Monday, November 26, 2018

Catastrophe Bonds: A Primer [feedly]

An intro to how insurance companies plan to cover catastrophe's---its going to take more money

Catastrophe Bonds: A Primer
http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2018/11/catastrophe-bonds-primer.html

Catastrophe Bonds: A Primer

Most bonds are a way for corporations and government to borrow money. A catastrophe bond is different. It's effectively a way for an insurance firm to re-insure some of the extreme risks it faces.
Andy Polacek offers a nice overview in "Catastrophe Bonds: A Primer and Retrospective," a recent 
Chicago Fed Letter (2018, No. 405).

Polacek offers a nice concrete example of how a CAT bond works. The American Family Mutual Insurance Company wanted to be reinsured if it experienced very high losses due to severe thunderstorms and tornadoes in the United States. Thus, in November 2010 it set up a "special purpose vehicle" called Mariah Re Ltd. to issue a CAT bond.

It worked like this. Investors in the CAT bond put up $100 million. That money was immediately invested in US Treasury securities. In addition, American Family Mutual Insurance Company agreed to pay the investors an additional return of 6.25% per year, over a three-year period. If there were no excessive losses from thunderstorms during those three years, the CAT bond would end, and the $100 million would be refunded to the original investors.

However, every CAT bond has built into it an "attachment point," which specifies when a certain large-scale event has occurred. It might refer to an earthquake of a certain size, or to a certain kind of storm causing at least a certain magnitude of losses. In the case of American Family Mutual Insurance Company and Mariah Re, the "attachment point" occurred "if estimated losses to the P&C insurance industry from severe thunderstorms and tornadoes across the U.S. exceeded $825 million ... After the $825 million attachment point was reached, AFMI would receive $1 in compensation for every $1 of additional covered losses up to the $100 million limit." A third party is designated in advance to decide if the "attachment point" has been reached: in this case, the third party was a company called AIR Worldwide.

This example helps to clarify the risk-sharing properties of a CAT bond. For the insurance company, issuing a CAT bond is a way of purchasing re-insurance against extreme losses. But it has some advantages over purchasing reinsurance. Because the money is sitting in an account, there is no danger that the reinsurance company might be unable to pay. Also, a CAT bond can be set up to cover a period of several years, while a reinsurance purchase is typically for one year. Finally, because lots of investors like pension funds, mutual funds, and hedge funds can buy CAT bonds, the pool of funds available for reinsurance becomes a lot larger than the available capital of reinsurance companies taken alone

For investors, a CAT bond offers a rate of return with a degree of risk, with the nice property that the occurrence of extreme insurance events is typically not much correlated with other risks in financial markets. In this particular case of American Family Mutual Insurance Company and Mariah Re, the US experienced a huge number of costly and deadly tornadoes in 2011, leading to insured losses of $954 million. This total was more than $100 million above the attachment point of $825 million, so that investors in this CAT bond lost all of the $100 million they had invested. But over time, the actual returns from investing in CAT bonds have been attractive.

This figure shows the growth in total issuance of catastrophe bonds over time, now at about $25 billion worldwide.

Catastrophe bond issuance and amount outstanding, 1997-2017


One of the most interesting uses of CAT bonds is not by insurance or reinsurance companies, but by governments. Payouts from these CAT bonds often triggered by measures of the strength of the covered catastrophe—such as an earthquake's magnitude or a hurricane's wind speed and barometric pressure. As a result, it is typically quite clear when a trigger has been exceeded, and the fund to cover the catastrophe can be released very quickly, when they are needed. In the US, the California Earthquake Authority (CEA) and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (FHCF) issue catastrophe bonds. "The Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF)—developed with the assistance of the World Bank—has used CAT bonds ... After Hurricane Matthew struck the Caribbean in the fall of 2016, the CCRIF paid out a little over $20 million to Haiti and almost $1 million to Barbados within 14 days after the triggering event."

A common concern about any new financial instrument is that it will work until investors take substantial and losses, and then it may fade away. Thus, it is a good sign for the fundamental health of catastrophe bonds as a useful financial innovation that even after experiencing very large losses for investors in 2017, it kept growing in 2018. Polacek writes:
"In the first half of 2018, the CAT bond market saw strong growth even after unequivocally the worst period for CAT bond investors in the market's 20-year history. Led primarily by losses from Hurricanes Irma, Harvey, and Maria, 19 separate CAT bond tranches were triggered in the third quarter of 2017, leaving as much as $1.4 billion in outstanding issuance vulnerable to losses (the actual loss amount is not yet known given that many insurance claims still need to be resolved). Despite the historic level of losses at the end of 2017, new CAT bond issuance in the first half of 2018 reached $9.4 billion, rivaling 2017's record start.20 Currently, the insurance industry is working to improve CAT bond modeling to cover new types of risk—such as cyberattack and terror risks. So, it appears that the uses of CAT bonds will continue to grow, offering issuers new avenues to transfer a variety of risks."
For a previous post on CAT bonds, see "The Allure of Catastrophe Bonds"(August 25, 2016).

