very similar to paragraph 10 of FAS 113, additionally contains a justification for the use of a single fixed rate for discounting purposes. The choice of an "reasonable and appropriate" discount rate is left as a matter of judgement.
Is There a Brightline Test?
Neither FAS 113 nor SAP 62 defines the terms "reasonable" or "significant." Ideally, one would like to be able to substitute values for both terms. It would be much simpler if one could apply a test of an X% chance of a loss of Y% or greater. Such tests have been proposed, including one famously attributed to an SEC official who is said to have opined in an after lunch talk that a 10% chance of a 10% loss was sufficient to establish both reasonableness and significance. Indeed, many insurers and reinsurers still apply this "10/10" test as a benchmark for risk transfer testing.
It should be obvious that an attempt to use any numerical rule such as the 10/10 test will quickly run into problems. Suppose a contract has a 1% chance of a 10,000% loss? It should be reasonably self-evident that such a contract is insurance, but it fails one half of the 10/10 test. It does not appear that any "brightline" test of reasonableness nor signifance can be constructed.
Excess of loss contracts, like those commonly used for umbrella and general liability insurance, or to insure against property losses, will typically have a low ratio of premium paid to maximum loss recoverable. This ratio (expressed as a percentage), commonly called the "rate on line" for historical reasons related to underwriting practices at Lloyds of London, will typically be low for contracts that contain reasonably self-evident risk transfer. As the ratio increases to approximate the present value of the limit of coverage, self-evidence decreases and disappears.
Contracts with low rates on line may survive modest features that limit the amount of risk transferred. As rates on line increase, such risk limiting features become increasingly important.