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Sunday, November 25, 2018

How Democrats Can Deliver on Health Care [feedly]

Paul Krugman has become a major cultural enterprise with online classes, and projects in many areas all leveraging his deep understanding of economics, his position as columnist for the NY Times, as well as the Nobel prize and other awards, to advance progressive agendas and related ideological ideological debates in the social sciences.

But sometimes he reminds me of an elderly but still game hunter cat that purrs with precision in daylight but brings the trophies home overnight.

How Democrats Can Deliver on Health Care
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/opinion/democrats-obamacare-states.html


"Democrats need to have a positive agenda, not just be against Donald Trump." How many times did you hear pundits say something like that during the midterm campaigns? In fact, you're still hearing it from people like Seth Moulton, who's leading the (apparently failing) effort to block Nancy Pelosi from returning as House speaker.

What makes this lazy accusation so annoying is that it's demonstrably, arithmetically wrong. Yes, Trump was on everyone's mind, but he was remarkably absent from Democratic messaging. A tally by the Wesleyan Media Project found that the 2018 elections stand out not for how much Democrats talked about the tweeter in chief, but for how little: Not since 2002 has an opposition party run so few ads attacking the occupant of the White House.

So what did the campaigns that led to a blue wave talk about? Above all, health care, which featured in more than half of Democrats' ads. Which raises the question: Now that Democrats have had their big House victory and a lot of success in state-level races, can they do anything to deliver on their key campaign issue?

Yes, they can.

Actually, just by capturing the House Democrats achieved one big goal — taking repeal of the Affordable Care Act off the table. True, the G.O.P. lawsuit against the act's protection of pre-existing conditions is still awaiting a ruling — the long silence of the Republican-leaning judge in that case is getting increasingly strange. But there won't be any more legislative attempts to dismantle the law.

ADVERTISEMENT

On the other hand, with Republicans still controlling the Senate and White House, major new federal legislation on health care isn't going to happen. Democrats may debate about their future agenda, which seems likely to include offering some form of Medicare buy-in option for Americans under 65. And it's important that they have this debate: One reason they were able to achieve major health reform in 2009-2010 was that, unlike 2017 Republicans, who had put no thought into the actual implications of repeal, they had hashed out key issues over the previous two years. But for now, at least, Washington will be gridlocked (which is better than where we were!).

There can, however, be action at the state level.

The A.C.A. didn't, strictly speaking, create a national program. Instead, it set rules and provided financing for 50 state-level programs. States were encouraged to create their own health insurance marketplaces, although they had the option to use healthcare.gov, the federal site. A 2012 Supreme Court decision also let states opt out of Medicaid expansion, and many did choose to refuse federal dollars and deprive their own residents of health care.

This has created a divergence in health care destinies, depending on states' political orientation. In 2013, before the A.C.A. went into effect, California had an above-average rate of uninsurance: 17.2 percent of its population was uncovered. North Carolina did somewhat better, with "only" 15.6 percent uninsured. But as of last year, the uninsured rate in California had fallen 10 points, to 7.2 percent, while North Carolina's rate was still above 10 percent.

What made the difference? Solid-blue California, with a Democratic governor and Legislature, did all it could to make Obamacare work: It expanded Medicaid, operated its own marketplace and made major efforts to get people signed up. North Carolina, under Republican rule, did none of these things.

And the importance of state-level action has only increased in the past two years, as the Trump administration and its congressional allies, unable to fully repeal the A.C.A., have nonetheless done all they can to sabotage it. They eliminated the individual mandate, which pushed people to sign up while they were still healthy; they eliminated reinsurance that helped insurance companies manage their own risk; they cut back drastically on outreach.


ADVERTISEMENT

All of these measures acted to drive premiums up and enrollment down. But states can, if they choose, fill the Trump-size hole.

The most dramatic example of how this can be done is New Jersey, where Democrats gained full control at the end of 2017 and promptly created state-level versions of both the mandate and reinsurance. The results were impressive: New Jersey's premiums for 2019 are 9.3 percent lower than for 2018, and are now well below the national average. Undoing Trumpian sabotage seems to have saved the average buyer around $1,500 a year.

Now that Democrats have won control of multiple states, they can and should emulate New Jersey's example, and move beyond it if they can. Why not, for example, introduce state-level public options — actuarially sound government plans — as alternatives to private insurance?

The point is that while the new House majority won't be able to do much beyond defending Obamacare, at least for now, its allies in the states can do much more, and in the process deliver on the agenda the whole party ran on this year. As they say in New Jersey, you got a problem with that?

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion)and Instagram, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.


Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

DealBook Special: China Means Business [feedly]

Important summary of China development series in NYT

DealBook Special: China Means Business
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/business/dealbook/china-economy-business.html

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Grim Stock Signals Piling Up as Wall Street Mulls Recession Odds [feedly]

Grim Stock Signals Piling Up as Wall Street Mulls Recession Odds
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-25/grim-stock-signals-piling-up-as-wall-street-mulls-recession-odds

Nine turbulent weeks and a correction in U.S. stocks have left analysts with a thorny question. What's the market saying about the economy?

And while few see incontrovertible signs investors are bracing for a recession, it's a word that's been coming up more as they seek a signal in the chaos.

From the ascent of defensive industries to the sudden craze for companies that resist volatility, stocks are acting in ways that have presaged slowing growth in the past. That makes sense: gains in the economy and corporate earnings are forecast to ease in 2019 from this year's torrid pace.

Befitting that, most of the charts that follow reflect observations by analysts who don't see a recession as the most obvious conclusion. Many view the sell-off as healthy after a 10-year run of gains. But with a trade war flaring and the Federal Reserve set to boost interest rates again, the number of stock researchers who are at least willing to mention the possibility is rising.

"What's driving the sell-off? The idea that the market sees something that we don't," said Bruce McCain, chief investment strategist at KeyBank. "That global growth and the global economy are much weaker than you would've thought otherwise reinforces concern that there aren't too many places to hide."

Momentum Scare

It doesn't take a degree in technical analysis to be concerned. More than $3 trillion has been lopped from U.S. equity values since late September, a sell-off that has driven the S&P 500 down 10 percent and tech stocks well past the threshold for a correction.

To see how violent it's been, look at the number of stocks where this year's once-robust price momentum has come asunder -- those trading below their 200-day average. Support is wearing thin, with just 37 percent of S&P 500 companies exceeding their long-term moving mean.

At the same time, the chart is an illustration of how it can be a mistake to take markets too seriously when looking for clues about the economy. While the preponderance of stalled stocks is high by historical standards, it does have a recent precedent: 2016. No recession followed that signal.

None is coming now, either, according to the people who are paid to anticipate such things. Odds the U.S. will fall into a recession in the next year stands at 15 percent, according to Bloomberg's U.S. Recession Probability Forecast index. While they see the economy losing a bit of speed next year and in 2020, the median estimate of economists calls for 2.6 percent economic growth in the next 12 months.

Economists haven't always done a great job predicting contractions. A 2014 study by the International Monetary Fund's Prakash Loungani found that not one of 49 recessions suffered around the world in 2009 had been predicted by the consensus of economists a year earlier. Loungani previously reported that only two of the 60 recessions of the 1990s had been anticipated a year in advance.

One way or the other, investors are acting worried. They're rotating into defensive sectors that do better when the economy is in trouble. Utilities, the only sector that's risen since September, had trailed the broader market in nine consecutive quarters.

Some investors seek shelter from market turmoil in stocks with muted price swings as opposed to their riskier brethren. Tranquil equities offer little alpha when things are good, but are supposed to shine during times of uncertainty. Those with risk aversion have piled into the Invesco S&P Low Volatility ETF and the fund has beaten the S&P since the market rout started in late September.

The performance gap between defensive and cyclical stocks suggests that investors are starting to price in a recession-like scenario, JPMorgan strategists led by Dubravko Lakos-Bujas said in a note this week. They view the dislocation as overdone and inconsistent with the fundamental backdrop.

Societe Generale's strategists including Roland Kaloyan evoked the R word within one of the more depressing stock outlooks to be issued lately. They see the S&P closing next year at 2,400, an 18 percent decline from its September record. Still, even in their skeptical eyes, the threat of a contraction is a long way off: early to mid-2020.

Equities still yield more than 10-year Treasuries, but are far from being the most-loved asset class. A recent survey by the National Association of Active Investment Managers shows that mutual funds' equity exposure has fallen to 30.5 percent, the least since 2016. It isn't helping much -- practically everything is falling. Treasuries, raw materials and corporate bonds are all down for the year.

Where'd You Go?

Equity exposure reaches the lowest level since 2016 amid a 10% S&P drop

Source: National Association of Active Investment Managers

"Both equities and commodities are reflecting some of the fears of a global growth slowdown, so you're not seeing positive returns at all," said Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer at the Independent Advisor Alliance. "Meanwhile the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates for the next six months, if not longer, which is also causing fixed income to go down. Global slowdowns are weighing on credit. And that's giving investors no place to hide."

To be sure, the economic indicators that often precede recession -- yield curve inversion and rising unemployment -- are not flashing warning signs. The yield curve is flat but not inverted and the unemployment rate keeps falling, as opposed to rising when a recession approaches.

— With assistance by Lu Wang


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Mark thoma Links (11/21/18) [feedly]

Recent top econ  blog posts

Links (11/21/18)
https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2018/11/links-112118.html

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Progress Radio:No Name Becomes Citizens Progress Diner Program: The Drunks Delight Show

John Case has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Progress Radio
Post: No Name Becomes Citizens Progress Diner Program: The Drunks Delight Show
Link: http://progress.enlightenradio.org/2018/11/the-drunks-delight-show-first-show-from.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Recovery Radio:Recovery Rado" Pastor and author Diana Ferguson discusses "My Father's House"

John Case has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Recovery Radio
Post: Recovery Rado" Pastor and author Diana Ferguson discusses "My Father's House"
Link: http://recovery.enlightenradio.org/2018/11/recovery-rado-pastor-and-author-diana.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/